bladoww
Team of the Future
- Jan 13, 2005
- 1,553
- 4
mooseOAK said:The article doesn't mention whether his comments were made before or after the NHLPA offer.
DR said:No they are not .. In the business world, salaries are tied to a budget.
The players have no problem and encourage the owners to set and stick to a budget.
In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks it’s a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.
DR said:No they are not .. In the business world, salaries are tied to a budget. The players have no problem and encourage the owners to set and stick to a budget.
In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks it’s a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.
Next ..
DR
thats not the nature of contracts. just as you can quit if you dont feel you are being paid fairly and a player can not. thats why its a contract, it ties BOTH parties.mooseOAK said:If revenues go down then people can be fired or have their hours or wages cut, in the business world. Get rid of guaranteed contracts and the owners could act the same as in the business world.
have what in writing ? they can take notes in their budget meeting and have them notarized if they feel its neccesary. no one is suggesting each NHL collude to set a common budget.mooseOAK said:Due to the potential for collusion charges by the union, the owners need to have that in writing.
this is absolutly correct. everyone has a boss. however, like i said in my original post, if it makes good business sense to exceed a budget, the boss (and the bank) have the ability to say "ok". this is not the case in an artifically capped world.mooseOAK said:My boss has his boss and his boss and the bank to answer to. That's his cap.
Right, so let's not bring the "business world" into the discussion because it isn't relevant from either sides' point of view.DR said:thats not the nature of contracts. just as you can quit if you dont feel you are being paid fairly and a player can not. thats why its a contract, it ties BOTH parties.
But they are suggesting that the upper end of the salary structure be based on what the small number of richest teams can afford and the league can't survive that way.have what in writing ? they can take notes in their budget meeting and have them notarized if they feel its neccesary. no one is suggesting each NHL collude to set a common budget.
this is absolutly correct. everyone has a boss. however, like i said in my original post, if it makes good business sense to exceed a budget, the boss (and the bank) have the ability to say "ok". this is not the case in an artifically capped world.
Well the article is dated today and the NHLPA offer 2 months ago .. So I am pretty sure we know ..mooseOAK said:The article doesn't mention whether his comments were made before or after the NHLPA offer.
I agreePepNCheese said:Bingo.
The weakest part of the owners' position is their total deflection of responsibility to "the inflationary system".
PepNCheese said:Bingo.
The weakest part of the owners' position is their total deflection of responsibility to "the inflationary system".
PepNCheese said:Bingo.
The weakest part of the owners' position is their total deflection of responsibility to "the inflationary system".
CarlRacki said:If your home were on fire, would it be more important to put out the flames or find out what started it? Right now, the NHL is on fire and the owners are trying to put out the flames.
Ultimately, pinning the blame on one side or the other (FWIW I blame the owners, or at least some of them) is irrelevant. What's relevant is fixing the system.
DR said:No they are not .. In the business world, salaries are tied to a budget. The players have no problem and encourage the owners to set and stick to a budget.
In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks it’s a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.
Next ..
DR
DR said:
In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks it’s a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.
i can live with people not sharing my same opinion. but since you have resorted to direct insults, welcome to my ignore list. you will get the response you deserve, nothing.David said:
Speaking of dumb, look who shows up...DR!
Let me just put it to you this way.
In THIS real world, the NHL bosses have decide that it's not a good business decision to exceed their budget...which part of this don't you understand?
...and by your statement, are you admitting that the NHL players are not living in the real world?
Next...
DR said:No they are not .. In the business world, salaries are tied to a budget. The players have no problem and encourage the owners to set and stick to a budget.
In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks it’s a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.
Next ..
DR
BLONG7 said:guys, dr does not like tough love being exercised on him, he just likes dishing it out...kinda like Domi...
:lolsnakepliskin said:cut maccabe some slack-he is a hockey player not a rockete scientist
snakepliskin said:cut maccabe some slack-he is a hockey player not a rockete scientist (a bad hockey player but still a hockey player)
NataSatan666 said:I would like to nominate this post as "post of the year"
It's great to see new intelligent posters making on the mark observations
Btw Snake.....he was 4th in Norris voting. I guess everyone under him was a bad hockey player as well
Actually I'd like to see your skill, since you like to call NHL'ers bad hockey players
DR said:No they are not .. In the business world, salaries are tied to a budget. The players have no problem and encourage the owners to set and stick to a budget.
In the real world, your boss can decide to exceed his budget if thinks it’s a good business decision to do so. He isnt "capped" by some legislation.
Next ..
DR
The Messenger said:I agree
The biggest Irony as well in this whole Bettman linkage to revenue concept, Is that it is all based on generating more revenue in theory.
SO in a free market world like the old CBA by nature provided the opportunity of the Big Market teams to generate the most revenue for the NHL..
By turning them loose and icing All-Star teams that fans will pay more to see in ticket prices and bring in more fans in opposing building for the star power, would actually serve the greater cause. . .If the NHL could recreate the Oilers of the 1980's to attract fans and then have the Big Market teams build teams to take them on for the Cup .. That would generate interest and reveune for the NHL ..
While I agree it does not create parity but what is more important though MORE REVENUE or MORE PARITY in the NHL to grown the game. .
Bettman could then take the excess revenue from the strong teams and big markets teams as revenue sharing to top up markets like Edmonton that fill the building put are taped out in their ability to generate revenue for the league.. Revenue sharing would allow them to add a star player through UFA or keep its own Stars and that in turn raises them up closer to the top teams ..rather then Bettman tearing down the strong for the good of the weak .. and then tying the players directly to that concept verses linkage ..
IMO its backwards thinking by Bettman .. and McCabe well that is just not thinking at all.
If the strong teams need to keep the NHL strong by their revenues.. then they need to remain strong on the ice to accomplish that .. NO??