Gary Bettman Half-truth

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Russian Fan, Feb 18, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    You didn't include dear Thunderstruck but here is my view.

    Since the cancellation of the season, we hear most often the NEGATIVE NHLPA side & it seems that most pro-PA or Anti-owner (that's me) step aside for a few day & I understand them completely because most ''Joe Fan'' are now stronger towards the owners than ever so here's my point of view :

    Seems to me that the owners want to crush & divide the union. It works somehow but again, it's easy to say it's a majority when most media always talk about it. But I still think some players are upset about the PA offer & I wouldn't be so sure that it would be voted 50% + 1 if Goodenow would have cave to the 42,5M$ of Bettman's demand.

    On a side note, I need to applaud GARY BETTMAN :handclap: for his PUBLIC RELATION with the fans. The fans that mostly don't go very well to search for truth. If the NHLCBANews.com said it, it must be truth. Otherwise everything that is said that might incline towards an NHLPA view is coming from the minister of information of IRAQ.

    The ''MAGNET THEORY of a SALARY CAP'' is just a beautiful example on how he says half-truth everytime he speaks so that the fans can say without too much depth ''YEAH HE'S RIGHT''.

    Gary Bettman is a great person when he used at his advantage an example that suits well against the PA.

    Like this magnet theory when there's a cap , he use the NFL as the prime example because most fans will say ''hey that's true , every nfl teams are close to the cap''.

    What Bettman never said is that the TV contract pay the entire cap & also don't you think the fan of 1 NFL teams would criticize the MANAGEMENT if he was to spend only 60% of what the cap suggest & the public knows that the NFL TEAM would make HUGE PROFIT at the gate + the remaining money that didn't go through the cap.

    There's a cap in the NBA & even if some teams through the exceptions rules goes way ahead of the cap there's still a gap of 56M$ between the lowest payroll & the highest. So where's the MAGNET IN THE NBA Mr.Bettman ? Who's giving false information to the fan NOW in ORDER to keep them on your side ?

    Well that's the kind of half-truth Bettman used all along to the fans so that he look good when he said ''I'm truly sorry for the fans that we HAVE to cancel the season''. I'm sorry Gary but you're not sorry, this ''GAP'' of 6,5M$ x 30 for 200M$ shouldn't have been an issue. You want this all season & probably the owners too.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another example of bs is the Montreal Canadiens president Pierre Boivin, admitting he lose MORE MONEY with the lockout than playing hockey because of the arena taxes, the mortgage on the Bell Centre & probably the interest of the debt that Mr.Gillett owes to Molson.

    Another bs is saying that the NHL offer of 42,5M$ won't even be good for Montreal. PIERRE, if your budget is 38M$ then spend it at 38M$ , it's not a MAGNET !!!! Bob Gainey did it for you + with the new economic system @ 42,5 or 46 or 49M$ you would have better players for your money.
     
  2. Cully9

    Cully9 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually the NBA cap argument works in Bettman's favour too, because he doesn't want the same loopholes in the NHL cap that the NBA has. There are only three teams in the NBA that aren't at or above their "soft" cap.

    What works even worse for the union, when they start saying how the NFL's TV contract covers the expense of their cap, is that the NHL doesn't generate NFL-style money, so the cap Bettman is proposing should, in theory, be even lower than it is.

    Take this Bettman "half-truth": The NFL salary cap is around $80-million, yet their revenues were more than 2.5 times that of the NHL. If we're being fair here, wouldn't that mean that the NHL'searly early cap offer of $32-million was right on the mark?

    The reason the "magnet" theory works is because players demand that a team prove they are "willing to compete" and if they aren't at or near the cap, then they are deemed not to be willing.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2005
  3. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    16,824
    Likes Received:
    849
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    I think the league wanted to weaken the union no question. They see the union as perpetuating a bad system and using it solely for their own individual gain and forgetting about the game (of course the same can be said for many owners). But they were out to take a pound of flesh from the union. However, the final offers from the league from my and others view was quite fair. It wasn't a lowball or union crushing offer. IN the end the league wanted to weaken the union but the union ended up crushing themselves IMO.

    ON the cap and magnet comments. While I believe those arguments and see the sense in them it may or may not be true in the NHL. But what I do know is that the unions last offer was not going to decrease average payrolls in the end and as such the players would still be receiving much too much money. That's why it was turned down. As well, it may indeed act as a magnet as there is evidence that supports it (as there is evidence that doesn't support) and the league has to ask themselves this on any offer. What if the cap does indeed act as magnet? The league has to guard against that. And normally you do that by tying the payroll to revenues something that was dropped to try to get a deal. They were not going to (potentially) extend themselves any more financially because the linkage was gone.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2005
  4. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:

    The argument as the CAP is a magnet is NOT WORKING WELL because that would mean that a cap is inflationnist & that it would cost more since now ALL 30 TEAMS would spend 42,5 or 46 or 49M$.
     
  5. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,385
    Likes Received:
    560
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    With a CBA that had meet at say the 45.0 M Hard Cap ceiling and a 25 M floor

    This is how I would see the teams breaking down after all adjustments are made


    Average Salary Broken down by expected Salary Range

    5 Teams would be @ $ 45.0 Mil = 225 Mil
    5 Teams would be @ $ 40.0 Mil = 200 Mil
    10 Teams would be @ $ 35.0 Mil = 350 Mil
    5 Teams would be @ $ 30.0 Mil = 150 Mil
    5 Teams would be @ $ 25.0 Mil = 125 Mil

    30 Teams = Total Salary = 1.050 Bil


    I do not support the Magnet theory that teams will all spend the max .. they didn't even spend the max when there was NO CAP figure ..

    if you listened to the press conference ..

    Pittsburgh would struggle to get to 30 according to Lemieux...
    Gretzky said Phoenix could only afford 33-34 mil max.
    Calgary's paroll was maxed out at 38.5 mil and they had to let Conroy walt to get Kipper and Iginla signed.
    Columbus said I can compete at 35 Mil.
    Ottawa said 42.5 was his max amount
    etc etc ..
     
  6. ArtG

    ArtG Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,803
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    I agree with the magnet theory. The teams that spent 50-70 million will be cut down significantly and there will be a lot of high-priced talent on the market. Furthermore, if revenue sharing is implemented, these teams will spend more money and eventually everyone will wind up at the cap limit. Not to say that this will happen right away but it seems like a natural cycle. For example, as stated before, the NBA and NFL.
     
  7. AlexGodynyuk

    AlexGodynyuk Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    You (and Gary) need to define this a little better.
    The reason there are only 3 teams aren't at or above the soft cap, is that the soft cap is set at 48% of Basketball-related income.
    The luxury tax threshold is what you want to look at as it is set at 61% of basketball related income and you'll find that only a few teams (NY, Dallas, and a couple of others) are willing to go over it.
    In fact, there is a huge clause in the NBA CBA that many people don't seem to know about.
    During the season, a designated percentage of a player's salary is put into an escrow account.
    If at the end of the season, it is determined that player salaries took up more then 55% of basketball related income, then whatever overage amount is returned to the owners. If it is less then 55%, then the players receive their money back.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2005
  8. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    I can't see how some people can't understand that if the cap is set @ 49 million instead of 42.5 million every players' salary will go up a proportionate amount, and with it team payrolls. Even if it isn't the entire 6.5 million it will be a lot of money.
     
  9. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I can't see how some people can't understand that if the cap is set @ 49 millions instead of 42,5 millions every owners are not obligated to spend the MAXIMUM amount of the team payroll. Even if it isn't the entire 6,5 millions, some teams never had the budget to go over 40.0M$ so why every 30 teams would go automatically at that maximum amount.

    The main point of this lockout was to bridge the gap between the lowest payroll & the highest payroll to get a better LEVEL of competition. The owners would have succeed to do that even with a compromise @ let's say 45M$.

    2003-04 had 56M$ gap between the 1st & 30th payroll.

    With the new cba with let's say a salary floor @ 25M$ would mean a 21M$ gap between the 1st & 30th. Without a floor it could be 25-26M$.

    It also certain that if the owners just want to share playoff money, that means they know/suspect some markets will not succeed even with a new cba.
     
  10. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How can teams spend the max when there is no cap? I mean, that's the point of a cap ... setting a max. No cap, no max.

    But, more importantly, I'm curious about how you arrive at this theory about how teams will spend. Last year, nine teams spent more than $50 million and 14 spent more than $45 million. Yet you now state only five would spend up to $45 million under a cap. You base that on what? Obviously a post-lockout loss of revenue and the 24 percent rollback would bring down some teams, but, over the long haul, why would teams spending $50 million or more now spend less than $40 million in the future? Sorry, but your numbers don't add up.
     
  11. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    $70 million? Name me a team that would be at $70 million if the deal was signed. Even if the cap was $45 million, you are only looking at a few teams that are going to have to cut some players to get under that, and those players won't sign for the same amount elsewhere.

    If revenue sharing was implemented. If. However the NHL has't proposed much revenue sharing. IF they did, than what is wrong with every team spending up to the cap, being that they won't be losing money in doing so? If they did have revenue sharing, as the NFL does, than the cap would act as a magnet because every team would basically be on the same level. That's the case in the NFL, every team is on the same level for many reasons and the cap is set at a point where every team can spend that amount without losing money. Therefore, it acts as a magnet. That wouldn't be the case in the NHL.
     
  12. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some? a 24% rollback would lower the payrolls of SOME teams. No, it would lower the payrolls of ALL teams. 24% is a quater of salaries, those 5 teams between $45 and $50 million are now much lower. With the exception of a few teams who would barely be over a $45 million cap, every other team would be far under the cap. With the changes to QO, arbitration, a luxury tax system and hopefully a little responsibility from owners teams will be spending around what he said they would be. His numbers are fine.
     
  13. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First, take a deep breath and relax.
    Ready?
    Now, what I mean by some is that it would bring SOME of the teams above $50 million down to the $40 million level. SOME, but not ALL. The rollback won't bring Philly, Toronto, Detroit, New York, St. Louis, Dallas and Colorado down anywhere close to $40 million.
    Regardless, you chose to ignore my statement that the teams spending $45 million ore more today would be spending that much "over the long haul" after the temporary relief of the rollback wears off.

    As for arbitration and QOs, perhaps you should read what the PA actually offered on those fronts. QOs would remain 105 to 110 percent for more than half of all players under the PA proposal. As for arbitration, it gave the team ONE chance in a player's career to seek arbitration. These are not significant changes.
     
  14. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think all but two of those teams would be under a $45 million cap after the rollback. If they are at $70 million right now, they are at $53 million after a rollback, and that is close enough to make a few changes and get down to $45 million. And as I mentioned that's only a couple of teams. I know the Rangers would not be over the cap after a 24% rollback.

    I agree with you statement that the teams spending over $45 million today would eventually be at the cap in the future, which is why I didn't respond to it. You are right, and I agree. Now if you think that it's a problem for 5-10 teams to be spending $45 million, than that's where we disagree. I think it would be a great thing for the league for those teams to be spending at that point because the difference from high to low is limited and those teams would also be paying a decent amount of luxury tax back to the smaller markets.

    As for the arbitration and QO's, what the PA offered is negotiable, especially since they seem to be the ones that want a deal more at this point in time. And you forgot to mention the luxury tax, which might be the most important thing in the new deal to stop inflation.
     
  15. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    86
    with a cap that high

    You actually may see more money being spent on players.... thats why they wanted a cap at 31 million(and may still get it).

    Essentially, you have to think about it from the owners perspective(I know its difficult).

    With no cap... "we must be competative, no cap though and I cant spend infinite money? HOW much do I spend?"

    With a cap.... "well lets spend up to the cap and try to make a cup run!"

    Thats whythe cap is like a magnet... most PA supporters would never understand this, cause they cant stand in someone elses shoes even for a milli-second.
     
  16. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    If the 49 million number is just a number that teams don't have to pay then why did the NHLPA not come off it and trigger the cancellation of the season? Because they know that the higher the cap is then the rich teams will pay it and increase the average salaries for every player in the league and increase the payroll of every team in the league.
     
  17. I gotta say that being on the players side felt a lot like being anti-war in the lead up to "operation Iraqi Freedom"
    There are lots of pro-owner guys out there you can talk to (Carl Racki, for instance).
    But then there are the followers, who repeat Racki's words without apparently even understanding what they mean ... and then, of course, they add the "Knob Goodenow" line, for good measure.
     
  18. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    You're staff here newsguy. Why haven't you guys tried to clean up this forum a bit, cracked down on some of the nonsense? I remember reading some stuff here in November, and it was utterly different place. The signal:noise ratio was much higher. Now, it seems like there's barely any signal left-mostly noise at this point.
     

  19. I write for hockeysfuture.com.
    I have no connection whatsoever to hfboards.com and no influence on any policies at either place.
    I'm a broom pusher. I wish they didn't color my name in green, because when I get all huffy in a dispute, it reflects poorly on hockeysfuture, I'm told.
    But they do, so I gotta watch what I say.
     
  20. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "With a cap.... "well lets spend up to the cap and try to make a cup run!"

    That doesn't make much sense. 1. Why wouldn't those teams spend that much and make a cup run anyway, with or without a cap. If Calgary could spend $45 million, don't you think they would and try to be as competative as possible. Which brings me to my second point, 2. What makes you think that teams even have the ability to spend up to the cap? Even if they wanted to, most teams can't spend $45 or $46 million. So in theory it might act as a magnet, but in the NHL's situation it would not simply because teams don't have the money to spend that much. In the NFL it's different, I understand their cap is a magnet. But again, that's different.

    And if you want to tell me that most of the league would spend $45-$46 million anyway, despite their inability to do so without suffering a loss, than I think you are point the finger at the wrong people here. If the owners showed any bit of responsibility, the cap would not be a magnet. If it did act as a magnet, than teams would be losing a ****load because of their own stupid decision to spend $10-$15 million more than they can afford, and that is their fault.
     
  21. Cully9

    Cully9 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm well aware of the cap vs. luxury tax in the NBA, but I was responding to a claim about the NBA cap.

    In any case, there are a bunch of teams that effectively use the luxury tax mark as their cost threshold, while others (New York, Dallas, Lakers come to mind) obliterate that mark.

    The argument still rings true -- if your team doesn't spend near the cap (or luxury tax or whatever threshold) -- the perception is that your team is "unwilling to compete".
     
  22. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,673
    Likes Received:
    1,290
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    The cap in sports business always will act as a magnet...teams will always move towards it, if they are in a playoff run and have room they will make a deal to the cap...others will follow because of the competative nature of sports...If a team doesn't move towards the cap, the fans and the media will blast the GM and the owner for being cheap etc... That is why the 49M would have been a magnet that most teams wouldn't be able to afford...not to mention it was Knob Goodenow's idea...
     
  23. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC

    I couldn't agree more
     
  24. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,796
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Completely agree with you Russian Fan
     
  25. R0CKET

    R0CKET Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well if that's what you think then here's what I have to say.

    Bob Goodenow = Halfwit.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"