Shocking report: Another star player unhappy with the league

[triggrman]

ALL... but then again, the NHL is not a successful business. Not yet... here's hopin'

I've worked inside the banking industry for over a decade. I've never seen a successful business that did not tie it's salaries to revenue, that's as basic as it gets.

 

[YellHockey*]

Can someone tell me what successful business does not tie salaries to revenue?

Very misleading question.

Every NHL franchise can already do this with the framework of the previous CBA. It's called a budget.

Can someone tell me what successful business does not budget for salaries?

 

[Cawz]

Very misleading question.

Every NHL franchise can already do this with the framework of the previous CBA. It's called a budget.

Can someone tell me what successful business does not budget for salaries?

Thats an even more misleading quote.

So youre saying each team is a business, but the NHL as a whole is not a business?

 

[garry1221]

Very misleading question.

Every NHL franchise can already do this with the framework of the previous CBA. It's called a budget.

Can someone tell me what successful business does not budget for salaries?

i can guarantee without a doubt that if each individual franchise has it's own budget for salaries that added up together would equal far less than the 60%~ that the nhl has proposed as a whole. But hey, if the players agree to their owners setting their own individual budgets great. IMO that just means they would have to concede looking at any player in the league when going to arbitration, they could only use players on the team they're on.

 

[Digger12]

Every NHL franchise can already do this with the framework of the previous CBA. It's called a budget.

This line of thinking works great, until a player holds out because their NHL franchise holds to a budget that doesn't include giving said player the raise they want...then the inevitable moaning and complaining comes from the fans of the team that the GM and ownership isn't committed to winning, that they're wasting assets, etc. etc. until:

a) The team capitulates and signs the player.

b) They trade him to a team that will sign the player.

Either way, the player hits the jackpot and another budget is left in a flaming heap on the floor.

It would be a lot easier to stick to a budget if those pesky sports fans like you and me didn't exist to demand winning...it's not like it's our money, right?

 

[YellHockey*]

So youre saying each team is a business, but the NHL as a whole is not a business?

Not really. It's more like a cartel or an association.

If it is a business, who owns that business?

 

[YellHockey*]

This line of thinking works great, until a player holds out because their NHL franchise holds to a budget that doesn't include giving said player the raise they want...then the inevitable moaning and complaining comes from the fans of the team that the GM and ownership isn't committed to winning, that they're wasting assets, etc. etc. until:

a) The team capitulates and signs the player.

b) They trade him to a team that will sign the player.

Either way, the player hits the jackpot and another budget is left in a flaming heap on the floor.

It would be a lot easier to stick to a budget if those pesky sports fans like you and me didn't exist to demand winning...it's not like it's our money, right?

Then the team needs to explain to the public why they are unable to sign said player. If the player is asking for more then he should be, the public usually brands him as greedy anyways. If the player isn't asking for more then the going rate, the fans brand ownership as cheap.

Would it be easier to solve your problems by communicating to your fanbase the reasoning behind your actions instead of shutting down your business?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

... success of a sports franchise should not be based on dollars available to buy talent as is currently the situation in the NHL

not one team has purchased a cup, next cliche please ?

in fact the evidence shows that more non "bought" teams have had impact playoff runs than the ones spending the money.

dr

 

[shveik]

Can someone tell me what successful business does not tie salaries to revenue?

Even though I consider this question to be useless, I can answer your question. It is any entertainment business, such as movie production, or music etc.

 

[quat]

The NHLPA has, from the beginning, maintained a concilliatory, pro-active approach to negotiations, only to be met with NHL intransigence and covert intimidation.

Expect the NHLPA to now launch a comprehensive counter-offensive as the dispute continues.

Only in your dreams it seems. How is "we will not discuss any kind of cap" a concilliatory stance? It's exactly like the NHL saying they won't discuss anything that doesn't include a cap. How you manage to ignore this kind of boggles the mind. Ah yes... the willfully ignorant.

 

[quat]

not one team has purchased a cup, next cliche please ?

in fact the evidence shows that more non "bought" teams have had impact playoff runs than the ones spending the money.

dr

lol Still at it eh? I guess when the Avs could afford to keep Sakic after the Rangers hi-larious offer, that had nothing to do with their wealth eh? No, it must have just been because Sakic refused the money to stay with his team.

Your " next cliche " comment is really tired, so you should just put it to bed. All the wealthier teams in the NHL must draft well and be well coached to succeed... but it's pretty clear that teams like Detroit have benifited in a large way by being able to add the players necessary to keep them near the top.

 

[Hasbro]

lol Still at it eh? I guess when the Avs could afford to keep Sakic after the Rangers hi-larious offer, that had nothing to do with their wealth eh? No, it must have just been because Sakic refused the money to stay with his team.

Your " next cliche " comment is really tired, so you should just put it to bed. All the wealthier teams in the NHL must draft well and be well coached to succeed... but it's pretty clear that teams like Detroit have benifited in a large way by being able to add the players necessary to keep them near the top.

it was stretch at that. This was when the Avs were in Big Mac.

 

[quat]

it was stretch at that. This was when the Avs were in Big Mac.

Sorry, I don't understand your comment.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

lol Still at it eh? I guess when the Avs could afford to keep Sakic after the Rangers hi-larious offer, that had nothing to do with their wealth eh? No, it must have just been because Sakic refused the money to stay with his team.

Your " next cliche " comment is really tired, so you should just put it to bed. All the wealthier teams in the NHL must draft well and be well coached to succeed... but it's pretty clear that teams like Detroit have benifited in a large way by being able to add the players necessary to keep them near the top.

you consider drafting and paying your own players purchasing a cup ?????

dr

 

[triggrman]

Even though I consider this question to be useless, I can answer your question. It is any entertainment business, such as movie production, or music etc.

So maybe we pay NHL players with royalties then, I wonder how that would fly, oh, wait royalties are tied to revenue too are they not?

 

[Hasbro]

Sorry, I don't understand your comment.

It was before the Pepsi Center was built and the Avs still were in McNichols. The Rangers calculated the offer sheet to break the bank on the Avs, hence the money mainly being a signing bonus.

During the season Forsberg and Sakic were headed for RFA and there was talk of offering both players deals to handcuff the Avs, but Forsberg signed before the end of the season.

 

[shveik]

So maybe we pay NHL players with royalties then, I wonder how that would fly, oh, wait royalties are tied to revenue too are they not?

You do realize that royalties is only *part* of the contract, right? Kind of like performance bonuses.

 

[PecaFan]

Then the team needs to explain to the public why they are unable to sign said player. If the player is asking for more then he should be, the public usually brands him as greedy anyways. If the player isn't asking for more then the going rate, the fans brand ownership as cheap.

Oh please. The vast majority of fans say "just pay him what he wants, we need him in the lineup". And it's the same way with free agents, most fans spend all off season going "we should sign this guy and that guy".

It's not their money, they have no problem spending it for the owners.

You do realize that royalties is only *part* of the contract, right? Kind of like performance bonuses.

The movie industry fails as a comparable because there is no guaranteed income. You can release a film, and literally no one watches it. There are no season ticket bases, and projectable earnings like in sports.

 

[thinkwild]

Oh please. The vast majority of fans say "just pay him what he wants, we need him in the lineup". And it's the same way with free agents, most fans spend all off season going "we should sign this guy and that guy".

It's not their money, they have no problem spending it for the owners.

And you have now come to see the error of your ways? You realize how wrong it was to pressure owners or be able to hold them in anyway accountable because otherwise they will go bankrupt and lose your team. So you want to legislate away any responsibilty for them. Make sure fans can never hold them accountable again.

Look, Chicago would love to buy a free agent, but their hands are tied, they arent allowed. Surely you will all come back and not be mad at Wirtz anymore. Its not his fault.

The movie industry fails as a comparable because there is no guaranteed income. You can release a film, and literally no one watches it. There are no season ticket bases, and projectable earnings like in sports.

I think its a great example. Do you need Robert Deniro to win an academy award? But if you want him, does he get to negotiate his rate?

 

[shveik]

The movie industry fails as a comparable because there is no guaranteed income. You can release a film, and literally no one watches it. There are no season ticket bases, and projectable earnings like in sports.

Hey, I am not the one starting the comparison. At request, I gave an example of a successful business that doesn't tie salaries to revenues, because in this case the revenues cannot be known in advance. So it is indeed possible.

Then, another rhetorical question was asked, if the players should be paid with royalties, thus linking the hockey and movies business. I only pointed out the wrong statement that artists are paid only with royalties. I did not address equating of the two industries, which is also wrong. What can I say, I am only one man, I cannot right all wrongs by myself

 

[thinkwild]

The only industries that I can think of that tie to salaries to revenues are the startup companies that pay their employees in stock options. No one else gives their employees a percentage of revenues that I can think of.

Its a good business practice though to budget your salaries at a level that you can afford to pay. Apparently it hasnt bothered them not to do this for the last 10 years. Losing money wasnt a deterence to overspending. Couldnt have been that important to them.

 

[quat]

you consider drafting and paying your own players purchasing a cup ?????

dr

Look, first read the comment, then think please. During the hockey season you post some intelligent thoughts, so you are capable of using your head.

Certainly you are aware that some teams generate more revenue than others? And if those teams are intelligent (remember, one of my criteria), they will be able to use their larger budgets to their advantage. That's pretty basic stuff DR. No mystery there. You jump all over this "teams buying a cup" thing, while ignoring the fact that posters are mostly refering to the fact that financial imbalance gives the richer teams an advantage. Stop being so obtuse.

 

[quat]

It was before the Pepsi Center was built and the Avs still were in McNichols. The Rangers calculated the offer sheet to break the bank on the Avs, hence the money mainly being a signing bonus.

During the season Forsberg and Sakic were headed for RFA and there was talk of offering both players deals to handcuff the Avs, but Forsberg signed before the end of the season.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Look, first read the comment, then think please. During the hockey season you post some intelligent thoughts, so you are capable of using your head.

Certainly you are aware that some teams generate more revenue than others? And if those teams are intelligent (remember, one of my criteria), they will be able to use their larger budgets to their advantage. That's pretty basic stuff DR. No mystery there. You jump all over this "teams buying a cup" thing, while ignoring the fact that posters are mostly refering to the fact that financial imbalance gives the richer teams an advantage. Stop being so obtuse.

Ok, so some teams generate more revenue. if the owners want to fix that, why kill the NHL over it when all they need to do is share their revenues with each other ?

a salary cap does not raise revenue for lower revenue teams, so how is that the answer to "revenue disparity" in fact, the players proposal does address this quite effectivly (if the owners would negotiate the salary tax% and trigger).

Colorado deserves every penny they have earned and the fact they reinvest in the great players they drafted (or traded well used draft picks for) is WHAT SHOULD BE REWARDED, why are you using teams like COL(or NJD and DET) of teams that who have done wrong by the fans.

Revenue disparity is an ownership problem and has little to zero effect on competitive balance.

I see rich well run teams like NJD, DET and COL winning and dominating and I see rich poorly run teams like WSH, NYR and TOR not winning.

I see "revenue challenged" teams like ANA, BUF, CRL, MIN, SJS, OTT, CGY and TBY having just as many chances if not more.

If the owners of ANA, BUF, CRL, MIN, SJS, OTT, CGY and TBY think its unfair that DET, COL, NYR, TOR and PHI have more revenue then TAKE IT UP WITH THEM !

If revenue disparity is the true problem, they owners should look to themselves to fix it. A luxury tax is a fair mechanism for this.

DR