How far are you willing to see the owners push their agenda?

[John Flyers Fan]

In some cities like Toronto, NYR, maybe Philly, but certainly not in all cities

While they are not paying his salary, they are also losing games and fans, that cuts down on walk up fans that most cities rely on

Some teams will make very good offers for Iginla, but only about 5 or 6 could afford him, even then they will not offer alot when they percieve that Calgary is dealing from a position of weakness.

It sounds easy when you say "just don't pay him if he is asking too much, let him sit", but this is exactly what happened when Peca sat out. The Sabres were losing games, fans and players were questioning the owners comitment to winning. The team stuck to their offer, and eventually traded Peca for two players that so far are not doing too well 3 years later. Hasek then forced a trade because he wanted to play for a team commited to winning. Taking a hard line on salaries didn't have very good results for us...

#1. I believe that in order of the Canadian teams to receive assistance they need to have a certain amount of season tickets sold.

#2. Iginla is arguably a top 3-5 player in the NHL, Peca was nowhere near that. Many more people would be interested in aquiring Iginla than Peca.

#3. Hasek was over the age of 31, and therefore had much more leverage than Iginla. The Sabres had no leverage with Hasek.

#4. The Sabres made a bad deal, have faith that Sutter wouldn't do the same.

Other holdouts that were traded that worked out okay for the team doing the trading

Lindros - Quebec originally & the Flyers later on with the Rangers
Carolina - made out okay Brind'amour/Primeau
Ottawa - Yashin
Boston - Allison ... Murray & Stumpel

 

[FlyersFan10*]

The lockout should be over soon, the players' offer is reasonably close to what's needed.

Agreed. The NHLPA offer gives exactly what the owners want - payrolls averaging 31 million per team, a new economic system that will put a drag on salaries, and tools to help keep payrolls in line. It doesn't include a cap or "cost certainty" measures that the owners are looking for. However, the new proposal does provide tools that the owners/GMs can use to help keep payrolls in line.

Hey, I fully admit I'm behind the players on this one. It's been the owners who have gotten themselves into this mess and they're asking the players to bail them out. The players have given the owners a tremendous offer. However, the owners have to give something as well, which is something that they haven't been willing to do at all during these negotiation sessions.

Fact of the matter is that it was the owner's fearless leader Gary Bettman who got them into this mess. My only thing will be what happens in six years from now when another lockout occurs? I think people on here can at least see that since Bettman took charge, his focus has always been about locking out the players. He can say what he wants about contacting the union back in '99, but the fact that the owners extended the recently expired CBA twice indicates that Bettman must have thought there was something good with that agreement to keep extending it.

All what I hope is that an agreement comes soon. A real agreement that is fair to all teams across the board, that has real revenue sharing, and that all sides can be happy with.

 

[Crosbyfan]

In most sports, players are getting 55 - 60 percent, in the NHL, they get 75 percent of revenues. It can't continue like this. The PA's offer of 24 % pay cut is illusional. It is meaningless because the owner's will loose revenues or haved raised expenses because of: raised minimums, less games played, relatively few players are actually under contract, and a few other clauses which I forget off the top of my head.
I have not heard Bettman say these things, I figured these issues out for myself. The PA offer is a PR sham.
It should take as long as it takes.

They don't get 75% of revenues.

 

[djhn579]

#1. I believe that in order of the Canadian teams to receive assistance they need to have a certain amount of season tickets sold.

#2. Iginla is arguably a top 3-5 player in the NHL, Peca was nowhere near that. Many more people would be interested in aquiring Iginla than Peca.

#3. Hasek was over the age of 31, and therefore had much more leverage than Iginla. The Sabres had no leverage with Hasek.

#4. The Sabres made a bad deal, have faith that Sutter wouldn't do the same.

Other holdouts that were traded that worked out okay for the team doing the trading

Lindros - Quebec originally & the Flyers later on with the Rangers
Carolina - made out okay Brind'amour/Primeau
Ottawa - Yashin
Boston - Allison ... Murray & Stumpel

Yes, sometimes it works out. generally it doesn't. If you hold the line on salaries, the players think you are cheap and not committed to winning, and fans feel much the same way. Maybe you don't see it, but I get to see what happens first hand...

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

I notice a lot of people who critisize the owners more than the players are fans of big teams like the Flyers or Maple Leafs. it's easier not to be frustrated when the ill effects of this CBA hasn't hit them as hard. They are used to having winning records and keeping a team together or signing big free agents.They haven't had to trade anyone b/c of salary..It goes both ways. Lot's of people who support lower end teams obviously side with the owners more

 

[Go Flames Go*]

To people that say they are close to deal, it will not happen. The owners will respond with the deal that will be in place sooner or later but will be rejected on Tuesday right away. Its up the NHLPA to say you know lets salvage what we can get, and move on, and we can look forward to more money in the future withouth all these problems from the owners, or they can sit and wait and wait and wait, until all there money is gone, fans are lost, revenues will be lost and cave into a hard cap system which will pay them average salaries like there in the CFL. There proposal was not acceptable, and its just same old CBA which does not put drags on salaries. What is needed is a % of money that will go to players, not just numbers thrown around by Bob Goodenow. Gary Bettman has said many times, that we are willing to negotiate the % of revenues the players can take. If the NHL right now was holding a large national TV contract, the players would trying to force the owners in to a salary cap.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

I notice a lot of people who critisize the owners more than the players are fans of big teams like the Flyers or Maple Leafs. it's easier not to be frustrated when the ill effects of this CBA hasn't hit them as hard. They are used to having winning records and keeping a team together or signing big free agents.They haven't had to trade anyone b/c of salary..It goes both ways. Lot's of people who support lower end teams obviously side with the owners more

Ok, first of all, being a Flyers fan, there was a very lean period we went through where we missed the playoffs for an extended period of time. Our teams were lousy, the players we had either stank or didn't play well, and our coaching and management during those times were horrendous. When Clarke was rehired by the organization, the first thing he did was completely revamp the organization via scouting, drafting, and trades.

With regards to free agency, the only real free agent splashes we made were: Joel Otto, Shjon Podein, Craig MacTavish, Kjell Samuelsson, Chris Gratton, Ulf Samuelsson, and Luke Richardson. Even then, out of that group, I wouldn't even consider Gratton a free agent signing because rather than take the five first round picks, Tampa Bay ended up acquiring Mikael Renberg and Karl Dykhuis for him.

The real extravagant free agents we acquired were Jeremy Roenick. However, his salary slot was taken on the chart after Lindros left. Actually, Jeremy cost us $1 million a year less than what we were paying Eric, so we actually saved money.

Where we lost money was signing John Leclair to the $9 million a year contract.

Anyways, people can gripe about the fact about the Philadelphias and the Torontos, but fact of the matter is this. Both those organizations have solid fan bases along with solid revenue generation streams and television deals. People can complain all they want about them, but that is a fact. Second, why should they be penalized because they have the ability to draw more revenue than other cities? It isn't Ed Snider's fault that Atlanta can't draw. It isn't the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund's fault that Nashville can't draw. It isn't Mike Illitch's fault that teams like Ottawa, Edmonton, or Calgary don't have the same resources at their disposal that he does. That's life and that's business. Hey, I'm a fan of the game, but as everyone on here states, it's also a business. The last time I checked, if a business can't remain healthy and viable in a market, they usually move or shut down operations. The fact teams have lost a combined $273 million indicates one thing.....poor business management.

How a cap is going to correct this is beyond me? So what, teams won't be able to spend over a certain limit? It's called contract restructuring. Happens in football all the time. We'll see more of this and then we'll see the eventual salary cap purgatory because of this.

Let's face it. As long as there's a market, there's always going to be someone who's going to spend. People can say what they want about the salary cap being something to safeguard the owners, but it isn't a safe guard at all.

And you can bet that if there's an agreement that comes into place and there's a cap, you can almost be certain that we'll be in the same position again in six or ten years from now with the owners crying poor once again.

The truth of the matter is that no system can prevent any owner from making bad business decisions. Say what you want about a cap, but I'm willing to be we'll see owners screw it up as well and blame players for exploiting the system.

 

[PecaFan]

Ok, first of all, being a Flyers fan, there was a very lean period we went through where we missed the playoffs for an extended period of time. Our teams were lousy, the players we had either stank or didn't play well, and our coaching and management during those times were horrendous.

Yes, you missed the playoffs five straight years, but you vastly overstate how bad the team and management were. You were only a few games under .500 those years, mid 70's and low 80's in points. You were in the playoff hunt right down to the final few games of the season. Basically, you were average those years.

The truth of the matter is that no system can prevent any owner from making bad business decisions. Say what you want about a cap, but I'm willing to be we'll see owners screw it up as well and blame players for exploiting the system.

Yup, you're right. Caps don't work. It's been proven over and over. Which is why I continue to shake my head at the players throwing away a billion in salary to fight something that won't affect them.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Whoever voted 3+ seasons...YOUR NOT A TRUE FAN OF THE GAME! How could you say..yea i dont mind watching hockey for 3 years as long as I get my cap. Wow!

Flame me, I dont care but your not a true fan. The most I could understand a fan to say would be a year and half but 3 years!? Im shocked.

I'm not going to flame you but there are some basic problems with this sport that are not going away with this deal. I can understand Ranger, Flyer or fans of teams spending and losing wanting the same system, without steady star players being brought in it will be much tougher to stay interested in your team unless it is a good team already.

I voted for three years and I'm a huge fan of this game. It's worth whatever it takes to get the right system.

It's time to acknolwedge that there are no big markets in professional hockey (aside from Toronto) and all of them have to work together under the same guidelines. Leaving a system that esculates salaries is a disaster given the reputation of these owners.

The Rangers for all that spending play in obscurity in their own market and do not fill the garden, they have no impact on the league or New York, anyone who disagrees pick up a NYC paper today and take a look at what sport completely dominates this region.

The same was confirmed during the Flyers run to the semi-finals, they had no impact on the product. Colorado is the same market that folded it's team when they were the Rockies, the spending and payroll is the difference. The Wings are as popular as the star players on the payroll also.

This league as a business cannot afford paying for Cablevision's or Comcast, Walmart, Little Ceasar's and any other large company that owns teams and even worse are not profitable for all that spending. They produce ratings equal to arena football.

The players had their day and made their money, now it's time for them to face the realities they have accepted by offering twenty four percent of their paycheck which is just to keep the same system. Keep the twenty four percent and agree to let let all teams function with a ceiling. No one team can carry this sport and these owners will not share revenue or control their spending. That's also on the owners but again the player have had their day.

Goodenow and the players will agree to rollback 100 percent of their contracts to keep the same failed system.

I miss hockey but not to the point they reopen under the wrong system.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Anyways, people can gripe about the fact about the Philadelphias and the Torontos, but fact of the matter is this. Both those organizations have solid fan bases along with solid revenue generation streams and television deals. People can complain all they want about them, but that is a fact.
.

Another fact is the Flyers are losing revenue as a business. Ed Snyder the last two years has come right out and said so. How do you go to the seventh game of the conference finals in a modern building and lose revenue with all those revenue streams you claim?

It isn't Mike Illitch's fault that teams like Ottawa, Edmonton, or Calgary don't have the same resources at their disposal that he does. That's life and that's business.

You mean the same Mike lllitch that claims his team must make the finals to break even and lost almost fifteen million dollar last season going to the second round of the playoffs? It is life and business and right now both are failing and it's time for dramatic changes. I'm sure Atlanta can lose what Illitch lost and sign Hull, Cujo, Schneider and trade for Lang and Whitney and do the same things, it's not good business.

Let's face it. As long as there's a market, there's always going to be someone who's going to spend. People can say what they want about the salary cap being something to safeguard the owners, but it isn't a safe guard at all.

No problem with spending under a cap, but spending sprees to make up for bad management will have ended. The teams that manage themselves best will be the dominat teams and a new generation of stars will emerge in whatever markets they play.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Another fact is the Flyers are losing revenue as a business. Ed Snyder the last two years has come right out and said so. How do you go to the seventh game of the conference finals in a modern building and lose revenue with all those revenue streams you claim?

That so-called "fact" is far from proven, at this point it's just a "claim" from Ed Snider, that I find very very hard to believe is actually true without some creative accounting.

You mean the same Mike lllitch that claims his team must make the finals to break even and lost almost fifteen million dollar last season going to the second round of the playoffs? It is life and business and right now both are failing and it's time for dramatic changes. I'm sure Atlanta can lose what Illitch lost and sign Hull, Cujo, Schneider and trade for Lang and Whitney and do the same things, it's not good business.

If Illitch was that concerned he wouldn't have spent the money. Also Detroit has one of the older buildings in the NHL, and don't generate the suite/luxury box revenue that most of the newer buildings can.

No problem with spending under a cap, but spending sprees to make up for bad management will have ended. The teams that manage themselves best will be the dominat teams and a new generation of stars will emerge in whatever markets they play.

I'd argue that th eteams that spend the most money have been some of the best managed teams over the last decade, only the Stars and Rangers have tried to build and win through free agency.

 

[X0ssbar]

Theres no need to flame you. Your rhetoric flames itself. What you and other pro-PA cant seem to wrap your heads around is that you cannot seperate the game from the economics. Sure, I want to see the game. I want to have hockey back. But the economics are messed up beyond words. So much so that if they continue, the game I want to see will end: you see, FlyLine, the NHL is a business. It uses hockey to produce revenue. It remains in existance because, up to this point, there has been a positive revenue stream and a profit. But now, because of bad management from the league, overspending by the owners, overpayment of the players, and a massive decay of the quality of the game, that profit is drying up and if the status quo remains, will disappear. With it will go the owners, the people who pay the players and the teams we the fans cheer for. It happened to the USFL, it happened to the WHA, it happened to many other league because of mismanagement and out of control spending.

It also doesnt matter who brought us here. Guess what: the owners did. They caused this whole mess. The PA also helped it along. All sides are guilty; much more so the owners. So, with that in mind: WHO CARES. Were here now and, guess what, the same people who brought us here just noticed that their massive lack of control is bad for business... thus, for their own gain, they want to fix it. The good news is that out of their greed is our gain... they dont want to liquidate the league and cut their losses, they want the league to grow and succeed so they can make money... and us, the fans, get the benefit of a healthy econominc system that guarentees a long livelihood of the game we love...

But ONLY if it makes sense for the business to continue.

If it doesnt, then the league is dead. DEAD. Theres no ifs ands or buts. IT WILL DIE, FLYLINE. If you dont get any other point made on this board, get that one: IT WILL DIE.

No More Stanley Cup.
No More Rangers.
No More Nothing.

So, understand that while your short-term desire to see hockey is applaudable, you are missing the point that all of us who are willing to wait 5 or 10 years to see hockey again are on about:

We are willing to miss out on hockey for 2, 3 or 5 years so that our children can see NHL hockey 20, 30 or 50 years down the road. And if you are a real fan, as you claim, you should put aside your hatred for Bettman, take off your blinders and recognize that, while he is the one that helped bring us to this point, he is ALSO the only one who is championing to save this league... for you, for me, for our kids and grandkids.

Bettman is not the enemy this time: The status quo is.

It must change or else you and me will be debating economics on the NBA boards...

cause there wont BE an NHL.

I hope you'll consider this.

Well said - all star post!!

 

[Seachd]

If "3+ years" is the equivalent of "as long as it takes", then put me down for one. Whether it's a cap or an extremely stiff luxury tax, or whatever, it has to get done right. I guess we'll have a better idea Tuesday of just how willing the Union is to get it done right.

 

[thinkwild]

I would be somewhere between 6 and 7. The CBA framework was fine, but had to be tweaked and reset The players have provided the missing controlling mechanisms and reset the marketplace far past where it needed to be. Obviously everyone knows that salaries will go back up, because the new market place is too cheap. It is set at the Owners opening offer which we knew was smoke. So it is up to the owners to operate as businessmen in the new fair marketplace, which is really the current system tweaked as needed. If a 24% cutback can be called a tweak.

When confronted with the choice of winning a power struggle or winning money, im confident in the owners greed.

 

[Shane]

Two full seasons. Do it right, or don't do it at all.

 

[CREW99AW]

I voted to extend the lockout into next season if necessary.

We're suddenly seeing a very small trickle of nhlers either released by their european teams or deciding they just don't want to play in Europe.There are also some nhlers who are playing for free in the SEL this yr.Are they going to want to play for free next yr too?

I'd like to see the nhl owners who also own their ahl affiliates,refuse to have locked nhlers on the 2005-2006 ahl rosters,further eliminating jobs for the locked out players next season.

There are some players like DiPietro,Raycroft,Yashin..who are sitting because they are either unsigned by their nhl team or because insurance is too expensive.By next season,those unsigned or uninsured players should be pretty antsy to play.

 

[mazmin]

I'd wait 3 seasons or more. It's time for drastic changes and the longer players go without paychecks the better.

On the other hand I'm sympathetic towards the arena workers, officials, stat keepers etc etc etc that are locked out and don't have millions in the bank to live off. Because of this I'd like the season to start tomorrow.

 

[AlienWorkShop]

I'd rather have a stiff luxury tax that actually works, then a salary cap that takes 3+ years to come in place.

I can understand adults who can wait because in 3 years their lives won't be much different, you will still have a job, family, children etc. But for a teenager like myself, in 3 years I will likely be in college/university and I don't want to remember my last years of childhood being without hockey to watch.

 

[CREW99AW]

I'd wait 3 seasons or more. It's time for drastic changes and the longer players go without paychecks the better.

.

3 yrs

Well I do agree that major changes are needed,that a salary rollback won't keep some owners from going back out and spending wildly,driving salaries back up.

 

[leaflover]

To add to that, I believe that both sides realize (even though they won't say it) that losing a full season will kill about 3-6 markets.

Thats the bright side of this lockout.Getting rid of some of Bettmans previous mistakes makes it almost worth losing a season or 2.At least we get 100-150 scrubs out of the league.

 

[Belgican]

I think the players proposal is certainly a good start for serious talks, and it would be a shame if the league and the players can't get it fixed now.

The league wants a hard cap ? Fine, they just have to impose the owners a hard cap, no team has the right to get over a fixed budget, say 50 M$ (adjustable each season).

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I'm sure Atlanta can lose what Illitch lost and sign Hull, Cujo, Schneider and trade for Lang and Whitney and do the same things, .

i get your sarcasm here, but let me ask a question.

if the season opened tommorow would you want to be a team that currently has

Hill, Cujo, Schneider, Lang and Whitney as your core, even at relative salaries or the team without ?

why wouldnt you like to see teams like DET STUCK with those players instead of forcing them to actually build a good team ?

isnt it punishment enough for DET to have to have those contracts ? not one restricted NHL player can use them as a comparable, so who cares ?

your envy is misguided. wouldnt you rather have ATL's team anyway ? so why should they even want what DET has, never mind be envious of it.
dr

 

[thinkwild]

Why should Atlanta have the right to buy what detroit built? They have the ability to build it too. Thats whats fair. Once they have 5 years of deep playoff rounds, 70 playoff gates under their belt, the scores of interest, seellouts, new season ticket sales, concessions that go along with it, Atlanta will be in a position to spend that money like Detroit earned the right to do.

 

[NYIsles1*]

i get your sarcasm here, but let me ask a question.
if the season opened tommorow would you want to be a team that currently has
Hill, Cujo, Schneider, Lang and Whitney as your core, even at relative salaries or the team without ?

why wouldnt you like to see teams like DET STUCK with those players instead of forcing them to actually build a good team ?

isnt it punishment enough for DET to have to have those contracts ? not one restricted NHL player can use them as a comparable, so who cares ?

your envy is misguided. wouldnt you rather have ATL's team anyway ? so why should they even want what DET has, never mind be envious of it.
dr

It's not a question of sarcasm or envy. This league is where it is today because this is how Detroit decided to manage it's hockey operation. Everyone today is paying for this kind of mismanagement regardless of whether Detroit won or not. We should not to have a league where the requirement for owing a team is they must be billionaires willing to lose tens of millions at everyone else's expense for the priviledge.

 

[NYIsles1*]

That so-called "fact" is far from proven, at this point it's just a "claim" from Ed Snider, that I find very very hard to believe is actually true without some creative accounting..

John, we have done this topic plenty of times on HF boards. All I can add that is new is even pro-NHLPA Forbes even had Philadelphia losing revenue the last two years and their estimates have been very conservative.