one example why the players dont TRUST

[ceber]

Great. Goodenow goes along. Since we are pulling numbers out of our ass, Bob will agree to any cap over $200 million a team.

Tom

Ok, so my little joke at the end prevented you from answering the question. I should've left it off.

Seriously: Assuming the players are fairly paid, what's the problem with limiting the amount a team can spend on salaries as a whole?

Are the players and supporters of that side saying that no players will ever be fairly paid under a cap? On what is that opinion based? Is it a gut reaction?

Are they upset because it will limit where they can play? I think it probably would limit the teams available for a UFA in some cases. But since UFA supply is artificially limited already, I guess I don't see a problem with artificially limiting UFA demand a bit.

 

[me2]

let the person(company) who has privy to all the information of revenues for the rink, team and other associated revenues decide for themselves how much they want to allocate to players salaries. only they know for sure what is fair for them.

dr

Didn't they already do this when they all decided to pay $31m max via hard cap?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Didn't they already do this when they all decided to pay $31m max via hard cap?

well, its called collective bargaining and for it to become "legislated" the owners require the players approval.

the players dont approve, so they can not legislate it. if they want to only pay 31m, i guess they can flirt the line of collusion.

most NHL teams have no need for a 31m hard cap though.

dr

edit: anyhow, my point being, if they are choosing 31m out of the sky, then so be it (if the players will agree). however, if they are getting 31m from some formula of their revenues, its really not a possible solution and reeks of problems.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Seriously: Assuming the players are fairly paid, what's the problem with limiting the amount a team can spend on salaries as a whole?

What's the problem from whose perspective?

For the players, the problem is the assumption. The players define fair as whatever the owners are willing to pay. Obviously, then, by that definition, a system that places an artificial limit on what the owners can pay is unfair.

For this fan - who doesn't care about fair - the problem is that it creates too much player movement and mediocrity across the league. If a system is structured to punish competence and reward incompetence, we will get incompetence. Good hockey teams are supposed to be really difficult to put together. Good hockey teams should cost a lot more than lousy hockey teams. Almost all revenues are local, so if the fans of the Detroit Red Wings are willing to pay ridiculous prices, the team should be allowed to run a ridiculous payroll.

As long as teams can't use their market size to purchase a winner and as long as most markets can generate the revenues to pay a winner, the league is fair.

I don't want a system where every fan of every team believes they have a chance to win each year. At best, the NHL will be marketing a false hope. At worst, we end up with a league with all the teams clustered between a little below average to a little above average.

Tom

 

[ceber]

As long as teams can't use their market size to purchase a winner and as long as most markets can generate the revenues to pay a winner, the league is fair.

Can you see any system that creates this situation? Sounds like a good one, to me, but I can't see how you can make that happen, apart from splitting up the league.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Can you see any system that creates this situation? Sounds like a good one, to me, but I can't see how you can make that happen, apart from splitting up the league.

I think it is the situation right now. If a market is not big enough to produce winner's revenues and a winner's payroll with a winning team - and I don't think there are any such markets - it is not an NHL market.

I'd rather drop the teams that can't compete than have an NFL style mediocrity league.

Tom

 

[quat]

What's the problem from whose perspective?

For the players, the problem is the assumption. The players define fair as whatever the owners are willing to pay. Obviously, then, by that definition, a system that places an artificial limit on what the owners can pay is unfair.

Actually, this is extremely missleading. It's not what "owners" are willing to pay, it's a single owner. The league is such that if one owner overpays, or pays higher than everyone else, it pushes up the rest of the salaries.

For this fan - who doesn't care about fair - the problem is that it creates too much player movement and mediocrity across the league. If a system is structured to punish competence and reward incompetence, we will get incompetence. Good hockey teams are supposed to be really difficult to put together. Good hockey teams should cost a lot more than lousy hockey teams. Almost all revenues are local, so if the fans of the Detroit Red Wings are willing to pay ridiculous prices, the team should be allowed to run a ridiculous payroll.

This kind of statement really galls me. The players get to invent their definition of fair, and now fans that don't support the players version of "fair" now don't care about what's fair. This is a pretty twisted take on logic.

As long as teams can't use their market size to purchase a winner and as long as most markets can generate the revenues to pay a winner, the league is fair.

I don't want a system where every fan of every team believes they have a chance to win each year. At best, the NHL will be marketing a false hope. At worst, we end up with a league with all the teams clustered between a little below average to a little above average.



Tom

History of the NHL has proven that teams go through cycles, and if a team doesn't have a good foundation, they'll never do anything. But it won't be caused by lack of money, or other teams having an unfair advantage due to their larger market. How you can interpret this to be negative is truly creative.

 

[quat]

I think it is the situation right now. If a market is not big enough to produce winner's revenues and a winner's payroll with a winning team - and I don't think there are any such markets - it is not an NHL market.

I'd rather drop the teams that can't compete than have an NFL style mediocrity league.

Tom

Well there's a big problem identified. You actually believe the NFL is an average league.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The NHLPA is only looking at books to critize them. The hidden revenue they "caught" is that they don't agree with general accounting principles (ie: they want other shows revenue at the rink to count in "hockey revenue" and so on). I doubt the NHLPA would want an accountant to audit the NHL for fear that he'd find all the accounting principles used as decent enough and revenues being split accordingly.

You doubt it. But we won't know, because owners won't open books to the union.

Also, as for losing money, I don't see the big deal about "balancing" for tax purposes. There is so many other things they can do. Also enterprise and personal revenues don't mix. In other words, if the Ottawa Senators make a loss, Melnyk cannot directly affect his own revenues, which is probably what he would balance. Spending more money to make a loss is stupid, as you'll spend more money than the tax you save.

Well how about reports that the rangers accounting practices make it so that the rangers lose money, on paper, so that cablevision's profits look better.

 

[mr gib]

Now THIS is a REAL laughing stock! David Beckham made 65 million. So? First of all, he made about 5 million PLAYING football (soccer), and the rest came of commercial money. He's with Pepsi, Gillette, Adidas... Should I go on? Tell me, how many viewers are there in a football game in Santiago Bernabeu (Real Madrid's home stadium)? About 80 000 in every game. Do you know, how many people watch the Champions League? The numbers are hundreds of millions. Not millions, or hundreds of thousands, as it's with the NHL.

How about NBA? Which has bigger revenues, NHL or NBA? TV incomes? Sponsorships? I'm suprosed you didn't bring up NFL and MLB too.

Tiger Woods is an individual athlete. The organisers are WINNING. Golf has TV viewers millions after millions watching Tiger Woods play. By the way, Tiger has earned most of his money by advertisement.

Why didn't you bring Formula 1 into the debate? I mean, the highest paid driver got 50 million dollars for driving 18 races and testing per season (M Schumacher). They only need two race drivers, not 25 players, but they do need hundreds of engineers (the best at least), and most have a test driver or two on their payroll too. So why not take them into account too? Oh yeah, maybe it's because although Ferrari has a budget of about 1,2 BILLION dollars, they still make profit. An ad in the drivers HELMET cost a heck of a lot of money. Or is it because they have about 300 million viewers per race?

Just wondering...

obviously the nhl has not created a partnership with it's player's - do the paul kariya - disney - research - see dr - tom - and thinkwild - i'm a bit too emotional -

 

[rwilson99]

obviously the nhl has not created a partnership with it's player's - do the paul kariya - disney - research - see dr - tom - and thinkwild - i'm a bit too emotional -

There are very few partnerships in the NHL.

The NFL works with a salary cap tied to revenues because the owner hold one another accountable on revenues because most NFL revenue is shared.

30% of ticket revenue and nearly all TV revenue are shared by NFL teams.

Those revenues drive the NFL salary cap.

In the NHL, CableVision can purchase Rangers telecasts at a deep discount, robbing Rangers Hockey of revenue while maintaining the bottom line of the parent corporation.

You can't have a meaninful salary cap, without massive revenue sharing.

It is intellectually dishonest to point to the success of the NFL salary cap, as the NHL has, while ignoring the fact that most revenues are shared by American Football Clubs.

 

[mr gib]

There are very few partnerships in the NHL.

The NFL works with a salary cap tied to revenues because the owner hold one another accountable on revenues because most NFL revenue is shared.

30% of ticket revenue and nearly all TV revenue are shared by NFL teams.

Those revenues drive the NFL salary cap.

In the NHL, CableVision can purchase Rangers telecasts at a deep discount, robbing Rangers Hockey of revenue while maintaining the bottom line of the parent corporation.

You can't have a meaninful salary cap, without massive revenue sharing.

It is intellectually dishonest to point to the success of the NFL salary cap, as the NHL has, while ignoring the fact that most revenues are shared by American Football Clubs.

i said partnership - not salary cap -

 

[chriss_co]

I don't want a system where every fan of every team believes they have a chance to win each year. At best, the NHL will be marketing a false hope. At worst, we end up with a league with all the teams clustered between a little below average to a little above average.

Tom

Do you think players enjoy the fact that the team they are on stinks and won't have a chance at a championship? I don't understand why you don't like a league where every team has a chance of winning (at the start of the season).

Its not like games are going to be 0-0 every night because the teams are equal. Instead you will have tight exciting hockey that goes back and forth. Teams will take more risks during a game because they know they have a legitimate chance of scoring (since teams would be fairly equal). I mean, that is the reason why teams revert to the trap or a defensive system, because they know they don't have the level of skill required to 'play with the big boys'.

Plus, you won't have teams all hovering around .500 because managerial skills still count. This time, their skills wont be 'capped' by their financial situation. I know, I know you guys are all crying out right now that 'wait a sec, if a cap is in place, won't that cap their skills?' The answer is no because a cap will ensure all teams are dealing at the same financial situation so in essence their skills aren't 'capped' relative to another team.

I'd rather drop the teams that can't compete than have an NFL style mediocrity league.

Tom

I have yet to hear a complaint about the NFL. It is one of the most successful sporting events in the world. Fans love it because there is a good chance that their team will be competitive that year. The games are exciting. The players are making loads of money. The league is more than successful financially. Small markets are competitive.

If the NHL can correct itself to a situation similar to the NFL then this lockout is worth it.

 

[mr gib]

Do you think players enjoy the fact that the team they are on stinks and won't have a chance at a championship? I don't understand why you don't like a league where every team has a chance of winning (at the start of the season).

Its not like games are going to be 0-0 every night because the teams are equal. Instead you will have tight exciting hockey that goes back and forth. Teams will take more risks during a game because they know they have a legitimate chance of scoring (since teams would be fairly equal). I mean, that is the reason why teams revert to the trap or a defensive system, because they know they don't have the level of skill required to 'play with the big boys'.

Plus, you won't have teams all hovering around .500 because managerial skills still count. This time, their skills wont be 'capped' by their financial situation. I know, I know you guys are all crying out right now that 'wait a sec, if a cap is in place, won't that cap their skills?' The answer is no because a cap will ensure all teams are dealing at the same financial situation so in essence their skills aren't 'capped' relative to another team.


I have yet to hear a complaint about the NFL. It is one of the most successful sporting events in the world. Fans love it because there is a good chance that their team will be competitive that year. The games are exciting. The players are making loads of money. The league is more than successful financially. Small markets are competitive.

If the NHL can correct itself to a situation similar to the NFL then this lockout is worth it.

disagree - most of the nfl games are not very entertaining at all - don't get me wrong some are -

the free agency - salary cap - roster moves are eroding fan loyalty - ie tampa bay - sapp and lynch gone - not at the gate - although arizona and oakland do not sell out every game - but tv ratings - they have been going down each year -

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

a league where every team has a chance of winning (at the start of the season)..

the answer is this .... if every team has an equal chance of winning, that means every team has an equal chance of LOSING.

how would you like to build your team the right way, only to lose to a team that is a royal screw up (like NYR for example). under the current CBA, NYR rarely wins and OTT wins alot. under a CBA where every team has an equal chance, NYR now has a chance to beat OTT.

wouldnt you rather know you can build your team the right way, like COL, OTT and NJD have done and know you have a chance to compete for a decade ? why should we level the playing field for NYR, WSH and TOR ?

secondly, to get a CAP, the owners are going to have to give up major concessions on free agency. under today's CBA, OTT has exclusive rights to Hossa, Redden Havlat, Spezza and so on. CGY has the rights to Iginla for 13 years, TBY has the rights to Richards and LEvacalier for those 13 years as well. Under a new CBA, not only would it be harder to keep these elite level players to be retained due to the cap, but also because teams like NYR will now be able to bid on them with a realistic chance to get them too ! unlike today where no one even bothers trying to sign Iginla other than CGY.

Salary Cap ... you small markets better be careful what you wish for !

DR

 

[chriss_co]

the answer is this .... if every team has an equal chance of winning, that means every team has an equal chance of LOSING.

how would you like to build your team the right way, only to lose to a team that is a royal screw up (like NYR for example). under the current CBA, NYR rarely wins and OTT wins alot. under a CBA where every team has an equal chance, NYR now has a chance to beat OTT.

wouldnt you rather know you can build your team the right way, like COL, OTT and NJD have done and know you have a chance to compete for a decade ? why should we level the playing field for NYR, WSH and TOR ?

Would you rather have the situation in baseball where it doesn't matter what teams like Baltimore or Toronto does because they will never make the playoffs in that division. Boston will always win the wild card and the yankees will always win their division. I'd rather win a little than win nothing at all. Why should small market teams always be faced with just squeaking into the playoffs?

And who cares if you lose to the Rangers. Currently, their management stinks. But in 5 years you never know. Maybe all those prospects they drafted will turn into something good.

Just because you level the playing field doesn't mean a team will do any better than they currently are. It just means things are more fair in terms of negotiating contracts etc. Your management is still key to your survival. But now atleast small markets have a chance.

secondly, to get a CAP, the owners are going to have to give up major concessions on free agency. under today's CBA, OTT has exclusive rights to Hossa, Redden Havlat, Spezza and so on. CGY has the rights to Iginla for 13 years, TBY has the rights to Richards and LEvacalier for those 13 years as well. Under a new CBA, not only would it be harder to keep these elite level players to be retained due to the cap, but also because teams like NYR will now be able to bid on them with a realistic chance to get them too ! unlike today where no one even bothers trying to sign Iginla other than CGY.

You are assuming Calgary can afford to keep Iggy. Who cares how many years Edmonton could hold onto Cujo/Guerin/Weight/Carter when they can't even afford to keep one.

Salary Cap ... you small markets better be careful what you wish for !

DR

I think you should live in a small market and follow one before you make that judgement. I have been anticipating this lockout for 5 years now. I want hockey as much as everyone does but I want a game that is healthy and allows everyone to be competitive.

How can you guys believe in uneven playing fields?? I don't get it... Why should fans go to a game when their team doesn't stand a chance of winning?!

You can't honestly tell me that you go to games knowing your team sucks and is going to lose and that it is entertaining to watch when the other team completely dominates yours.

And maybe we won't be able to keep Iggy but atleast we won't have to wait 7 years before making the playoffs.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I think you should live in a small market and follow one before you make that judgement..

i live in Calgary and follow them quite closely actually.

DR