NY Post Larry Brooks: NHL Selling Out Fans - Not Games

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Incorrect. While some UFA deals have been cheaper than they might have been previously, that's because teams have to pay more money to younger guys to "buy out" years of their UFA status. The expense isn't disappearing, it's being transferred from 31+ year olds to guys in their mid-20s.

It was definitely a concession to the players, and a major one.
Yes, the lower UFA age was a concession to the players - but it was basically a non-monetary one. The 54% (soon to be 55%) Player's Share makes it a zero sum game - the players (as a whole) get ZERO more dollars because of the lower UFA age. The UFA dollars that were going to 30-somethings are now going to the (arguably) more deserving late 20-somethings. And actually, to the effect that teams are throwing more total dollars at the larger crop of UFAs and exceeding the Player's Share, it could be argued that the new UFA age actually hurts the majority of players through larger escrow givebacks.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
??????? What exactly does more affordable mean then? I'd love to hear this one.

It has been said in this thread several times, look it up.

But the league got the system they wanted... wouldn't they have wanted the "right" system. Are you telling me the league wanted a system they thought was right but when they got the new CBA they said ooops, nevermind this is wrong.

No, league had to compromise with the PA. Since Bettman gave his speech way before lock-out, it's safe to assume that this is not the right system he was talking about back then.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
What was there to understand? Owners are spending just as much money as they were before. The difference is that more of them are spending it and it's not 5 teams doing it. A few prominent owners where crying they couldn't spend money unless they had a cap and then they did spend money that came from no revenue stream from the previous year and some of those teams are still crap.

Totally wrong.

League is now spending 54% of it's revenues, before the lock-out the number was ~75%.

I think you should study the reasons for lock-out a little more.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
The UFA dollars that were going to 30-somethings are now going to the (arguably) more deserving late 20-somethings.
That's what I said. :dunno:

And actually, to the effect that teams are throwing more total dollars at the larger crop of UFAs and exceeding the Player's Share, it could be argued that the new UFA age actually hurts the majority of players through larger escrow givebacks.
Probably, the majority who are not stars anyway. The guys mostly hurt by this are the 3rd-4th liners and 6-7 d-men. A few years ago, there were maybe a handful of guys making League minimum, now there are a handful on every team making $700k or less. The top players will always get their money, it's the other ones that will do without.

Regardless, lowered UFA age is something the players wanted, not the owners, which was the point I was trying to make before.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Regardless, lowered UFA age is something the players wanted, not the owners, which was the point I was trying to make before.

To be honest, Sotnos, there is no evidence that such is the case. I am not entirely convinced that lower UFA age does not benefit the owners more than the players down the road. I am not saying that is definitively the case, but that is my point. The idea that it was what the players unequivocably wanted is nothing but an assumption.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
To be honest, Sotnos, there is no evidence that such is the case. I am not entirely convinced that lower UFA age does not benefit the owners more than the players down the road. I am not saying that is definitively the case, but that is my point. The idea that it was what the players unequivocably wanted is nothing but an assumption.
Alright alright, maybe I should have said it was a win for the players as opposed to a concession from them (which implies the players specifically asked for it), but how does an earlier UFA age and thus more control of their careers not benefit the players? How does it benefit the owners to either lose guys earlier or have to pay them more money earlier to keep them off the UFA market? It's not like the NFL where you draft a guy and a year later he can have an impact. In most cases NHLers take a few years of grooming in the minors, and the time and money involved in development, before he can contribute in the NHL on a regular basis.

You can't tell me that if the owners had their way, they'd wouldn't like to go back to the "old days" of the NHL and have the players rights for as long as they liked. :)

This got completely off-track, but the original point was that the players are not completely ruined for life as was being suggested. And nowhere have I ever seen the NHL proposing UFA ages as low as what was put into the actual CBA.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
gscarpenter2002 said:
To be honest, Sotnos, there is no evidence that such is the case. I am not entirely convinced that lower UFA age does not benefit the owners more than the players down the road. I am not saying that is definitively the case, but that is my point. The idea that it was what the players unequivocably wanted is nothing but an assumption.
Alright alright, maybe I should have said it was a win for the players as opposed to a concession from them (which implies the players specifically asked for it), but how does an earlier UFA age and thus more control of their careers not benefit the players? How does it benefit the owners to either lose guys earlier or have to pay them more money earlier to keep them off the UFA market? It's not like the NFL where you draft a guy and a year later he can have an impact. In most cases NHLers take a few years of grooming in the minors, and the time and money involved in development, before he can contribute in the NHL on a regular basis.

You can't tell me that if the owners had their way, they'd wouldn't like to go back to the "old days" of the NHL and have the players rights for as long as they liked. :)

This got completely off-track, but the original point was that the players are not completely ruined for life as was being suggested. And nowhere have I ever seen the NHL proposing UFA ages as low as what was put into the actual CBA.
I agree. I think it is a very safe assumption that the lowered UFA age was a concession to the players, not something that the owners wanted.

Just look at all of the NHL proposals during the lockout. None of them did anything nearly that drastic to the UFA age.

NHL's December 14 Proposal - Lower UFA age from 31yo to 30yo.

NHL's Febryary 2 Proposal - Lower UFA age from 31yo to 30yo and abolish Group V and Group VI UFA status. Option to Reduce UFA age to 28yo in return for the elimination of arbitration.

All the NHL proposals were either minimal and required a trade-off/give back by the players - elimination of Group V and Group VI UFAs and elimination of arbitration.

To think that the NHL would suddenly go from these positions to advocating the current 27yo or 7 Accrued Seasons UFA system is very hard to beleive. This is supported by the number of Owners / GMs who have groused about the new UFA system. It is pretty clear that the new UFA system was a demand by the players - to give them something - in exchange for swallowing the NHL positions on basically everything else. And, as I stated above, it was a non-monetary concession for the owners, they reluctantly gave in.

Whether the lowered UFA age may be a long term benefit for the owners - well, that's another question. I sincerely doubt, though, that the majority of NHL ownership has the foresight of Charley Finley to think in that way.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Let me try again - he said the right economic system - that implies that there are certain things he wants in it that yes probably aren't what the players want - so yes what he got was a negotiated one and not necessarily the right one. I used a simple example saying if the league started today this is how he would want it to be. If you can't follow that I can't help you.
No I followed what you said, and followed it again his time, and I still thinks it's completely ridiculous. You're telling me that Bettman expected, or hoped, to get a deal that contained nothing the players wanted. You're telling me that the "right" deal that would allow the league to become more affordable is the CBA that the owners would draft by themselves if they could make one up without consent of the players.

But obviously that wasn't possible here. They HAD to negotiate the deal with the players. I guess when Bettman was talking about the "right" deal I expected it to be a realistic CBA, rather than some fairy tale. I didn't think it was possible Bettman could spit any more BS out of his mouth. Now you're telling me it is.

And it's a little insulting too. All the talk of becoming more affordable was based on getting an impossible CBA? Thanks a lot Bettman
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Ticket prices should not be at top 4 sport prices and neither should player salaries. Treat hockey as blue collar fan's alternative to the expensive sports - which is what it was in the US for years - and attendance will go back up. To just shove it into the cost bracket of baseball, football and basketball without any justification is the problem the NHL has right now and Bettman, the owners and the players are fine with it because they are all making money - so why is everyone else complaining?
I agree with that. The NHL shouldn't cost as much as the big 3 sports yet it does. Why is everyone else complaining? Because the money they're making is coming out of our pockets.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Incorrect. While some UFA deals have been cheaper than they might have been previously, that's because teams have to pay more money to younger guys to "buy out" years of their UFA status. The expense isn't disappearing, it's being transferred from 31+ year olds to guys in their mid-20s.

It was definitely a concession to the players, and a major one.
Like kdb said, even if UFA was a concession from the owners to the players it still had no fiscal benefit for the players. Sure it rearranged the $$$ within the union, but it didn't give the union any more $$$.

And what does it matter anyway? In terms of the owners making their league more affordable for fans, what difference does it make how the PA's share of revenues is distributed between the players?
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
It has been said in this thread several times, look it up.
No I'm not going to look it up. You replied to my post, if you don't want to elaborate on what you're talking about than you shouldn't have replied in the first place.

No, league had to compromise with the PA. Since Bettman gave his speech way before lock-out, it's safe to assume that this is not the right system he was talking about back then.
Actually most of the quotes I have seen are from September of 04. That's not way before the lockout.

And besides, what you're telling me is that the right deal was a CBA that didn't have to be negotiated with the PA? I mean it's ridiculous Bettman would ever expect to get a deal like that, don't you think?

And don't you think it's ridiculous that he sold the lockout to us and the media by saying the league would become more affordable, but that was only if the league got a CBA which was basically impossible to get?
 

burstgreen

Registered User
May 11, 2006
125
0
Boston
And don't you think it's ridiculous that he sold the lockout to us and the media by saying the league would become more affordable, but that was only if the league got a CBA which was basically impossible to get?

Even if there exists a couple of random quotes where Bettman suggests the cap would lead to greater affordability, that is much different than selling the lockout to the fans based primarily on a promise of lower ticket prices. In the vast majority of coverage I saw, Bettman's primary explanation was the need to achieve cost certainty, which everyone understood as meaning that the owners wanted to make a buck rather than loosing many.

The primary problem that the owners were trying to fix through the lockout was high player pay, not high ticket prices.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
For the love of god, Bettman has not even once said that the current system would guarantee cheaper tickets.

He has once said something like "in IDEAL system the clubs would be able to drop ticket prices". We don't know what that ideal system is.

Every other comment has been "MORE AFFORDABLE" which is not the same as lower ticket prices. Too bad Larry's minimal IQ doesn't allow him to reach that conclusion.

Isn't the salary cap the "ideal" system?

"more affordable" would imply that prices before the lockout were less affordable. 2 seasons after the lockout, prices are as high or higher than before the lockout. that would imply tickets have become "less affordable"

http://www.cbc.ca/national/news/nhl/bettman.html
Gary mentions lower ticket prices half a dozen times at least in this interview.

http://www.nhlfa.com/news/nr07_03_05.asp
"I believe with the right economic system, many, many, if not most of our teams, will actually lower ticket prices. I believe we owe it to our fans to have affordable ticket prices. . . . More than a majority of our teams would use the opportunity of economic stability to lower their ticket prices"

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/transcript...ConfSep15.html
"I stand here today to say that we owe it to hockey's fans to achieve an economic system that will result in affordable ticket prices

http://www.nhl.com/fancentral/livech...man101304.html
"We believe that a partnership is critical for the future of our game. A partnership will ensure 30 healthy and competitive franchises with affordable ticket prices. This is a goal that we will not abandon."
 

EbencoyE

Registered User
Nov 26, 2006
1,958
5
"Attendance is down. It's likely down by considerably more than the reported numbers, as those merely reflect tickets distributed. The Penguins - forever looking to the league and their government for a bailout - were below 15,000 announced for six of their first 15 home games even with Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin having been dropped in their laps. The lower tier is half-empty for nearly every Devils game. There are thousands of empties downstairs almost every night in Detroit. The Islanders can't get people to come. Just look. Everyone can see. "

Wow, this guy loses all credibility with this. Reported attendance HAS ALWAYS BEEN TICKETS DISTRIBUTED. It's the same in every sports league EVER. It's not like they all the sudden started counting tickets distributed to make attendance look better. But it definately sounds like that's what he's trying to get people to believe.

And apparently he also forgot Malkin was injured for the beginning of the season and that everyone expected the Penguins to suck like usual - even with Crosby. Even still, Pittsburgh had and still has decent attendance. A new arena would help.

Devils have had bad attendance for 10 years. Funny that it's just being brought up now to make the New NHL look bad.

Same thing with Detroit - the lower bowl has always been mostly empty. But it's not because people don't care like he's trying to get people to think - it's because people have already bought those seats, yet don't use them and therefore they're left open.

I am worried about the Islanders though. They're doing pretty well yet still struggling to pull in. Maybe there's something going on over there that I don't know about that's keeping fans away.

Talk about bending facts to make things look worse than it is. Does this guy work for ESPN?

I do agree that the media coverage has been horrible. It's no wonder TV ratings are so bad when most people don't even know the NHL is shown on Versus/NBC now. My friends ask me all the time when ESPN/ABC is going to start showing NHL games again because they want to see more hockey. Then I tell them that they only show the NHL on Versus and their reply is either "What's Versus?" or "I don't think I get that channel." (Which, sadly, most people DON'T get Versus.)
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
I agree. I think it is a very safe assumption that the lowered UFA age was a concession to the players, not something that the owners wanted.

Just look at all of the NHL proposals during the lockout. None of them did anything nearly that drastic to the UFA age.

NHL's December 14 Proposal - Lower UFA age from 31yo to 30yo.

NHL's Febryary 2 Proposal - Lower UFA age from 31yo to 30yo and abolish Group V and Group VI UFA status. Option to Reduce UFA age to 28yo in return for the elimination of arbitration.

All the NHL proposals were either minimal and required a trade-off/give back by the players - elimination of Group V and Group VI UFAs and elimination of arbitration.

To think that the NHL would suddenly go from these positions to advocating the current 27yo or 7 Accrued Seasons UFA system is very hard to beleive. This is supported by the number of Owners / GMs who have groused about the new UFA system. It is pretty clear that the new UFA system was a demand by the players - to give them something - in exchange for swallowing the NHL positions on basically everything else. And, as I stated above, it was a non-monetary concession for the owners, they reluctantly gave in.

Whether the lowered UFA age may be a long term benefit for the owners - well, that's another question. I sincerely doubt, though, that the majority of NHL ownership has the foresight of Charley Finley to think in that way.


You seem to think the owners are smart enough to understand Finleys assertion and the inevitable benefit they get will be by accident

Is there an NHLPA proposal where they asked to have the UFA age lowered? Surely they must be or you would have said the players never asked for that too as an unbiased media person.

You yourself i remember writing that piece of poodle pandering puffery at the end of the lockout celebrating the players total capitulation at the hands of the victorious owners. Now you want to suggest that the owners got everything except for this which they had to concede to the powerful players association or they would have gone back on strike?

The players offered a rollback with no change in ufa age i believe. It was the owners who upon getting total capitulation, got everything they wanted. As you have previously pointed out.

For others to suggest that things arent working as good as they hoped now because Bettman didnt get everything he wanted is comedy gold jerry. Owners were never concerned with team building strategies, just 54% and leave the hassles to the GM's who largely dont seem to like it

When the 3rd owners lockout comes, because like the previous 100 years of history the owners just cant afford the escalating salaries of arnitration, and they need to remove arbitration, guaranteed contracts, and free agency at all, i imagine owners will have everyones support once more.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Actually, NYR, they did not. In February, they moved to a UFA age of 30 (or 28 if arbitration went away).

That being said, your point about its impact being blunted by the system is true. However, this is all beside the point, which is that the basic linchpin of this discussion - that tickets are not cheaper - is false. All of the blather about what Bettman did or did not say (and I believe that in all the many pronouncements he made, he was meticulous about pointing out that it was a club-by-club decision and avoiding a promise of lower ticket prices) is similarly irrelevant.

Its funny that all those not taken in hook line and sinker by owner propaganda remember, very well arguing daily on these and other message boards that ticket prices will not go down with the Cap. And now they all want to say they never said it.

I remember how everyone would tell me the cap wont get rid of elite teams, what about the Pats. Now they all say they knew it all along.

I remember saying how the Sens would lose all their star players, and I was assured this was to protect us so we wouldnt have tro choose between Redden and Chara. Now they say they knew it would happen.


The owners themselves have juts admitted that revenues are higher than they have ever been in the history of the NHL BECAUSE of higher ticket prices. And you want us to take it in your good word that ticket prices arent higher.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
League average in 03-04 was US$43.57. This year it is 43.13. When you account for inflation, tickets are 11% more affordable this season as compared to 03-04.

lol, oh the desperation of their rationalizations. So then, it was all worth it. They locked us all out for a year, but didnt raise prices during the lockout so we are all better off.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
You seem to think the owners are smart enough to understand Finleys assertion and the inevitable benefit they get will be by accident
No. I think the NHL owners are among the most backwards looking in all of sports - Jacobs, Wirtz, et al. I said that I doubted that the owners had the foresight of Charley Finley to be able to even think in those terms - a far cry from "You seem to think the owners are smart enough to understand Finleys assertion ..."

Is there an NHLPA proposal where they asked to have the UFA age lowered? Surely they must be or you would have said the players never asked for that too as an unbiased media person.
I tried looking for the details of the PA proposals before writing my response. Sadly alot of the old CBA sources are drying up. The nhlcbanews archive is no longer accessable from NHL.com or nhlcbanews.com, but can by acecssed by direct URL. The CBA Central section is gone from andrewsstarspage.com.

With a bit more time and Google I was able to find the details of NHLPA Dec 9 proposal (https://www.nhlpa.com/Proposal/PDFTransferFile.asp) and references to their Feb 14 and Feb 15 counter offers. In none of their offers do the NHLPA push for lower UFA ages. In their Dec 9 proposal, their only significant changes to free agency was a reduction in RFA QOs.

But given the PAs position - desperately trying to fight off a cap - they were in no position to be pushing demands in other areas.

Unbiased media person?????

You yourself i remember writing that piece of poodle pandering puffery at the end of the lockout celebrating the players total capitulation at the hands of the victorious owners. Now you want to suggest that the owners got everything except for this which they had to concede to the powerful players association or they would have gone back on strike?
I wrote a "piece of poodle pandering puffery" ??? Methinks you have me confused with someone else. Been practicing your alliteration much?

The owners did get everything they wanted - linkage, co-opting the PA's 24% rollback, and the "Triple Cap" (max player, team, and league wide caps) that the PA vowed they would never give. The PA pretty much capitulated, but they still needed a bone to throw to their membership. Somehow that 27yo UFA age ended up in final CBA and it certainly didn't come from the owners.
The players offered a rollback with no change in ufa age i believe. It was the owners who upon getting total capitulation, got everything they wanted. As you have previously pointed out.

For others to suggest that things arent working as good as they hoped now because Bettman didnt get everything he wanted is comedy gold jerry. Owners were never concerned with team building strategies, just 54% and leave the hassles to the GM's who largely dont seem to like it
I'm sure some owners were, but that was secondary to addressing the economic concerns which was GB's basic mission. And actually things are working about like I expected - maybe the owners are spending a bit more than I expected, but they have the safety net of the 54% Players Share, and the players are likely to get a rude escrow surprise at the end of the year.

And no I never beleived any claims that the CBA would lower ticket prices or make them "more affordable". Anyone with the most basic grasp of economics know that that was BS.
But despite what many in this thread claim, that was only a very small part of GBs and the NHLs arguments during the lockout.

The lockout was not to lower ticket prices. It was to fix a very broken and unsustainable economic system - and the new CBA does just that.
When the 3rd owners lockout comes, because like the previous 100 years of history the owners just cant afford the escalating salaries of arnitration, and they need to remove arbitration, guaranteed contracts, and free agency at all, i imagine owners will have everyones support once more.
Nice broad brush stroking there. Arbitration, like the lowered UFA age, is a zero sum game - it does not drive up total player costs. No one here (or anywhere I've seen) has seriously argued for non-guaranteed (NFL style) contracts or no free agency, but nice strawmen you have there.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Its funny that all those not taken in hook line and sinker by owner propaganda remember, very well arguing daily on these and other message boards that ticket prices will not go down with the Cap. And now they all want to say they never said it.

I remember how everyone would tell me the cap wont get rid of elite teams, what about the Pats. Now they all say they knew it all along.

I remember saying how the Sens would lose all their star players, and I was assured this was to protect us so we wouldnt have tro choose between Redden and Chara. Now they say they knew it would happen.


The owners themselves have juts admitted that revenues are higher than they have ever been in the history of the NHL BECAUSE of higher ticket prices. And you want us to take it in your good word that ticket prices arent higher.

Its really too bad those old posts don't exist anymore.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
oops i meant to type you think the owners aren't smart enough to have forseen it, but that they would benefit, which is a pretty bad typo.

I do love alliteration too much sometimes. Apologies, i think you're right, i must be confusing you with someone else.

I know there were many of you smart enough to see through the lower ticket prices claim. And yet here many of us were here, day after day having to dispell it to fans who believed Bettman said it. That if we just supported the owners in this, they would do us a favour afterwards. It sounds hilarious now i agree, yet many were giving their support for this reason. The lockout wasnt about lower ticket prices, but fan support was enhanced by the false belief it was.

The owners are the onnly one with any on the table offer to lower ufa ages, they got total capitulation, and yet you hikn they didnt want this one thing? Seems incredulous to me. The owners knew this was the trade off and they fought for it and won it.

And I remember when Burke came out and said arbitration is inflationary and it was widely parroted here. Of course now we all know it wasnt inflationary. And yet owners are setting it up as the next item they want gone in bargaining. And they want the ufa age raised. And of course they will say its for the good of the game. I was accused last time of setting up all these strawmen and one by one they have become real. Im not at all worried you feel its broadbrushing. I expect that now. Its an owner propaganda tool.


'
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
In a capped world lowering the UFA age really doesn't matter one way or another monetarily. It's nice for the players in that they can go where they want, but money wise there is no overall difference.

In an uncapped world lowering the UFA age would help the owners. By keeping the UFA age high there were a limited number of UFA's each year ... small number of UFA's = high demand .. salaries go up. More UFA's, less demand, salaries stay lower.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
oops i meant to type you think the owners aren't smart enough to have forseen it, but that they would benefit, which is a pretty bad typo.

I do love alliteration too much sometimes. Apologies, i think you're right, i must be confusing you with someone else.

I know there were many of you smart enough to see through the lower ticket prices claim. And yet here many of us were here, day after day having to dispell it to fans who believed Bettman said it. That if we just supported the owners in this, they would do us a favour afterwards. It sounds hilarious now i agree, yet many were giving their support for this reason. The lockout wasnt about lower ticket prices, but fan support was enhanced by the false belief it was.

The owners are the onnly one with any on the table offer to lower ufa ages, they got total capitulation, and yet you hikn they didnt want this one thing? Seems incredulous to me. The owners knew this was the trade off and they fought for it and won it.

And I remember when Burke came out and said arbitration is inflationary and it was widely parroted here. Of course now we all know it wasnt inflationary. And yet owners are setting it up as the next item they want gone in bargaining. And they want the ufa age raised. And of course they will say its for the good of the game. I was accused last time of setting up all these strawmen and one by one they have become real. Im not at all worried you feel its broadbrushing. I expect that now. Its an owner propaganda tool.


'
What a giant load of bull. Front to back. An affront to the facts and to logic. This post, and the several before it, is so loaded with inaccuracies, fallacious arguments and union claptrap that it does not merit a detailed response. Thinkwild, please refer back to every discussion during the lockout in which you participated and when (I might add) you were completely schooled without exception (or pwned, as the kids say these days) for the appropriate response.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GSC2k2*

Guest
To think that the NHL would suddenly go from these positions to advocating the current 27yo or 7 Accrued Seasons UFA system is very hard to beleive. This is supported by the number of Owners / GMs who have groused about the new UFA system. It is pretty clear that the new UFA system was a demand by the players - to give them something - in exchange for swallowing the NHL positions on basically everything else. And, as I stated above, it was a non-monetary concession for the owners, they reluctantly gave in.

Whether the lowered UFA age may be a long term benefit for the owners - well, that's another question. I sincerely doubt, though, that the majority of NHL ownership has the foresight of Charley Finley to think in that way.

While I do agree with you that a number of the owners might not have the intellectual horsepower to master this concept, I have absolutely no doubt that the negotiation positions and tactics were developed completely independently of the owners. The owners would have established the parameters of the deal that they could live with, for sure, but the means of getting there was undoubtedly established by the pros - Bettman, Daly, Zimmerman and the cadres of undoubtedly very smart guys running the NHL's negotiations on the ground. THOSE guys could figure out that down the road, when the league is a few years into the system and a lot of teams are close to the cap (because of its magnet-like qualities) and yet the UFA's start to multiply, there will be less and less cap space with which to "overpay" them, and the marketplace will begin to reset itself lower, and the complaints about losing players at a lower age will dissipate because many of the UFA's will have little place to go other than to return to their teams. That may or may not be how it works out, but anyone who does not believe the NHL's negotiating team did not plot this scenario out in advance is (a) underestimating them and (b) unaware of how much prep goes into the negotiation of deals. I outlined a scenario like the above off the top of my head in 5 minutes, without the benefit of their inside information and statistics and number-crunchers. What do you think Bettman, Daly et al can do with a phalanx of professionals at their side?
 

Drewr15

Registered User
Jun 30, 2005
5,911
1
New Milford, CT
I agree with that. The NHL shouldn't cost as much as the big 3 sports yet it does. Why is everyone else complaining? Because the money they're making is coming out of our pockets.

Alright I'm not even sure what we are arguing about anymore? So that money was coming out before the lockout and its still coming out after and your beef is basically that we shouldn't have had a lockout if nothing has changed? I personally was never under any delusion that prices would drop nor do I personally recall ever feeling promised that by Bettman BUT I do feel like the rate at which they were rising - at least in NJ - has slowed. Again though to think that the rise in tickets had nothing to do with the outrageous rise in players salaries over the last decade is ludicrous. And yes I know it was the owners who gave out those salaries but only certain ones and yet all had to pony up because of the actions of a few. So I felt that the cap was necessary to level the playing field and slow things down despite it hurting (or almost hurting) the Devils. Brooks is just pissed because it prevents his beloved Rangers for going around and buying whoever they want. And guess what - they are a better team for it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->