Have You Switched Sides?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
FLYLine4LIFE said:
A soft cap? BARLEY. In 6 years the GM could go up a whole 4 MILLION Bucks to times. Yes 4 MILLION. THINK before you type. It was still a hard cap much more then a soft cap. A Soft cap is what the NBA uses.

:joker: :joker:

You are completely wrong.
The index year to see if the cap goes up was to be based, according to Goodenows proposal, from the revenue of season 2005-2006. Thats next year. Everyone knows the revenue will drop significantly. So if 2.1B$ goes down to 1.5B$, they offered to use 1.5B$.

Lets say revenus pick up back to 2.1B$ in 3 years, thats an increase of 40% from 1.5B$ so the CAP would increase from 49M$ to 68.6M$.

Think before YOU type.
 

tritone

Registered User
Aug 26, 2003
4,979
0
Laval
Visit site
Nash said:
The NHL has done a really good PR job of placing the blame on the greedy players. It is easy for the average working man or woman to see the average $1.3 million salary and buy into this propaganda, but the facts are that the NHL and the owners created this fiasco.

*****So the players and their agents asking for more money had nothing to do with it? And leaving a team for a higher bidder had nothing to do with it? Loyalty has been lost and it's ALL about money from both sides, very unfair to say it's solely the owners fault....and it's not a FACT by any means or definition of the word. *******

They like to say, "it's not about pointing fingers, it's about creating a system that will keep the league healthy in the long term", but who is to say that their cap system will even work.

******The current system DOESN'T WORK ( fact ) trust the owners or the levitt report or even the forbes report , all show teams losing money...don't trust any of those then prove them wrong at least. *******

The facts are that in the previous CBA, the owners were declared the winner at the time and were even successful in getting a "hard" cap for the entry level system. However, the owners and agents worked around the wording of the deal and added bonus clauses. Wow ... that hard cap Bettman is selling now is sure going to work. Considering that the league has to ratify all contracts, Bettman could have not given aproval to this type of precendent and rejected the deal. Other commissioners do it in the other pro leagues.

****Just like Baseball , good example I'm sold! ****** go Yanks!

Why did Bettman extend the last CBA if it was so bad? (by the way, I'm not saying that the last CBA was great ...had it been used properly by the GM's and owners in the league, it was in their favor)
*******CAN YOU SAY COLLUSION??? If you think for one minute the players wouldn't have screamed it then you're kidding yourself. And that's the ONLY way the CBA could have been less destructive. *******

Right from the start of these "negotiations", Bettman has stated that the league will stand firm on linkage and a ridiculously low $31 million dollar cap. When you consider that there were several teams over $40 million already and some in the $50-60 million dollar range, how is that even reasonable?

******Perhaps a better question to ask is why in the world would a team be forced to pay out 40 million in salary when their revenue isn't anywhere near that amount*******

The NHL took the concessions from the PA's December 9th proposal and slapped a hard cap and linkage on the deal. How is that negotiating?

*****If you're (a team owner) making 40million a year and someone says ok ok we'll only ask for 75 million this year instead of 100 million.....why would you negotiate? Again , this point is totally lost to anyone who doesn't accept the financial reports given to date....again , if you don't believe these reports then why aren't you hell bent to get your own report?? nuff said .*****
 

rwilson99

Registered User
Doctor Zoidberg said:
I sure have. I was 100% pro owner but there is no way I could support this garbage anymore. Bettman got his cap and still decided to torch this league. He could have had a cap of 45 million and knows it, but wouldn't even bother making the offer. Don't anyone give me that crap about 2.5 million x 30 because anyone with a brain knows most teams wouldnt come anywhere close to 45 million, especially how the NHLPA set it up with luxury tax rates of as high as 75% leading up to the max cap.
.

The PA cap proposal put a soft cap of 49m and a hard cap in place at 53.9m or roughly 70-77% of 2003-04 revenues.

The cap numbers and tax rates would be tied to revenues in 05-06, and guaranteed never to go down.

If revenues in 2005-06 were to drop only 20-25% to 1.6 Billion a year the caps would be tied to roughly 92-101% of hockey related revenue, and a floor at 46% of revenue.

A CBA based on the final PA offer would have guaranteed league wide bankruptcy. Read item number 7, in Goodnows letter to Bettman.
 

ryz

Registered User
Dec 24, 2004
3,245
0
Canada
I started pro-owner and am even more pro-owner now than I was earlier. I am more than happy that they stayed the course and called the players bluff. I think I need a new Flames jersey with "OWNERS O5" or "HOTCHKISS 05" on the back.
 

chriss_co

Registered User
Mar 6, 2004
1,769
0
CALGARY
Nash said:
The NHL has done a really good PR job of placing the blame on the greedy players. It is easy for the average working man or woman to see the average $1.3 million salary and buy into this propaganda, but the facts are that the NHL and the owners created this fiasco. They like to say, "it's not about pointing fingers, it's about creating a system that will keep the league healthy in the long term", but who is to say that their cap system will even work.

People chastise the owners for creating their own fiasco (granted its only a few owners that have created the problems) but won't allow them to attempt to fix their problems? And yes just any cap system won't work. A $100 million cap system would not work. A $60 million cap would not work. And a $50 million cap does not work. Its the number.. not the ideology. A tough luxory tax starting at $35 million would work in the NHL. But I stress tough.

Why did Bettman extend the last CBA if it was so bad? (by the way, I'm not saying that the last CBA was great ...had it been used properly by the GM's and owners in the league, it was in their favor)

Give credit to Bob. In order for the PA to agree and allow players to go to the olympics, he asked that in return the CBA be extended.

And the last CBA was a mess. There were no provisions where teams could lower a player's salary. Its either pay him what he wants (even if he doesn't deserve it) or trade him.

Right from the start of these "negotiations", Bettman has stated that the league will stand firm on linkage and a ridiculously low $31 million dollar cap. When you consider that there were several teams over $40 million already and some in the $50-60 million dollar range, how is that even reasonable?

You dont get it do you? The league needed to be completely revamped. Did the 4 bankruptcies not prove that something in the league was not working?? It is reasonable from the standpoint that if the league foolishly agreed to the PA's "incredibly leniant" proposal, we would be back in the same position in 3 years and probably 10 teams in the league would fold. The health and the success of the league in the long run is what this is about. That is what is reasonable. Its the players who have to understand that. (And you).

The NHL took the concessions from the PA's December 9th proposal and slapped a hard cap and linkage on the deal. How is that negotiating? From that point forward, the player concessions were considered a given, yet the NHL still hadn't conceded anything from their hard line stance. Then two days before he is scheduled to cancel the season, he finally concedes linkage and the PA counters with a further concession to install a cap with their luxury tax system. Most people on these boards talk about how the NHL had to give up linkage and increase the cap, but those weren't even in the last CBA. Essentially, the NHL has given up nothing and the players have given in to almost everything.
Again look at what i said above. The players HAVE to give. Thats the way the economics have turned out. Negotiations are also not based on prior CBA's.. they dont have to be.

And on a side note about players not trusting owners? You think the owners care about the measly millions that the players are claiming to be stolen from them? Heck, they make more in their own businesses to bother about the measly dollars the players are crying shenanigans to.

But just because they make money in their other assets is no reason for them to operate a league which is losing money.

As for the league looking after small market clubs, how come the PA's proposals have stiffer penalties for their luxury taxes and floor on team salaries as well so the Jacobs of the league are forced to actually try to ice a competitive team?

You could also look at it as the PA forcing the owners to give the players a certain amount of money. Nonetheless, if the PA believed in a free market system, they wouldn't propose any entry level cap or any floors on taxes/salaries etc.

And how come you chastise Jacobs when he is trying to control his own team's spending? Isn't that what we want all the owners to do? Be fiscally responsible?

I really don't like the direction the league has gone in since Bettman has been at the helm. I realize that it coincides with Goodenow being the head of the PA, but Goodenow doesn't have the power to influence the on ice product and how it is marketed.

You underestimate Goodenow's power. The PA took over the league with the last CBA. Now the league is trying to take it back (and rightfully so). Along the way there will be casualties. But in the long run, it is worth it.

I am pro-logic. And there is no logic in supporting the PA at the moment.
 

sheed36

Registered User
Jan 8, 2005
46,790
34,187
No Man's Land
I was on the owners side from the beginning and I still am even after today.I was watching the Sportsnet coverage today and they were talking to Bryan Macabe and he said it wasn't about the money :lol ,he just wanted to play.Yeah right!!! Who is this guy trying to kid? Some of these players are totally clueless that they actually think they will get a better offer in the future than what was offered by the NHL now.IMO,Bob Goodenow gambled and lost big time.He really thought the NHL would cave like last time.but hopefully this fixes the game we love.Since the season is finally cancelled,PLEASE LORD, I hope I never have to hear Glenn Healy open his mouth again.He must be the most annoying person in hockey right now,other than that weasel Goodenow.This is my first post here so please go easy on me.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
I was moving to a neutral position but the players offer contained too much BS. Goodenow is being cute and sneaky when should be honest. :dunno:
 

Nash

Registered User
Jul 23, 2004
3,082
16
Vancouver
chriss_co said:
You dont get it do you? The league needed to be completely revamped. Did the 4 bankruptcies not prove that something in the league was not working?? It is reasonable from the standpoint that if the league foolishly agreed to the PA's "incredibly leniant" proposal, we would be back in the same position in 3 years and probably 10 teams in the league would fold. The health and the success of the league in the long run is what this is about. That is what is reasonable. Its the players who have to understand that. (And you).

Daly & Bettman stated that the 24% rollback alone would keep the NHL afloat for 3 years.

chriss_co said:
And how come you chastise Jacobs when he is trying to control his own team's spending? Isn't that what we want all the owners to do? Be fiscally responsible?

Yes ... he is fiscally responsible when he goes after Marty Lapointe and sets a new precedent for the salary range of that type of "character" player.
 

Double-Shift Lasse

Just post better
Dec 22, 2004
33,355
14,030
Exurban Cbus
ResidentAlien said:
This reminds of when Apple came out with their "Switcher" ad campaign. :)
I've switched on who to blame.. I am now placing full, 100% blame on the Boston Red Sox.
It's their fault..look at the facts:
The last time they won the world series was 1918..what happened in 1919?? That's right, a "mysterious" flue bug wiped out the playoffs and there was no Stanley cup awarded. They don;t win again until 2004..and the next year,2005....that's right NO Stanley Cup.....

Coincidence? I think not!
:lol

Brilliant!
*tips Guinness bottle to mouth*
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Double-Shift Lassés said:
Brilliant!
*tips Guinness bottle to mouth*

I like the Guinness in the can,,got that littel thing that goes ...pppssssfffftttt when you open it
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
FlyersFan10 said:
I'm pro union, but I have to admit, Bettman made several good arguments today. I don't like the man at all, but he came across as being sincere, armed with facts, and backed up his statements. Bettman did give legitimate reasons why a 45 or 49 million cap wouldn't work. There are still teams that would never be able to reach that number simply because they don't generate that kind of revenue and that revenue sharing wouldn't even help.

I'm not saying that Bettman didn't have a good press conference, all I am saying is that he didn't give me good enough reasons for the $45 or $49 caps being too high. Even in his letter last night to the PA, I didn't agree with either of the points he brought up against those higher caps. And there are still teams that would never be able to reach that number? Well that's the point. The cap isn't a target for every team to spend to, especially when it's not linked to revenues. I don't want most teams to spend $45 million and I agree some can't, but that's not what the cap is trying to achieve anyway. What it is trying to achieve is to stop the big spenders from driving the market thus making the $35 million that Edmonton can spend worth a lot more as far as value and talent.

[/QUOTE]And you just answered your own question. The reason why the NFL can have the large salary caps is because they generate 2.5 times the revenue the NHL does. The NFL has salaries proportionate to the revenue they generate. That's the problem with the NHL. The salaries aren't proportionate to the revenue they generate. That's the reality of it all. The NHL extended themselves when they went to the $42.5 million offer.[/QUOTE]

You missed my point. Bettman used the comparison to support his claim that the cap would act as a "magnet". He said look at the NFL, they have a $80 million or so cap and all the teams are within like $5 million. My point is that the NHL isn't in the same situation because as you said, not every team would be able to spend to $45 million. Where as in the NFL teams have so much money that every team spend to the cap because the cap is too low really, and teams have so much money that they spend right to the cap.

The size of the salary cap $$ wise means nothing. The two leagues aren't comparable in that way simply because in the NFL most teams have the same revenues and with their revenue sharing every team is almost equal, or at least in the same area. That's not the case with the NHL.

[/QUOTE]Yet another point where I disagree. It's both Bettman's and Goodenow's job to ensure that there is a healthy league. Goodenow has done nothing for the lower end players. It's been the higher end players who have benefitted the most from him. And when you consider that the higher end players make up the MINORITY of the union, then something is incredibly wrong. When you have Iginla, Roenick, Recchi, Tkachuk and Esche all working behind the scenes to get a deal done, you know that there is something wrong with the union. We've witnessed over the past week the official split of the union. It would not surprise me if within the next few months that we see a full blowout between the players and several players break ranks with the union.[/QUOTE]

I never said anything about Goodenow, all I said is that Bettman is more responsible for the health of the league and the sport therefore the responsibility to make that last offer, to try and bridge the cap the last time, falls on Bettman. In the end Bettman is the one who has the power to cancel the season or two make a deal, Goodenow does not have that power.

But anyway, I agree Goodenow hasn't been very good. It seems to me that if the players had a vote right now, to fire Goodenow, that a huge majority would want to get different leadership in there. Now I am not saying that the new leadership would make a deal right away, I think in the end Goodenow negotiated enough and conceeded enough that a deal was possible, but I just think that someone new could give a different perspective to these talks. I don't see Bettman and Goodenow working together to get a deal done, ever.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
Pro-owner before pro-owner now.

I think in 10 years we'll look back and everyone (including the players) will realize this was the best thing that could happen to professional hockey.

Unfortunately there will be some casualties as the NHL blazes this trail - namely aging stars like Yzerman, Hull, etc - but I firmly believe this is a neccesary evil.
 

Anksun

Registered User
Dec 13, 2002
3,616
1
Montreal
Visit site
pro-owners.

If the difference was really that insignificant between 42.5M and 49M, then the players should have move because they wont see this kind of offer anymore... People tend to think now that the players concession of the Cap was a bigger move than the League concession of Linkage (and yes linkage IS a concession, concessions are not about last CBA but about pre-lockout positions): What a joke. The current impasse losts are Impossible to measure, we have absolutly no idea what the nhl finances (fans, tv, etc...) would looks like after
154 days of lockout (now 1 year) and the league agree to forget about linkage???????????? This mean they take ALL, absolutly ALL the risk. And this risk is not even about IF but about HOW MUCH the revenus will go down.

Welcome back Linkage to revenu in futher negociations.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Nash said:
Daly & Bettman stated that the 24% rollback alone would keep the NHL afloat for 3 years.



Yes ... he is fiscally responsible when he goes after Marty Lapointe and sets a new precedent for the salary range of that type of "character" player.

Give it up man, you're just going to get your ass handed to you. This is not a good argument and its not true. Daly and Bettman said that the league's salary structure would be right back where it was within two or three years. If you want to prove me wrong, you could try and bring up a quote from a link.
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
eye said:
The players are now victim to their own success. Players had it far too good for the past dozen years and a major correction is what is needed for the good of all concerned.


You mean the OWNERS had it far to good in the past right???? There spending spending spending to try to win a cup. Players are now paying for the owners doing.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
100% pro-owner, although I waivered to about 90% last night when I was mad that they couldn't close the gap, but about 5 minutes after that and I examined the PA's proposal more carefully, I quickly regained that 10%. I also added another 50% after the pressers today.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,999
2,075
Duncan
I am embarrassed by what comes out of the PA. There is no reason to support the players in these negotiations that I can understand. Still pro hockey, which in these negotiations means pro owner.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
I'm with quat.

In fact, I'm with Brian Burke when he states: "How exactly can the players get a BETTER deal than the one they just rejected?"

Maybe it's the new math or something.

:banghead:
 

Chelios

Registered User
Jan 1, 2004
4,605
1,041
Visit site
richardn said:
Its not so much that I am pro players, its more like I am Anti Bettman. His speech today should give him a nomination for an oscar, because that was one heck of an acting job.

I thought Bettman came across as very sincere today. Where does everyone get the idea that Bettman knows nothing about the game, doesn`t like the game, and all the rest of this crap. It seems all these people hate bettman because he is a little american who came from the NBA. You people do realize that it is possible to be a hockey fan and to actually want to do whats good for the game :dunno:
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
kerrly said:
100% pro-owner, although I waivered to about 90% last night when I was mad that they couldn't close the gap, but about 5 minutes after that and I examined the PA's proposal more carefully, I quickly regained that 10%. I also added another 50% after the pressers today.

Amen! Great post!

I think that the media did a great misservice by making it sound like the owners & PA agreed on a hard cap, and it was just down to agreeing on a $ amount. There were SIGNIFICANT difference in the basic agreements that made the $ gap a secondary consideration, rather than the key component.

Maybe if the Goodenow had brought forth this proposal more than 36 hours before the drop dead date they could of done more negotiating around the particulars. I think that BG was deadline hunting and thought he could sneak a fast one by the owners. From one of my favorite movies, "He choose poorly."
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
I'm in the middle at this point and have been for a while. I was pro players at the beginning, but then saw they and the owners werent looking for a deal. They both were just trying to insult the other side with their proposals and hoping the other side would cave as this thing kept going. Last night and this morning pretty much cemented my position that neither really wants to save this game. If either side wanted to save the game/this season then where was that one last ditch effort before the press conference with a 44-45 million dollar cap? 11AM gets closer and closer and egos get in the way of picking up the phone for one last kick at the can. If they were very far apart I would understand the canceling of the season without one last shot. But these sides were closer to a deal than ever, but neither tried to close the last gap. Thats whats going to frustrate me the most when there are no playoffs this year. :banghead:
 

Devonator

Registered User
Jan 5, 2003
4,645
2,394
I was Pro Owner a long time ago and am more so then ever today......being from a small market town , you would be crazy not to be........Indeed any hockey town..

The salaries are simply helping to ruin this sport........I am pro crush the union into dust.......then again, I feel that way about every union.... :D
 

Poignant Discussion*

I tell it like it is
Jul 18, 2003
8,421
5
Gatineau, QC
eye said:
The players are now victim to their own success. Players had it far too good for the past dozen years and a major correction is what is needed for the good of all concerned.

The players were stolen from the 70 years before that so a major correction is what is needed for the good of all concerned
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->