Misdirected blame?

[Marconius]

i'm not really sure a "large margin" of fans support the owners...perhaps, overall, the majority do support the owners, but it's hard to take such a blanket statement at face value. this board is just a small bit of all the hockey fans out there. even the polls taken are just a small bit of all the hockey fans out there (and I won't even get into biased sampling, etc) On other boards, people may be more pro-player, I post on at least one that is so. Plus a lot of people think that both sides are being unreasonable and don't necessarily support one side or the other.

but I think Hab made a good post here...i don't expect many people to agree with it on this board but still

I personally am not happy with either side and think both of them need to do better

I couldn't link it of course, but I can truly say that every single piece of evidence I've seen, from message board polls, to guy-in-the-street interviews, the editorial section in the paper, the tsn & sportsnet surveys, talking to people around town have all been heavily pro- owner.

There is no doubt in my mind that the NHLPA has HEAVILY lost the public perception war and is a contributing factor, I think, to the increasing pressure on the NHLPA to make concessions at this point.

 

[Marconius]

i don't know why the players get attacked here. oh yeah, it's a pro-owner's board !!!

Hawker, I was reading your stuff on another thread, you were holding you're own pretty good against the pro owner side, but you've got to get off this overly-sensitive, why is everyone attacking the players mentality. No one is attacking the players.

contract 10 teams if they can't compete financially under the last cba. contract 20 if neccesary. the salary cap as advocated by the nhl catering to the lowest common denominator approach just doesn't work.

That being said, this is ridiculous. You want the demands of the PA to result in the loss of 30% of the associations jobs? How does that make sense? Seriously.

 

[Marconius]

Not to get into it with you Mr Icon, cuz you love to rip dumb people like me to shreds, but you say if a market has done a good job it should reap the rewards, i agree, but it goes both ways. If a player has done a good job(as well as his agent) shoudlnt they reap the rewards? or it is only the owners that get the rewards? Also, whose job is it to grow the market? is it the players?
so maybe these teams that are losing all this money should look at how they need to grow their markets.
You always make good points Icon, but sometimes you say things that are contradictory as well as one sided.

Ill wait for your shredding oh wise one

Flawed analogy. The problem with the cba wasn't necessarily the truly elite players getting paid their due. It was the pluggers and grinders salaries that began creeping up. Players were no longer being payed for the 'job they did,' they were being payed for comparables and a system which inherently escalted them.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Not to get into it with you Mr Icon, cuz you love to rip dumb people like me to shreds, but you say if a market has done a good job it should reap the rewards, i agree, but it goes both ways. If a player has done a good job(as well as his agent) shoudlnt they reap the rewards? or it is only the owners that get the rewards? Also, whose job is it to grow the market? is it the players?
so maybe these teams that are losing all this money should look at how they need to grow their markets.
You always make good points Icon, but sometimes you say things that are contradictory as well as one sided.

Ill wait for your shredding oh wise one

No one is saying the players are going to do poorly. Do you think that making $5-10 million a year is doing poorly or being oppressed? I think the players will get more than their fair shake, and if they position themselves correctly can make even more money through partnering and growing the game. Opportunities are there if they open their eyes.

I don't see how any player is being held back under the yolk of oppression through the installation of a cap in the form of linkage to revenues. I also don't see the benefit of milking an industry to the point of failure like has taken place. That doesn't make much sense.

If the players are so confident in their abilities and are sure that THEY put the butts in the seats wouldn't the smart move to tie in their remuneration to the revenue stream? Consider what you would do in a similar vein. If you are sure you are going to have a positive impact on the business and that revenues are going to grow because of your ability you should make sure that tie your remuneration to that growth. Which would you rather have from a company that has revenues of $2 million?

a) $100K a year and no recognition of your greatness other than your remuneration package.

b) 4% of revenues and 50% of profits over the $2 million level.

If you are confident in your abilities and believe that YOU will make the big impact in the business you think you will I think the choice is obvious. I think the NHLPA is missing the boat by a massive degree. If my contract offered my team 55% of revenues plus a 50% of profits over an identified (and very reachable) level I would kiss the ground they walk on. Especially when I consider the other options available to me and my team in the rest of the industry (where I am about 400% over-paid). With that deal, the sky is the limit and I have nothing but security going my way.

Maybe the difference is that these players don't have a clue what opportunity looks like? Maybe its that risk scares the hell out of them? Maybe its because they don't really like the concept of hard work and just enjoy playing their little game? Maybe they're just getting some really bad advice and don't know it, but I think they're missing the boat. They take a short term hit, but if they can turn around and be half as great as they say they are, then the money is sitting there for the taking. The golden goose is dead. There is no doubt about that. Now is the time to look for a deal that you can make the best of and I think the one the NHL offered was a sweetheart. If it was my union that turned that deal down I would have taken the president out to the woodshed and de-balled him for his stupidity. Being a partner with your business instead of an employee is the wave of the future. The NHLPA may have missed the chance to be on the leading edge of where sports and many businesses are headed.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

No one is saying the players are going to do poorly. Do you think that making $5-10 million a year is doing poorly or being oppressed? I think the players will get more than their fair shake, and if they position themselves correctly can make even more money through partnering and growing the game. Opportunities are there if they open their eyes.

I don't see how any player is being held back under the yolk of oppression through the installation of a cap in the form of linkage to revenues. I also don't see the benefit of milking an industry to the point of failure like has taken place. That doesn't make much sense.

If the players are so confident in their abilities and are sure that THEY put the butts in the seats wouldn't the smart move to tie in their remuneration to the revenue stream? Consider what you would do in a similar vein. If you are sure you are going to have a positive impact on the business and that revenues are going to grow because of your ability you should make sure that tie your remuneration to that growth. Which would you rather have from a company that has revenues of $2 million?

a) $100K a year and no recognition of your greatness other than your remuneration package.

b) 4% of revenues and 50% of profits over the $2 million level.

If you are confident in your abilities and believe that YOU will make the big impact in the business you think you will I think the choice is obvious. I think the NHLPA is missing the boat by a massive degree. If my contract offered my team 55% of revenues plus a 50% of profits over an identified (and very reachable) level I would kiss the ground they walk on. Especially when I consider the other options available to me and my team in the rest of the industry (where I am about 400% over-paid). With that deal, the sky is the limit and I have nothing but security going my way.

Maybe the difference is that these players don't have a clue what opportunity looks like? Maybe its that risk scares the hell out of them? Maybe its because they don't really like the concept of hard work and just enjoy playing their little game? Maybe they're just getting some really bad advice and don't know it, but I think they're missing the boat. They take a short term hit, but if they can turn around and be half as great as they say they are, then the money is sitting there for the taking. The golden goose is dead. There is no doubt about that. Now is the time to look for a deal that you can make the best of and I think the one the NHL offered was a sweetheart. If it was my union that turned that deal down I would have taken the president out to the woodshed and de-balled him for his stupidity. Being a partner with your business instead of an employee is the wave of the future. The NHLPA may have missed the chance to be on the leading edge of where sports and many businesses are headed.

True, I cant argue with most of that.
the only thing I would say i guess to part of that is, most management( in sports, not talking about selling widgets or what have you) what their players to focus on winning and doing what it takes to win, not what it takes to put butts in the seats. Aside from the community good will that they do, that is really all the owners/GM's want out of their players.

Maybe Im wrong, please correct me, but what management( again in Sports) wants the players to worry about how many people are clicking that turnstyle? I think they want them to focus everything on the game.

I think both parties have missed the boat.

 

[LordHelmet]

And why should they? Accordign to that IRS site the other professional leagues share primarily national broadcast revenues.

Pssst.. The NFL has shared revenues for years.. Long before their huge TV contracts..

 

[Motown Beatdown]

And why should they? That's only YOUR opinion that they should. Frankly if a market has done a really good job at growing their market they deserve the benefit of that. The money they spent in their local market to promote the game and get their fans excited about the product deserves the payoff.

So you dont favor a cap then? Cause thats what the big markets have been doing. Buying players with that extra revenue.

As well, how do you deal with ticket price discrepancies in this sharing plan of yours? I'm sure the Flyers would not be happy coughing up 50% of the gate to the Preds when they visit, knowing their tickets average $100, and then getting 50% of the gate in Nashville when their tickets average $50?

They aren't having that problem in the NFL when teams give up 40% of ticket revenue so why would it be a problem in the NHL?

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Pssst.. The NFL has shared revenues for years.. Long before their huge TV contracts..

If Gary hasn't said it in a sound byte it's not true with some of these people.

 

[syc]

The only way the rich teams will go with rev sharing is if the league folds all the weak franchises that are bringing the league down.

The NHL did this to themselves when they took 50 million from just about anyone that wanted an NHL team over the past 15 years. It was greed and now they're paying for their sins.

Fire Bettman, fold some teams, move the Hurricanes to Quebec City, share some revs, and have standard ticket pricing for every team.

 

[labatt50]

[QUOTE=ResidentAlien]True, I cant argue with most of that.
the only thing I would say i guess to part of that is, most management( in sports, not talking about selling widgets or what have you) what their players to focus on winning and doing what it takes to win, not what it takes to put butts in the seats. Aside from the community good will that they do, that is really all the owners/GM's want out of their players.

Maybe Im wrong, please correct me, but what management( again in Sports) wants the players to worry about how many people are clicking that turnstyle? I think they want them to focus everything on the game.

I think both parties have missed the boat.[/QUOTE]

The owners do want their players to focus on winning...that goes hand in hand with putting butts in the seats. Generally, if you ice a winning team, you will put butts in the seats.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Pssst.. The NFL has shared revenues for years.. Long before their huge TV contracts..

No, really? So they have been sahing 80% of their revenues for yeeeeeeears?

 

[Tafkak]

Fire Bettman, fold some teams, move the Hurricanes to Quebec City, share some revs, and have standard ticket pricing for every team.

Can we fire you instead?

 

[hockeytown9321]

"players become UFA once rookie contract expires" would effectively kill this site. I wouldn't care about my team's prospects if I knew that they could be around 3 years and gone. Fan interest would wain as people wouldn't know who is playing for who any more, like baseball.

Wait a minute. I thought all the support for the cap was because it make sure all the teams could retain their players. Now you say they couldn't?

And if you're worried about increased free agency, why would you want a cap? There's a ton more free agent movement in the hard capped NFL than in baseball.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

And why should they? But lets not compare apples to oranges, lets compare apples to apples. What do other hockey leagues do? What is the competition doing in regards to revenue sharing? What is happening in Europe in this regard? The players don't have the option of going and playing in the NFL or the NBA. Their options are to play in Europe. What are those leagues doing in this regard?

Now I'm not exactly sure, but are their salary caps in Europe? If not than what you propose, to look at what European leagues are doing, could work for the NHL. No salary cap, no revenue sharing. Good plan.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Now I'm not exactly sure, but are their salary caps in Europe? If not than what you propose, to look at what European leagues are doing, could work for the NHL. No salary cap, no revenue sharing. Good plan.

Yup, I think the European way would work great. All the players would take a 75% cut in pay and ticket prices would drop 50-60%. And the teams can do what ever they want and not listen to the whining from the players and fans. Would work for me.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Wait a minute. I thought all the support for the cap was because it make sure all the teams could retain their players. Now you say they couldn't?

Try reading a little more carefully, it was a response to players becoming UFA's after their rookie contract expires.

And if you're worried about increased free agency, why would you want a cap? There's a ton more free agent movement in the hard capped NFL than in baseball.

The stars stay with their teams in the NFL, free agent movement is largely second and third tier players. In baseball it is the stars that all migrate the the large market teams. If the NFL was like MLB do you think that Manning would be in Indianapolis still?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Try reading a little more carefully, it was a response to players becoming UFA's after their rookie contract expires.

Why would you be worried about it? What do you care when they become free agents? If the cap can keep them there when they're 29 or 30, why can't it when they're 26?

If the NFL was like MLB do you think that Manning would be in Indianapolis still?

You're right. Becuase of revenue sharing, Indy can hang onto their players. Too bad that the NHL wants no part of that.

 

[jratelle19]

I absolutely despise the owners and don't believe a word they say. The players aren't saints, either, and they are equally to blame for this whole mess. Still though, some of the geniuses on this board automatically assume that I am pro-player if I make one negative remark about their beloved owners.

Look, I am POed at both sides and will demonstrate it when play resumes with a new CBA and I will refuse to spend a dime of my money on the NHL. And I will not buy a WHA ticket if they sign any locked out NHLPA players. If NHL fans did not take sides, like the guilty parties (NHL and NHLPA) want us to, they can make them pay dearly for cancelling the season, which I consider unforgivable.

But that's OK. Go running to your beloved owners when they throw replacement players in front of you and you're still paying $50+ for a ticket and $8 for a beer. They're absolutely counting on you being there. Don't forget to give the billionaires a big hug and a kiss when they stick it to you.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Why would you be worried about it? What do you care when they become free agents? If the cap can keep them there when they're 29 or 30, why can't it when they're 26?

Rookie contracts don't last until a player is 26, it can be anywhere from 21 to 24

You're right. Becuase of revenue sharing, Indy can hang onto their players. Too bad that the NHL wants no part of that.

Has anyone told you that there is no real meaningful revenue sharing among NFL franchises? It is all TV revenue.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Yup, I think the European way would work great. All the players would take a 75% cut in pay and ticket prices would drop 50-60%. And the teams can do what ever they want and not listen to the whining from the players and fans. Would work for me.

Hey, if they could get it around a union here and it meant ticket prices were cut in half, I could care less what the players make.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Rookie contracts don't last until a player is 26, it can be anywhere from 21 to 24

I used 26 as an example because thats about what the NFL is, and we're talking in hypotheticals. Instead of arguing about picayune stuff, why not answer the question. Why would a cap allow small market teams to keep their players if UFA age is 29 or 30 but not if its 24 or 25 or 26?

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Has anyone told you that there is no real meaningful revenue sharing among NFL franchises? It is all TV revenue.

So if the NHL followed the NFL's lead in sharing everyone except TV revenue you'd be all for that right? After all, like you said it's not meaningful.

 

[hockeytown9321]

So if the NHL followed the NFL's lead in sharing everyone except TV revenue you'd be all for that right? After all, like you said it's not meaningful.

I don;t think the revenue sharing point is worth arguing anymore. The argument against it by small market fans is totally illogical.

 

[thinkwild]

Being a partner with your business instead of an employee is the wave of the future. The NHLPA may have missed the chance to be on the leading edge of where sports and many businesses are headed.

How about giving the players stock options in the team. Which would change the teams reporting requirements. I thikn the players already proposed it. They could even get a share of the capital gains when one owner sold the team to a new owner. Just like a partner

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I don;t think the revenue sharing point is worth arguing anymore. The argument against it by small market fans is totally illogical.

I just wonder if he's in favor of sharing 40% of all ticket revenue. After all it's meaningless in his own words.