Legace attacks union leadership

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

It could say a million things. Examples:

1. I am a cheap *******
2. We are a new market and don't yet have the funds to compete with the big boys
3. we are rebuilding, and putting young guys in the lineup to get them to grow. In a year or two we will spend when it will actually mean something more than satisfying whiney fans.
4. and on and on . . .

It all depends on the track record of the team and what their real situation is . . .

But in any event, no owner no matter how evil his intentions can ever spend more than a relatively small amount less than the 'big' spenders. If baseball had this the game would be in much better shape. Being able to spend what amounts to 50% more or so than other teams is a drop in the bucket . . .it is an edge but a small one. It will be easily able to be overcome by good management and every team will at least have the chance to compete.

Agreed.

 

[thinkwild]

If Pittsburgh is spending $22-26mil while the top are spending $38, everything is ok. But if Pittsburgh is spending $30mil while the top is spending $49, half the teams in the league would have folded and the competitive balance would be a disaster? This is why Bettman had to cancel the season?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

If Pittsburgh is spending $22-26mil while the top are spending $38, everything is ok. But if Pittsburgh is spending $30mil while the top is spending $49, half the teams in the league would have folded and the competitive balance would be a disaster? This is why Bettman had to cancel the season?

Again, if there is only something just over 50% difference in the spending tell me what that will buy that will put the low spender at too great of a disadvantage? I can live with a disadvantage like that, and my team, rightly or wrongly, has been the poster child for low spending on these boards. If I of all people am not complaining about it, why would you think that it will be a problem?

 

[Resolute]

If Pittsburgh is spending $22-26mil while the top are spending $38, everything is ok. But if Pittsburgh is spending $30mil while the top is spending $49, half the teams in the league would have folded and the competitive balance would be a disaster? This is why Bettman had to cancel the season?

You mean $53.5 million at the top end...

Question is, is the difference between "$49 million" and $42.5 million so great that the union caused the season to be cancelled?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Which books audited?

Please. Not this pure rubbish again. The PA accepts the validity of the NHL books.

Which one? I remember when the Sens were being sold, one of the many buyers for the team was the Snapple King. But they couldnt buy in as partners to Brydens deal, because as an audited company, they couldnt get away with this kind of transaction. Their auditors wouldnt allow it. Too sports ownershipish to meet audited requirements.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Each NHL team produces audited statements already. Even if the URO process did not require it, every team has substantial debt. Assuming you have any business/finance experience at all, you know that banks also require audited statements from companies with this level and nature of debt. But to answer your question, Philadelphia (Comcast), Rangers (Cablevision) and Montreal (Molson 20%) are owned by publicly held companies.

As for being "sports ownershipish to meet audited requirements", all i can say is yeesh. Many many more teams have been publicly owned from time to time, including Anaheim and many others I Believe (although I am not inclined to research).

If the teams were public companies, with shareholders, an audit might be more meaningful, although the profit-first philosophy that they would have to adopt would not probably be in fans best interest. But when the only shareholder is the owner himself in a complex web of shell companies, I'm sure every lawyer would see through the phrase - audited. N'est ce pas?

Non, monsieur. An audit is an audit.

Yes, if the team is forced to spend the token minimum, where is the problem eh? If an owner wants to pocket the money, he will pocket the money. You cant design a system around this. You have to design one for the teams that want to win.

In the reported system, you must keep in mind that the players are going to be guaranteed 54% of revenues. If too many teams pay the floor (which is not set at 54%), there will need to be a top-up.

Oh come on. How can you say that. They have been embarrassed and their reputations ruined. I know I wont be able to watch them at the olympics because i feel too embarrassed for them. No one is going to want them associated with their team. They have been embarrassed and their reputations so tarnished by the event how can they possibly show their faces in public again. Dont you realize how traumatic and newsworthy an item that was?

Your attempt at sarcasm is noted. And rejected out of hand.

 

[GSC2k2*]

If Pittsburgh is spending $22-26mil while the top are spending $38, everything is ok. But if Pittsburgh is spending $30mil while the top is spending $49, half the teams in the league would have folded and the competitive balance would be a disaster? This is why Bettman had to cancel the season?

If Pittsburgh is spending $30mil while the top is spending $49, there is a free market for the players and they are A-OK, while if Pittsburgh is spending $22-26mil while the top are spending $38, they are heading to the poor house?

C'mon. We all know that it is all about salary pressures. The raison d'etre of the PA/agents/players will be to raise every team's costs to the cap. Accordingly, you must look at what happens at that cap.

PLUS, and most importantly, this system guarantees a certain percentage ($38 million is based on a projection and will be adjusted to actual revenues through an escrow account).

 

[baldrick]

1. Several owners have already announced ticket price reductions.

Which teams have done this?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Which teams have done this?

My Pens for one have had some very generous reductions, through both cutting prices across the board . . . and even deeper 'cuts' in some ways by reclassifying some seats which when combined with the reduction in effect cut their prices in half.

Some other teams have done this as well, I just read of one team, Anaheim I think, who reclassified their end zone seating which in effect cut those prices from $25 to $9.50 next season.

A thread on who has cut prices and who has not was on this board not long ago:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=148002

 

[baldrick]

My Pens for one have had some very generous reductions, through both cutting prices across the board . . . and even deeper 'cuts' in some ways by reclassifying some seats which when combined with the reduction in effect cut their prices in half.

Some other teams have done this as well, I just read of one team, Anaheim I think, who reclassified their end zone seating which in effect cut those prices from $25 to $9.50 next season.

A thread on who has cut prices and who has not was on this board not long ago:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=148002

Much appreciated,thx

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Baloney.
I've yet to see any concrete evidence that union leaders did anything to embarass Gretsky or Lemiuex.
I'm so sick of seeing this sort of nonsense reported as fact, five months later.
Are we supposed to be believe, that somehow, Gretzky and Lemieux were going to go above and beyond to strike a deal?
Aren't these guys FIRMLY in the salary cap camp???

In Detroit, after Bettman announced the cancellation of the season, Yzerman was on the radio telling people that the season isn't yet cancelled. That the players he was talking to believed there was still room for negotiation.
He was right. And according to local reports, Yzerman was a key player in bringing the players back to the table.

If you're going to get all melodramatic and blame the union for somehow insulting Wayne and Mario, I can do the same in Detroit, where Steve Yzerman surely suffered far more than Wayne or Mario because of the lockout.

As far as we know, Yzerman may never play again. Given the Wings salary structure, and given the cap, it sure seems unlikely as hell.
So we won't get our farewell to one of the game's greats. In Detroit, Yzerman is every bit as important to the NHL as Gretzky and Lemieux. More so, in fact.

So because of Bettman's reckless negotiating style, our last picture of Yzerman is seeing him carried of the ice with a bloody face..

These ridiculous arguments cut both ways, Psycho Joe.

So it's best not to get too righteous with them.

Don't want to get into an argument over this, but just a few points of clarification:

- Yzerman is my favourite player of the last 25 years. No doubt I would be very sad if I don't get to see him play hockey again.

- Gretz and Mario were invited by the NHLPA to come to the meetings. From Gretz's own mouth the impression they got was that it was to help broker deal, but the NHLPA did an end around on them. The NHLPA totally ignored the most contentious issues. What the hell was the friggen point of bringing them in?

- I have been primarily on the players side. You can do a search of the database and that would be clear. But I also don't like whining of certain players, when they didn't do everything they could have done when a better deal was on the table back in February. Fact is, they aren't too bright and got snookered by a bunch of lawyers and now came to the realization that they just lost a year of their relatively short careers with very little to show for it. Fact is the best deal they were ever going to get was on the table in February and they ignored it. Blind faith can be a very bad thing, but don't cry after the fact. The deed is done.

 

[FraserOtt]

Which teams have done this?

The Ottawa Senators announced a five percent rebate on season tickets if you renew, and premium season ticket holders - i.e. long-time holders - will recieve an even greater rebate.

I believe there is also talk of lowering, or at the very least freezing, regular tickets.