PA's turn to make an offer the NHL cannot refuse..

[CGG]

I dont endorse your numbers but its good to know that the PA thinks the team should make less of a profit than one player...5.5M$ per team. wow.

You don't have to endorse my numbers if you don't want. Gary produced them, so go blame him. $2.1 billion is accepted as "the" revenue number had this whole thing not fallen apart and got a season cancelled. 54% is a simple multiplication and $800 million is what the league themselves used in forecasts as non-player "operating" costs.

Think anyone who invested $50 million or $75 million or $85 million in the last decade for an expansion team wouldn't want a guaranteed $5.5 million profit each year? That's a pretty damn good return, not to mention all of the other benefits that come along with owning a hockey team. You're completely ignoring the other half of the equation too. When was the last time a hockey player sold himself for a capital gain? Happens all the time when teams get sold.

$5.5 million in pure profit on an avg of $70 million in revenues. That's a 7.9% profit margin. Again, not too shabby, and a heck of a lot better than what WalMart pulls in.

Besides, if you want to use averages, that average of $5.5 million a team would be about 4 "average" players, not 1. If you don't think that's fair, then please, tell me what is. Should the Carolina Hurricanes make 5 times more than Nik Lidstrom just because they are a hockey team as opposed to a player? Should it be Carolina's god given right to make a profit of $10 million a year? $20 million? $50 million? What's the right number?

 

[codswallop]

Wait a minute, I thought the absence of a salary cap was supposed to drive salaries up. Now a salary cap is going to pull salaries upward?

They both will, if the cap level is high enough.

Obviously, not every team will reach that upper limit but they will all gravitate towards it in the near future. Or like I said they might stick to a low budget, hope to get lucky one year while not ticking off their fans too much. Not exactly an awe inspiring way to move a franchise forward.

It's less of an upwards drag than no salary cap, but that's no help towards the making of a healthy league (especially when this one is coughing and wheezing as it is).

 

[Hoss]

First, the condescending tone of the first two sentences is unnecessary. I realize you're posting on HFboards, so that's par for the course, but every disagreement doesn't have to include calling someone else an idiot, or call their credentials into question.

Well said.

 

[CGG]

A slight edge? Have you watched hockey over the last 10 years? The high spending teams with smart management have won all but one Cup since 1993. The low spending teams with smart management have ONE Cup since 1993. Correct me if I'm wrong, but has a team with a top 5 payroll other than the Rangers missed the playoffs over the past decade? These are things you simply cannot ignore. Money clearly gives an advantage.

Why can't we count the Rangers? That's one of the top 5 teams that missed the playoffs in each of the last 7 years right there. And why only top 5, why not top 10? Last year alone 3 teams out of the top 10 missed the playoffs - Rangers, Ducks, Capitals.

How 'bout using the second round as a benchmark, 8 teams made it that far, only 4 were in the Top 13:

Tampa - 21st in payroll
Calgary - 19th in payroll
Philly - 4th in payroll
San Jose - 20th in payroll
Toronto - 5th in payroll
Colorado - 7th in payroll
Montreal - 14th in payroll
Detroit - 1st in payroll

Surprise, the lower-paying team won every series in the 2nd round. In fact, after the 1st round, the only "non-upset" (higher payroll beats lower payroll) was when Calgary (19th) knocked off San Jose (20th).

If you're a high priced team and you suck, chances are you sell off your team, so you at least suck at a lower cost and you get some assets for the future. Even the Rangers figured this out last year. That's a big part of why low money teams generally miss the playoffs. They're low money for a reason, being they're no good.

 

[WC Handy*]

Maybe when you realize that nobody is saying that money guarantees success you'll realize that money gives a distinct advantage. Until then, I'm done trying to convince you or anyone else because no rational thinking person could believe that money doesn't give an advantage.

 

[Weary]

The idea that the Devils don't spend a lot of money is a misconception. They had a payroll over $52M when they won the cup in 2003 and they are always in the top 10.

Speaking of misconceptions, there's one.
Devils payroll rank:
1998-1999: 19/27
1999-2000: 15/28
2000-2001: 13/30
2001-2002: 12/30
2002-2003: 8/30
2003-2004: 10/30

Using payrolls listed on Andrew's Dallas Stars Page

 

[SENSible1*]

If money provides no advantage, why are big market fans up in arms about not being able to spend more?

Is it a coincidence that the majority of the most passionate PA supporters are from the big markets?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If money provides no advantage, why are big market fans up in arms about not being able to spend more?

Is it a coincidence that the majority of the most passionate PA supporters are from the big markets?

well i live in calgary .... although i happen to think calgary is one of the premier hockey markets on the planet and dont believe for a second they are disadvantaged by the old CBA or any of the new ones proposed by the PA.

although, i wouldnt ever vote for the NDP either, which i bet most of the pro "its not fair" side do.

dr

 

[nyr7andcounting]

If money provides no advantage, why are big market fans up in arms about not being able to spend more?

Is it a coincidence that the majority of the most passionate PA supporters are from the big markets?

Because my owner paid more for his team than a small market owner and I pay WAYYYYY higher ticket prices and concession prices and transportation prices etc. just to see that team play. So if my owner has the money, why shouldn't he be able to spend it on his investment?

The only way I support not letting the rich teams spend (not unlimited but at least a little more than most teams) is if you take the revenue out of Dolan's hands and use it to help the league (revenue sharing). But other than that, what good does it do me to be paying more to see my team yet my owner isn't allowed to return the favor by spending more on the team?...and on top of that all that extra money I pay for a ticket is going straight into Dolan's pocket! And what good does all that profit for Dolan do for the league or the fans? Aside from lowering the market value for some of their players, small markets will still be weak and most of them will still be losing money and the only change is I'm paying the same high prices to see (most of the time) less talented hockey.

 

[joepeps]

Because my owner paid more for his team than a small market owner and I pay WAYYYYY higher ticket prices and concession prices and transportation prices etc. just to see that team play. So if my owner has the money, why shouldn't he be able to spend it on his investment?

The only way I support not letting the rich teams spend (not unlimited but at least a little more than most teams) is if you take the revenue out of Dolan's hands and use it to help the league (revenue sharing). But other than that, what good does it do me to be paying more to see my team yet my owner isn't allowed to return the favor by spending more on the team?...and on top of that all that extra money I pay for a ticket is going straight into Dolan's pocket! And what good does all that profit for Dolan do for the league or the fans? Aside from lowering the market value for some of their players, small markets will still be weak and most of them will still be losing money and the only change is I'm paying the same high prices to see (most of the time) less talented hockey.

agreed 100%...

I can't even afford to go to A Maple Leafs game before... what you think i'm going to go and watch a game for the same price for crap players they had to sign to stay under a cap??? Or a player I like and they have a chance to get, which would drive up fan interest in the game, thtat they can't get because of a cap...

Meah... a cap will ruin the League.... not for the lower **** teams, but for the high prices teams....which isn't fair......

A tax which goes to the small market teams is more fair.. BUT THEY have to spend the money on the players.. thats the only catch.. they can't pocket it...

 

[I in the Eye]

That's a straw man. Show me equally smart management in those two budgets. If all levels of management are equally smart and equally good, the one with more money to spend has a slight edge -- but the smart management also is not going to keep spending to the upper limit of the cap. He'll stop when he has his team. Part of smart is not spending for the sake of spending.

I'll admit, I don't know a damned thing about the Blues -- they've never interested me enough to pay attention. However, if you tell me what you're getting at with that reference, I'll read it.

As an aside: why is everyone so hot and bothered about chasing parity. Parity is boring. Parity opens the door to homogeny. Isn't watching David beat Goliath a big chunk of the appeal of sport?

Economics are only one factor that leads to disparity. If you really want to chase parity so much, then go whole hog. No one should be able to have better trainers than the other teams. No one should be better conditioned. No one should have better personnel evaluation or development. No Scotty Bowmans behind the bench. No Lamariellos, Burkes or Lombardis in the front office. Any of these things can give an (unfair||competitive) advantage. I think there's more of a direct corellation between just about any of these to success, than there is a corellation between budget-size and success.

This is supposed to be the ultimate team sport. Everyone is supposed to give their all ... if their 'all' includes more talent in management, better systems on ice or a fatter wallet, then that's what they should use. No two teams are the same, as it should be.

Honestly -- don't you get just the teensiest bit of schadenfreude out of seeing the high-spending Rangers stink on ice year after year? Or watching Bobby Clarke fall just shy of a cup run year after year? Watching the Leafs buy up every coffin-dodging superstar, and still not close the deal? Why curtail your own enjoyment of the game? Honestly, if you force these teams to spend more wisely, they will get better -- they will hoist the cup.

Awesome post, IMO

Competence is much more important than $ in determining success or failure... Those arguing otherwise are basing their beliefs solely on logical arguments - not concrete research, nor long-standing theory...

The keys to success are level of competence, quality of support group, quality of available resources, and luck - with competence being the driving force...

 

[WC Handy*]

Those arguing otherwise are basing their beliefs solely on logical arguments - not concrete research, nor long-standing theory...

What a load of BS. PLENTY of evidence and research has been presented to prove that money is a large factor in determining success but you people claim that the single incompetent high spending team and a few one year wonders prove that money isn't a factor. If such a report existed, I could show you a study done by a sports economist that proves correlation and you people still wouldn't admit it.

 

[WC Handy*]

Because my owner paid more for his team than a small market owner and I pay WAYYYYY higher ticket prices and concession prices and transportation prices etc. just to see that team play. So if my owner has the money, why shouldn't he be able to spend it on his investment?

Why should he be allowed to spend 4 times as much as other markets? Because he happens to own a team in a big market? Spoken like a true selfish fan.

The only way I support not letting the rich teams spend (not unlimited but at least a little more than most teams) is if you take the revenue out of Dolan's hands and use it to help the league (revenue sharing).

Both sides have already agreed that revenue sharing is necessary.

But other than that, what good does it do me to be paying more to see my team yet my owner isn't allowed to return the favor by spending more on the team?

It's not about YOU.

...and on top of that all that extra money I pay for a ticket is going straight into Dolan's pocket!

The extra money (that isn't be shared) is and SHOULD go in Dolan's pocket, because like you said, he paid more for his team.

And what good does all that profit for Dolan do for the league or the fans? Aside from lowering the market value for some of their players, small markets will still be weak and most of them will still be losing money

Two leagues with caps have small market teams making money without a problem. As long as the cap is low enough and the revenue sharing is sufficient enough, small market teams in the NHL will make money too.

..and the only change is I'm paying the same high prices to see (most of the time) less talented hockey.

But I thought money wasn't a factor?

 

[CGG]

What a load of BS. PLENTY of evidence and research has been presented to prove that money is a large factor in determining success but you people claim that the single incompetent high spending team and a few one year wonders prove that money isn't a factor. If such a report existed, I could show you a study done by a sports economist that proves correlation and you people still wouldn't admit it.

It might show correlation, but wouldn't show causation. That's your biggest problem, proving that money causes success, not the other way around. Sure it helps, and everyone would rather have money than no money. But does money actually cause success? The Rangers say no, but you don't want to talk about them.

If you're successful, chances are you've got some good players on your team, who are performing well, and therefore need to be paid more than the shmucks on some other team. New Jersey did the following:

- lost Shanahan to free agency but got Scott Stevens in return
- unearthed world's greatest goalie Martin Brodeur after 19 teams passed on him in the draft
- traded journeyman Tom Kurvers for the #3 pick that became Scott Niedermayer
- rescued Brian Rafalski from Europe
- picked up undrafted John Madden
- found Gomez late in the 1st round and Elias in the 2nd round

Those are all incredible moves that every team should be jealous of. And not one of them was due to the Devils' "wealth". But these people cost money. So their costs increased with their success. New Jersey smartly held on to their core guys (mentioned above) and got rid of other dollars (i.e. Mogilny) in order to keep their core instead of crying poor and firesaling the lot of them. And with success brought more playoff rounds and more money, allowing them to pay more to keep their players.

So are they good because they're expensive or "expensive" because they're good? You might expect them to make the playoffs based on their #10 payroll, I expect them to make the playoffs because they're a damn good team.

 

[signalIInoise]

But other than that, what good does it do me to be paying more to see my team yet my owner isn't allowed to return the favor by spending more on the team?

It's not about YOU.

If it's not about him, then who is it about? Big market fandom (which I'm not a part of) has been more than ready to share their bounty, but it seems very cold to me that you'd then limit the amount of the remainder they can use to better themselves.

The romantic side of my nature loves the 'take one for the team' attitude -- but pragmatically, I sure don't like it when some remote person/agency decides for me that it's my time to take it, especially when they themselves are the ones reaping the most immediate benefit from my sacrifice.

By all means -- small markets can and should take what the big markets give to them through profit sharing. They should be *required* to spend that on their teams. And they should not deny large markets their ability to do the same with what they've earned rather than been gifted with.

I'm not arguing that large markets be able to spend to the moon -- but I think that a generous range from low-end to high-end in any cap system is the least they can be given in return.

 

[I in the Eye]

What a load of BS. PLENTY of evidence and research has been presented to prove that money is a large factor in determining success but you people claim that the single incompetent high spending team and a few one year wonders prove that money isn't a factor. If such a report existed, I could show you a study done by a sports economist that proves correlation and you people still wouldn't admit it.

heh... more than one report exists (on what actually determines success in the real world)... More than one book, also... Here are a couple suggested readings off the top of my head just for you to initially consider:

- The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action by Jeffrey Pfeffer, Robert I. Sutton
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...r=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-0335084-2831842?v=glan

ce&s=books&n=507846

- The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment by Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-0335084-2831

842?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

BTW, my opinion is that money is important (included in the resource variable)... My argument is that competence is much more important than money... But this doesn't topologically imply that money isn't important...

If you truly want to create parity or closer to equal competitive balance, what you should actually be supporting is a competency cap... You may as well be supporting a luck cap instead of a salary cap... It will do about as good (limited success) in actually achieving competitive balance...

Show me a study done by a credible sports economist that proves that money is more important than competence in determining team success, and I'll definitely consider it (don't assume what I'd admit or not - doing this perhaps showcases your shortsightedness... I'm not on here to flex my brain... I'm here to learn something and discuss these issues that impact hockey)... My education suggests that your argument is based on your imagination... and while your imagination is creative, it needs to also take into account a bit more reality... That you're twisting the 'evidence' to fit what looks correct in your brain...

But I'm definitely open to the possibility that the many books and research reports are wrong, and that you are right...

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Why should he be allowed to spend 4 times as much as other markets? Because he happens to own a team in a big market? Spoken like a true selfish fan

Not once have I ever said he should be able to spend 4 times as much as other markets. But if I am paying higher prices in NY, and all that extra revenue isn't getting shared in order to help the league, than why shouldn't he be allowed to spend a little more than other markets?

You left out the part that answers your question-
"The only way I support not letting the rich teams spend (not unlimited but at least a little more than most teams) is if you take the revenue out of Dolan's hands and use it to help the league (revenue sharing)."
No one should be spending 4 times other markets, but that doesn't mean every team should spend the same when they are all vastly different.

He doesn't "happen" to own a team in a big market. Owners don't wake up one morning with a team. He paid hunreds of millions of dollars for his team and the building they play in. So IF he believes that spending money on players is the best thing for his investment, and IF the money he would spend isn't going to help the league in any way, than why shouldn't he be able to do it?

And, how am I selfish if the very advantage in spending that I think should exist is pretty much the sole reason my team has been on of the worst run franchises in sports for almost a decade? I have no problem with the Rangers having the same payroll as every other team, as long as all the revenue they don't need for salaries is going to go to small markets or to the league to improve itself. Otherwise it doesn't help anything but Dolan's wallet and even the NY fans who are paying outrageous prices don't get to see more talent on the ice. The fact that, as a big market fan, I want revenue sharing out of this more than anything...wouldn't that be called unselfish?

Both sides have already agreed that revenue sharing is necessary.

Unfortunetly the NHL waited a little long for that and we still don't know how much they have agreed to share. If the NHL wakes up and realizes they need to share revenues at a big rate it will be the best thing that's ever happened to the league, at least under Bettman.

It's not about YOU.

It's pretty clear that the question I was replying to was "If money provides no advantage, why are big market fans up in arms about not being able to spend more? Is it a coincidence that the majority of the most passionate PA supporters are from the big markets?" As a big market fan and an anti-nhl follower of this ****, that question IS about me.

And, much like the two sides have, you have forgotten that this lockout is about the fans (at least that's what the NHL will tell you). We pay ticket prices, we pay the player salaries and without a TV contract, the fans make a huge contribution to that $2.1B in revenues.

The extra money (that isn't be shared) is and SHOULD go in Dolan's pocket, because like you said, he paid more for his team.

No, whatever isn't shared should be for the owners use. If an owner believes spending money on players is the best thing for their investment than they should be able to do it. If Dolan wants to pocket as much revenue as he can, that is fine, but he should also be able to spend it on his franchise if he wants to.

Two leagues with caps have small market teams making money without a problem. As long as the cap is low enough and the revenue sharing is sufficient enough, small market teams in the NHL will make money too.

Those small market teams aren't making money because of the cap, or they aren't making money at all. The Knicks spend $100M on payroll in the NBA, are you trying to tell me the small markets are helped by that cap? The only reason small markets make money in those leagues is because of revenue sharing and and huge TV deals. Unfortunetly the NHL hasn't supported the first and doesn't look like it will ever have the second.

But I thought money wasn't a factor?

Huh? It's a factor for me and unless you are filthy rich, the ticket prices in NYC would be a factor for you too. If I am paying more than the average market to see the Rangers, and if my owner believes that spending more money on talent than the average market is what's best for his investment, and IF the extra revenue in NY isn't going to small markets or to help the league, than why shouldn't I be able to see more talented players on the ice than the average market?

 

[WC Handy*]

It might show correlation, but wouldn't show causation. That's your biggest problem, proving that money causes success, not the other way around. Sure it helps, and everyone would rather have money than no money. But does money actually cause success? The Rangers say no, but you don't want to talk about them.

Why would my biggest problem be proving money causes success when I have never once even suggested such a thing. What I have said is that money is one of the factors when determining success.

What I have already proven and you have justed admitted is that there is CORRELATION between payroll and success. If you want, you can pretend that correlation is completely coincidental, but I'm going to continue to believe what is obvious: that money provides an advantage.

Never once have I said that every team has been able to take advantage of that.

Never once have I said that it's impossible for a small market to complete despite the disadvantage.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Its interesting to monitor the slowly degrading theme of this thread....

 

[I in the Eye]

but I'm going to continue to believe what is obvious: that money provides an advantage.

I agree...

Can you, however, accept that competence provides a greater advantage than money?

 

[signalIInoise]

That money becomes an advantage when competence determines what to do with it?

You've put it better than I've been able to. This I agree with. Money alone is meaningless. Knowing what needs doing means a lot. Knowing what to do, and having the means to do it -- is definitely a leg up.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

The paredox is that good managment.. equals a larger payroll... or a sucky team..

Say you are a GM, you manage to put together a good core and make a playoff run. Say you perhaps get lucky and make the conference finals, or perhaps even win the cup with a middle/smallish payroll.

Your team profits.

Players value go up as they are now known as "winners". Retaining FA and resigning RFA becomes more difficult.

3 options

1) Pay your guys what they are worth after the playoff run. Your payroll jumps, but you made good money by going deep last year and your team seems set to do so again. Along the way, you may see a slight hole in the roster, and at the deadline you take on more payroll by trading for a guy to get you through the stretch and into the playoffs. Once this starts.. its hard to stop doing, as each year, you feel you need to add to make the final push(colorado, detroit, Leafs, ext)

2) You keep one or two key players from the core and resign some cheaper talent in hopes of finding magic again(see Calgary and their keeping Iggy, but letting Conroy go). You look good to get to the post season, but from there is a longshot for you to win. Payroll slightly increases due to paying the core guy a big load of cash, but you cut costs and try to be a good GM by being a bit lucky with brining in the right pieces to get you there. Bad news, is since you paid the big name, you MUST make the playoffs or you may lose some cash.

3) Your team makes a great run, but due to money concerns, you must let the guys that will get more go.(the Oliers) Luck may get you in to the post season every so often, but once that happens its a blessing and a curse. You make the playoffs, but must let whoever gets you there go as soon as they start commanding more cash.



My point, well.. I don't really know... but Good managment leads to higher payrolls, leads to typically higher revenues, which leads to an increased pressure to preform, which leads to the need to win more to pay off those payrolls, which leads to needing to bring in more talent to make sure you win.... and so on..

 

[me2]

I agree...

Can you, however, accept that competence provides a greater advantage than money?

Money without competence is by definition a recipe for failure.

Ask Chelsea what money + competence means, or Arsenal or ManU.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Money without competence is by definition a recipe for failure.

Ask Chelsea what money + competence means, or Arsenal or ManU.

totally different ... the restriction on player movement that the NHL has is nothing like the free market of european soccer.

in the NHL, even under the old CBA, you could not buy players. this is especially true under the terms of even a moderate NHL cap system.

dr

 

[AXN]

The NHL made an offer they cannot refuse?