Lock the door - throw away the key - let's start the NHL II with new players!

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by eye, Jan 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. eye

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    My rant for the day!! I know there are many legal hurdles to jump but I'm sick and tired of Goodenow and his overpaid and very spoiled player reps. IMO it's time to lock them all out permanently and throw away the key. I will be season tickets for replacement players that actually want to play hockey for a portion of the rediculous salaries that todays NHL players are demanding. I'm tired of being held hostage by these guys and by their illustrious leader. The sooner we move on to the new era of the NHL II the better as far as I'm concerned. Most of you pro player pro NHLPA types on this board are sickening in your support of these selfish greedy overpaid players that think their playing and living in fantasyland. I say give the players one last chance within the next 7 days to vote through their player agents whether or not they will come back to work for 54% of agreed upon gross revenues with all other factors being negotiable or else say goodbye.
     
  2. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They won't do it because the owners want to continue to collect intrest on season ticket deposits, because they are just as greedy as the players. Both sides are just as greedy, otherwise we wouldn't be in this situation. 54%? Why not 60%, which is where the other 3 major leagues are at or around?
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    131
    I'm definitely itching to see some hockey, but I'm not sold on NHL II yet, not until they come out and say that they are adding meaningful revenue sharing to the CBA negotiations. This is the real point of interest regarding the CBA for me anymore, revenue sharing. I'll be more angry that the owners refused to let the players play a full season (it is a lockout not a strike) and then turn their back on the players to re-open with their rules if they aren't willing to make some reasonable concessions themselves.

    I'm a believer in logical revenue sharing though, as I think it makes sense to have a healthy league full of healthy teams. The NHL is a sum of it's parts, and I want an NHL where all teams are created equal in terms of payrolls (within reasonable limitations) and profits. If the richer teams can make money off the poorer teams back's, then be prepared to share the money. Few agree with me about this for some reason, but I think it's the answer to pro-sports in America.

    Forget about a cap, if all teams have the same available funds, the players will get their cut of the check, and the teams will spend evenly and consistently from team to team.
     
  4. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    Go get season tickets for the CHL or some amatuer hockey league. Go now. Because there will never be an NHL 2..post about it as much as you can..it will never happen and Bettman has already repeated over and over that will not be an option. But i thought you would have known that???

    Btw...you meant XFL II right?????
     
  5. Beatnik

    Beatnik Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Québec
    Home Page:
    I agree let's create a new league (or 2) now. I'm sure everyone will be happy to pay 150$ to see Pat Fallon's return ;)

    What about those who support the greedy owners who called a lock-out only because they think they deserve to add hundred of millions to their billions? I'm sure in their personnal life those posters does'nt care about their salary and only wish that their bosses will make billions. ;)
     
  6. ScottyBowman

    ScottyBowman Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Detroit
    Home Page:
    Does anyone notice a trend? If someone doesn't make a lot of money, some people will point out how "they love to play the game". If someone makes $5 mil, its because they are greedy. Do these people not realize that they are making peanuts and working in the ECHL because they suck and have no talent? I have no intention of ever watching replacement players aka a league filled with IHL players. They already tried that affordable hockey thing a few years ago and it didn't work.
     
  7. kenabnrmal

    kenabnrmal Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    the beach or rink
    Home Page:
    What a mess.
     
  8. shakes

    shakes Pep City

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,404
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Home Page:
    Yeh the poor poor owners.. Do you even read what you post?


    :shakehead
     
  9. Trottier

    Trottier Very Random

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    29,232
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Marketing Executive
    Location:
    San Diego
    Home Page:
    :)
     
  10. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Total revenue sharing is unrealistic and unfair. What's the incentive for team ownership to put a quality product/winning team on the ice if the Stanley Cup champion makes the exact same revenue as the worst team in the league? Why market your team? Why sign expensive players? Why sell out your building? Why succeed?
    Much like communism, total revenue sharing will never work.
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    131
    It's hard to just throw out a comment like I did about revenue sharing and for you to fairly assess my proposal of it. I don't want total revenue sharing, I just want a larger portion of revenue sharing. Even if you matched the NFL's 80% revenue sharing, and excluded all playoff revenue from sharing, I'd be happier with that. Does it work for the NFL but it is unfair and unrealistic in the NHL? I know the leagues are different, but it's a loose proposal as well. The Stanley Cup winner, as well as teams successful in the playoffs, will benefit from their playoff runs and it'll help improve the team financially as well. I don't think you should punish teams for winning, and the playoffs are where winning counts the most.

    I agree that communism looks better on paper than it does in production, and I'm not condoning it for political purposes. I'd like to see the league the product over the teams and players being the product, meaning that the owners and players are partners working together for the health of the league, not the dollars in the pocket of the player or team.

    Be it unrealistic or not, the level of revenue sharing in the NHL is an embarassment, and it shows the true lack of committment from ownership about solving the problem. If political groups have social services to aid those in need, why can't a pro-sports league? In the end, the society is only as strong as it's weakest links (poor), as is the league only as strong as it's weakest links (poor). If you don't believe something is only as strong as it's weakest link, than we have philosophical differences.
     
  12. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think they're totally comitted to solving the problem, just that they don't want to be the ones who solve it. Its funny how they keep harping on a "partnership" with the players. Why should the players agree to be partners with people who refuse to be partners with each other?
     
  13. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Linden on CKNW made exactly that point last night.

    "The truest indication of where they are is in their revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is critical... Hockey, with Gary's last proposal, is proposing that the owners share none of their regular season revenue which lets the big guys keep their money but wants them to share playoff money. This is absurd because last year you would have had Calgary and Tampa Bay sharing the most amount of money and those are the teams that should be receiving it... They want the players to fix all the problems."

    Not only do they want the players to fix all the problems, even if they get what they want, the problems for the small market teams don't change a bit. They are revenue problems, not salary problems. These teams are reporting losses with small payrolls because they turn 35% of Toronto revenues. 35%!

    Bettman's plan doesn't give these teams any more revenues and forces them to raise their payrolls! What kind of craziness is that? It doesn't fix any of the stated problems!

    Tom
     
  14. Guest

    Guest Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Yeah, the tone from the owners and league is almost, "You know, you guys (NHLPA) really should get those salaries under control."

    In the end, if you get a disparity among revenues that leads to a disparity among payrolls. If you close the gap in either of those disparities, you will get closer to the goal. In this case, you either close the gap in the player salaries, or close the gap in the revenues generated. As many have already said, how is a $38 million hard cap going to help the Nashville Predators or the <Insert Low Revenue Generating Team Here>. A hard cap will help, but it's not the answer.
     
  15. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you may be overstating the percentage of revenues shared by the NFL. If you read the story linked below, NFLPA Director Gene Upshaw places the percentage at 63 percent. And that number is inflated by the NFL TV contract which provides most of the NFL's revenues and is divided equally among all the teams. Beyond that, teams share only 40 percent of gate revenues and almost none other local revenues (e.g. skyboxes, parking, concessions, stadium naming rights). Unlike the NFL, the NHL is almost entirely dependent on local revenues over national TV money. So, comparing the two in terms of revenue sharing is kind of apples and oranges.

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7834035
     
  16. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So why does everyone point to the NFL system and say that's what hockey needs?
     
  17. And that's a load of garbage IMO. Yes, Tampa and Calgary made it to the Stanley Cup last year and would have had to cough up the most this past year. But look at the last decade and see who it would have helped the most. Teams like Tampa and Calgary. Tampa appears in the playoffs three times, misses seven. Calgary appears in the playoffs three times, misses seven. Conversely how about the big spenders like Detroit, Colorado, St. Louis, Philadelpia, Dallas and New York?

    Detroit appears in the playoffs ten times, misses zero. Colorado appears in the playoffs nine times, misses zero. St. Louis appears in the playoffs ten times, misses zero. Philadelphia appears in the playoffs ten times, misses zero. Dallas appears in the playoffs eight times, misses two. The only anomoly is New York. The Rangers appears in the playoffs three times, misses seven.

    Calgary and Tampa alone have missed the playoffs more than the top six spenders COMBINED during that decade. So who does this system help again?
     
  18. Iceman23

    Iceman23 Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Simple, the NFL made a partnership with the players some time ago with a mid 30 million dollar salary cap. Now it is nearly three times that. The NFL is the most successful sports entity in North America.

    I consider myself pro-owner, but I'm not stupid either. Owners aren't always honest about their books, no question. However, I don't think anyone can deny that no matter how bad the numbers are fudged, the NHL is in trouble. Bettman, Goodenow, Owners, and Players are all equally culpable in this whole mess. Hopefully, this whole ugly mess gets resolved soon.

    Oh, someone mentioned about how a 38 million dollar cap helps a team like Nashville? I would say that when Nashville gets a good player and he reaches UFA age, the higher spending teams will have to cut players to sign the UFA, or offer whatever cap space they have left. As more and more teams have limited cap space, the number of buyers is significantly reduced. This prevents an average player from getting a huge raise unless there are a large number of teams with a lot of cap space. Plus the cap would prevent salaries in the 7-10 million dollar range as they eat up far too much of the payroll to be a successful team. The 3rd and 4th liners wouldn't get hit or if they get hit it wouldn't be drastic, but the better players won't see the huge huge dollars they saw in the past. At least not until revenues are increased.

    But I also agree with the player's stance that more revenue sharing needs to be implemented. The 30 owners should be interested in making a profit for all 30 teams. Not just pad the owners pockets in established markets should a cap be implemented. I don't think teams should have the same revenues unless they were generated by themselves but I do think that it is in the league's interest to give markets like Atlanta, Anaheim, and others a chance to succeed and build a stronger fan base. Non traditional hockey markets can become hockey markets, it just takes time. Building a stronger fan base is easier when a team is good. Building a strong team is far easier when the whole league is on a level playing field where everyone has similar money to play with and a limit to spend.

    Finally, in the new agreement I hope they agree to independant team audits with full disclosure of team finances. This would hopefully restore a bit of trust between the players and owners. I believe the NFL has something similar with huge fines for any understatements of funds.

    I'm probably ranting but I'd appreciate some comments. Constructive criticism welcome, but flaming please leave at the door.
     
  19. HckyFght*

    HckyFght* Guest

    "It's the Great American Principal of Dog Eat Dog. The employer tries to starve out the laborer, and the laborer tries to destroy the employer's business. They quarrel over a bone and rend each other like Coyotes."
    -Baseball great Walter Johnson writing in Baseball Magazine, 1911.
     
  20. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    You cannot just start up a new league, at least not with the current owners.

    Labour law prohibits such things. If it were so then anytime an employer wanted they could just close down a business and start again when negotiations got tough.

    Even if the NHL could get to a declaration of impasse under US law that would pass NLRB muster (which is extremely unlikely) the union has options as well. Simply because you have an impasse the dispute continues and the league must still negotiate in good faith with the union since an impasse is only a temporary solution using scabs. Also the union could decertify and then the all the anti-trust restrcitions would kick in - all free agents at the end of contracts, no entry draft, etc. When the MLBPA threatened this action a deal was quickly done.

    There will be no possibility of scabs in Vancouver or Montreal since they are absolutely prohibited by provincial law as an unfair labour practise. Toronto and Ottawa may also be unavailable as the current government has indicated that it will bring back the anti-scab laws previously in place during the 1994 MLB dispute when neither the Expos nor the Jays could play with replacement players in Canada. There is no guarantee that the Alberta labour code would allow for scabs.
     
  21. Hockeyfan02

    Hockeyfan02 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    14,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pistivity
    Home Page:
    Good post. I pretty much feel the same way about revenue sharing and I like the idea of the owners having to disclose the funds. That would be huge in building trust between the two parties involved.
     
  22. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    The Quebec Ministry of Labour has already stated that the NHLPA is *not* covered by these laws.
     
  23. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    Source?????
     
  24. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    The source has already been posted at least 5 times. Go look it up yourself.
     
  25. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:

    But what your forgetting is the owners are all partners too, and they were sharing revenue before there was even a salary cap. Thats Bettmans biggest flaw in this, he wants a NFL type cap, but cant get the owners to fund it the same way the NFL does, one that works. Share all local TV and Radio deals (like the national NFL TV deal) and 80% of ticket revenue.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"