It's time for a team leader meating!

Status
Not open for further replies.

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Cawz said:
Sort of like if the players really wanted to, they could solve their problems (boring hockey) by themselves by restraining themselves from clutching and grabbing.

Doesn’t work that way in real life though does it?

lol..thats funny.
That is the direct result of a coaching style.
Do you even know who is responsible for bringing the trap to the NHL?
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,452
29,189
St. OILbert, AB
Frankley, I cheer for the jersey not the name....
soon, draft picks of each team will become our new heros and the Chelios' and the Sakic's of the world will be a nice memory

As a fan, I just wanna see my Oilers on the ice competing for the Stanley Cup...players come and go, but the logo never changes
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
nyr7andcounting said:
Because really, if they really wanted to, they could solve their problems by themselves by sharing revenues and restraining themselves from paying huge payrolls. Unfortunetly they don't want to do either by themselves so now they want to fix the system at the expense of the players. I would call the owners greedy.

They are trying to restrain themselves from paying huge payrolls, but they need the players to agree, and they won't due to the anti-inflationary mechanics of the owners' proposal.

BG et al know that the owners will only agree to an ironclad CBA which will block endruns from agents representing "insulted" individual players who demand bigger contracts and threaten to go overseas (sound familiar?).

So by your reasoning in re revenue sharing, if an autoworker union represents employees at both GM and Ford, should Ford give GM a cut of its revenues in order to ensure that GM can continue to survive and pay its employees?

Furthermore, if the league by conservative estimates (ie Forbes) is losing millions, will the sharing suddenly wipe out those losses? If the league brings in 2.1b and spends 2.2b, there's still a league-wide loss of .1b even with perfectly even revenue sharing.

So the shareholders of Toronto should be told, I know you own a profitable business, and you're making money hand over fist, and make money for the other owners when you sell out their buildings when you travel to their town, but hey, the players can't take the hit on this one, it's up to you guys, the shareholders. Sorry 'bout that.

So the teacher's pensions should be placed in jeapordy so that Bert can buy another Hummer.

I'm just not buying it.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Cawz said:
Sort of like if the players really wanted to, they could solve their problems (boring hockey) by themselves by restraining themselves from clutching and grabbing.

Doesn’t work that way in real life though does it?

That's a terrible comparison.

First of all, the players don't lose money on the year because they clutch and grab. For a player clutching and grabbing has no economic penalties.

Second, a players financial situation depends on his success against his competition and his ability to help his team win. A player could agree to play the game completely clean but he might be making less in years to come or might be out of the league all together. If anything, clutching and grabbing helps some players financially.

And most of all the amount of clutching and grabbing that goes on is the direct responsibility of refs and rule makers. The players will play to the best of their abilities in order to win the game within the rules. If that means clutch and grab than that is what they are going to do. It's up to those in control of the game to make it such that the game is more exciting. And anyway, clutch and grab has no affect on player salaries and is not the reason we are locked out. Revenues have increased dramatically over the years as the game has gotten more defensive so there's not much of a connection.

The current problems can be solved by revenue sharing and resonable fiscal restraint, that was my point.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
nyr7andcounting said:
That's a terrible comparison.

The players will play to the best of their abilities in order to win the game within the rules. If that means clutch and grab than that is what they are going to do. It's up to those in control of the game to make it such that the game is more exciting.


But - but - but - the players keep saying they are the product. And clutching and grabbing are against the rules, of which they are aware and willingly break in the hopes that the ref won't call it.

So you're saying that the players are the product in terms of the need be compensated, but they are not responsible for the product and whether or not it succeeds?
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Cawz said:
My point is that both statements are equally stupid. I apologize if my point was lost on you.
Well, thanks for the apolgy..I'll try to keep up with you oh great one :shakehead
But thanks for admitting your statement was stupid :P
 

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
FLYLine4LIFE said:
A meating?


You know, a meating, where players each pitch in $75.00 and then have a giant barbeque, where only meat products, i.e. burgers, steaks, chicken, roasted pig, hot dogs, back ribs, pork chops, sausage, etc. are served. No wussy salads or corn on the cob at a meating, that's for sure..
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
Timmy said:
They are trying to restrain themselves from paying huge payrolls, but they need the players to agree, and they won't due to the anti-inflationary mechanics of the owners' proposal.


I think this is the crux of the issue. If the NHLPA had presented just one proposal without any inflationary elements (not tied to revenues), they would have a lot more credibility IMO.
They can put forward all the window dressing they want (ie: 24% rollback, etc) but until this issue is seriously addressed, its all cosmetic. I guess thats what the NHLPA calls bargaining in good faith. I guess the NLRB will be the judge of that.

BG et al know that the owners will only agree to an ironclad CBA which will block endruns from agents representing "insulted" individual players who demand bigger contracts and threaten to go overseas (sound familiar?).

Go overseas and make a fraction of their current salary. Doesn't sound like a threat that would be taken very seriously.
 

Cawz

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
14,372
3
Oiler fan in Calgary
Visit site
nyr7andcounting said:
That's a terrible comparison.
They are both blaming a system, but if they showed restraint, the problems would dissapear.

A player could show restraint, but if he's the only one not clutchin, he'll be left behind.

An owner could show restriant, but if he's the only one staying within a budget, he'll be left behind.

Both are simplfied solutions that wont work in the real world.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
Bring Back Bucky said:
You know, a meating, where players each pitch in $75.00 and then have a giant barbeque, where only meat products, i.e. burgers, steaks, chicken, roasted pig, hot dogs, back ribs, pork chops, sausage, etc. are served. No wussy salads or corn on the cob at a meating, that's for sure..

:joker:

Or, a group of hockey players with a grade twelve education getting together to discuss the fine art of running a $2 billion dollar business.

As Archie Bunker would call them.......................
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
guymez said:
Go overseas and make a fraction of their current salary. Doesn't sound like a threat that would be taken very seriously.


Tell that to Yashin.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
guymez said:
Go overseas and make a fraction of their current salary. Doesn't sound like a threat that would be taken very seriously.
With all the big eggs laid by NHL stars over there, who say the Euros want them all anyway.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
Bring Back Bucky said:
You know, a meating, where players each pitch in $75.00 and then have a giant barbeque, where only meat products, i.e. burgers, steaks, chicken, roasted pig, hot dogs, back ribs, pork chops, sausage, etc. are served. No wussy salads or corn on the cob at a meating, that's for sure..
You don't make friends with salad. :joker:
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
I thought

Bicycle Repairman said:
LMAO!

How does the lack of an entry draft this June impact current players financially?

the players were in it for the wee ones?

I guess not!
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
mooseOAK said:
With all the big eggs laid by NHL stars over there, who say the Euros want them all anyway.
If you talked to the players, I am sure they would claim they were golden eggs. :D
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
guymez said:
If you talked to the players, I am sure they would claim they were golden eggs. :D


They are the product.

All those other schlepps in the SEL etc were just being watched by European fans who didn't know any better until now. Now, they can enjoy real hockey and those bums they were watching before can just get on back to the meatball factory where they belong.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
good point

Cawz said:
Sort of like if the players really wanted to, they could solve their problems (boring hockey) by themselves by restraining themselves from clutching and grabbing.

Doesn’t work that way in real life though does it?

:)
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Timmy said:
They are trying to restrain themselves from paying huge payrolls, but they need the players to agree, and they won't due to the anti-inflationary mechanics of the owners' proposal.
But you can only expect the players to agree to a certain extent. After that, it's up to the owners to work with each other in order to make it work.

Timmy said:
So by your reasoning in re revenue sharing, if an autoworker union represents employees at both GM and Ford, should Ford give GM a cut of its revenues in order to ensure that GM can continue to survive and pay its employees?
In the real world no. In the sports world yes. Ford sells it's product no matter what happens to GM, and if GM goes out of business Ford sells even more. However sports are totally different. Sports are based on competing against another team, therefor the most profitable system in sports is one that has the highest amount of competative teams possible. The financial health of a league is measure by it's overall financial condition, not the condition of the top one or two teams. This is consistent with the reasons for the NHL lockout and the owners justification for it. They claim a league is only as good as it's weakest team.

With that said, yes the Ford's of the NHL should share revenues with the GM's of the NHL in order to sustain as many competative franchises as possible, which will increase revenues leaguewide. If you want to compare this to sports, than you have to imagine that Ford and GM only make money by producing a product and putting it in showrooms to see who's product is better. So let's say Ford has double the revenues because they have a better product. Now if GM went out of business, Ford wouldn't make any money would they? It would be in Ford's best interest as well as GM's for Ford to share their revenues.

Timmy said:
Furthermore, if the league by conservative estimates (ie Forbes) is losing millions, will the sharing suddenly wipe out those losses? If the league brings in 2.1b and spends 2.2b, there's still a league-wide loss of .1b even with perfectly even revenue sharing.
No of course not, but what it will do is spread the losses out so that no group of owners are suffering so much. With current revenues and salaries leaguewide losses would remain the same, but losses for each owner would decrease.

This will also deflate salaries leaguewide, because the highest spenders who are taking in the most revenues are now giving some of it away and their payrolls will decrease because of it. Or at least they should. From there on it's up to the owners to increase their revenues to a profitable level...opening up the game and taking the 24% rollback is definetly a good start.

Timmy said:
So the shareholders of Toronto should be told, I know you own a profitable business, and you're making money hand over fist, and make money for the other owners when you sell out their buildings when you travel to their town, but hey, the players can't take the hit on this one, it's up to you guys, the shareholders. Sorry 'bout that.
Unfortunetly that's part of sustaining the 30 teams that are in the NHL right now. I am a fan of a team that brings in a lot of revenues, but if they have to share some of it in order to keep the league they play in healthy than so be it. The thing is the alternative for Toronto is to keep all their revenues and have teams folding and going out of business because they aren't bringing enough money in. Eventually that hurts the Leafs product as well.

Besides, haven't the shareholders and fans of a team like Toronto already taken a hit for the rest of the league? They made plenty of money last year yet they had their season cancelled because that's what was best for the league as a whole. They've had to suffer through his year with no hockey and no profit in order to help the rest of the league get what they need. Revenue sharing is no different. It's unfortunate, but it's necessary.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Timmy said:
But - but - but - the players keep saying they are the product. And clutching and grabbing are against the rules, of which they are aware and willingly break in the hopes that the ref won't call it.

So you're saying that the players are the product in terms of the need be compensated, but they are not responsible for the product and whether or not it succeeds?

I never said the players are the product. Hockey is the product, and that product is best when it is being produced by the best players.

The owners are responsible for the product and whether or not it succeeds. You have to understand that winning the game has a more positive affect on the player economically than clutching and grabbing has a negative affect on the player economically. Because of that, players play to win not to be as exciting as possible.

I am not saying clutch/grab doesn't hurt, I am saying that players play to win within the rules (or what is called) first and foremost...knowing that it is then up to the owners to form the rules and the game in such a way where it is exciting.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
nyr7andcounting said:
But you can only expect the players to agree to a certain extent. After that, it's up to the owners to work with each other in order to make it work.


In the real world no. In the sports world yes. Ford sells it's product no matter what happens to GM, and if GM goes out of business Ford sells even more. However sports are totally different. Sports are based on competing against another team, therefor the most profitable system in sports is one that has the highest amount of competative teams possible. The financial health of a league is measure by it's overall financial condition, not the condition of the top one or two teams. This is consistent with the reasons for the NHL lockout and the owners justification for it. They claim a league is only as good as it's weakest team.

With that said, yes the Ford's of the NHL should share revenues with the GM's of the NHL in order to sustain as many competative franchises as possible, which will increase revenues leaguewide. If you want to compare this to sports, than you have to imagine that Ford and GM only make money by producing a product and putting it in showrooms to see who's product is better. So let's say Ford has double the revenues because they have a better product. Now if GM went out of business, Ford wouldn't make any money would they? It would be in Ford's best interest as well as GM's for Ford to share their revenues.


No of course not, but what it will do is spread the losses out so that no group of owners are suffering so much. With current revenues and salaries leaguewide losses would remain the same, but losses for each owner would decrease.

This will also deflate salaries leaguewide, because the highest spenders who are taking in the most revenues are now giving some of it away and their payrolls will decrease because of it. Or at least they should. From there on it's up to the owners to increase their revenues to a profitable level...opening up the game and taking the 24% rollback is definetly a good start.


Unfortunetly that's part of sustaining the 30 teams that are in the NHL right now. I am a fan of a team that brings in a lot of revenues, but if they have to share some of it in order to keep the league they play in healthy than so be it. The thing is the alternative for Toronto is to keep all their revenues and have teams folding and going out of business because they aren't bringing enough money in. Eventually that hurts the Leafs product as well.

Besides, haven't the shareholders and fans of a team like Toronto already taken a hit for the rest of the league? They made plenty of money last year yet they had their season cancelled because that's what was best for the league as a whole. They've had to suffer through his year with no hockey and no profit in order to help the rest of the league get what they need. Revenue sharing is no different. It's unfortunate, but it's necessary.

Theoretically, would it not be better for Toronto, Philadelphia, NYR, Vancouver, Detroit, and Colorado if some teams were to fold, thus increasing the talent pool? The lowest attendance figures are going to be when Nashville comes to town anyways.

What is Toronto's incentive to see a 30-team league, and therefore what is the incentive to share revenues? They thrived in a six-team league before, and would again as well.

The CBA is being pushed by teams that are struggling, and right now it's one team, one vote.

The Torontos, on the other hand, aren't making it easier, because they aren't going to get into revenue sharing unless forced to.

And as for the shareholders and the difference between sports and business - it is just business, just higher-profile. The owners have a right to lock out its employees in order to survive in the long run. They have the right to be greedy, if that by definition means not losing money on their investment every year or making more after inflation than they'd get buying a risk-free T-Bill.

SUBWAY has individually-owned franchises, and their employees are able to work at SUBWAY at the wages offered or go over to Quizno's. That's a free market.

The players are free to play in Europe, either right now, or during an individual contract dispute, or as a lifestyle choice. They will always make some money.

But if they wish to play in a league in which the owners have fronted the capital to create a structure in which the players can play for the largest amount of fans generating the most amount of revenue for the highest average salary, then they have to agree on a CBA that makes sense to the owners this time.

They have already reaped huge rewards from 1995, and will continue to do so with a low-to-mid 40s cap.

The days of large average salary increases year over year are now over, but having reached this plateau, they have done very well for themselves and stand to make a comfortable living while in the NHL.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Cawz said:
They are both blaming a system, but if they showed restraint, the problems would dissapear.

A player could show restraint, but if he's the only one not clutchin, he'll be left behind.

An owner could show restriant, but if he's the only one staying within a budget, he'll be left behind.

Both are simplfied solutions that wont work in the real world.

But you are missing the point that players play to win. When players win, they make more money. If they need to clutch and grab in order to win, that's what they do. Clutching and grabbing helps players, they are hired in order to not have constraint...to do whatever they can to win the game. If that means winning 1-0 and not letting the other team skate than that's what they do.

And how will staying within a budget will leave owners behind? Just as the players goal is to win, the owners goal is to make money...setting a budget would help them achieve their goal, wouldn't it? And if you look at it in the NHL, the teams who are losing the most who need a budget the most certainly would not be "left behind" if they do so. If the Rangers stopped spending $70 million a year on salaries and set their budget at $50 million, I certainly wouldn't say they are being left behind with that payroll.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
nyr7andcounting said:
I never said the players are the product.

Actually, Linden said the players are the product, and therefore cannot be compared to an autoworker's union, who create products.

Actually, he said he was insulted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->