So a cap isn't the solution after all

Status
Not open for further replies.

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
I share your pain, hockeytown.
I assume that, like me, you watch the red wings.
We've been treated to good hockey for the past 15 years or so. Our owner markets the team well. He puts a good product on the ice. And fans pay big bucks to support the endeavor.

Not everyone has a pizza magnate to run their hockey club so please try to think for the good of the game as a whole and not just in Detroit. I heard Jimmy Devalano say the Red Wings need to make the 3rd round of the playoffs just to break even each year. The NHL is broken and I blame the owners for being stupid and competitive, the players and the NHLPA for being greedy and not thinking of the game and fans like you and hockeytown who only think of your own clubs best interests and don't share the forsight and need for changes for the best interests of the game. This league needs fixing and Bettman and the owners have my full support to take as long as needed to get it done right this time. There are more and better hockey players than ever before and with a proper economic system hockey can flourish.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Bruwinz20 said:
And the owner does this at the expense of the Tigers. If you dont think there is money flowing in a lot of different directions with Illitch then you might want to take another look. How can a town support a 70 million dollar payroll for a hockey team but can barely support a 40 million dollar baseball team?

He doesn't do anything at the expense of the Tigers. The Tigers had terrible drafts and terrible managemnt for 15 years. He paid guys like Bobby Higginson and Damion Easley over $10 million a year. Since Dave Dombrowski has taken over, things have improved and they're spending the money more wisely. As they continue to improve, he will continue to spend on them.
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
Newsguyone said:
I share your pain, hockeytown.
I assume that, like me, you watch the red wings.
We've been treated to good hockey for the past 15 years or so. Our owner markets the team well. He puts a good product on the ice. And fans pay big bucks to support the endeavor.

You're mostly right here Newsguy. Yes, Det. fans have been treated to some very good hockey for about the last 10 years or so. Yes, the team does market themselves well, BUT when you play in one of the largest markets in the NHL and have ABC/ESPN show almost every darn one of your games, I think my 10 year old could market the team well. A good product? Maybe during the regular season, but what about the post? A first round loss to the Ducks 2 seasons ago, a rough time by the Preds before getting KO'ed by the Flames last season doesn't exactly scream good product. But, yes, the fans definitly do pay big bucks to support them.

The Wings, along with NYR, Avs., Stars, Leafs, etc. are what's wrong with the NHL right now and show why a cap is needed. C'mon, who here really thinks Bobby Holik is worth $9 mil./season? Every off-season it was the usual teams driving up the price of the "big time" UFA, which made the price of every player go up. If player X is worth this much then player Y, who is just as good, is worth that much also, so the team that wants him gets stuck paying to much for him.

A cap levels the playing field. I'll use the Wings (and USA Today's salary database) as my example. The Wings paid almost $16 mil. on goaltending alone last season (Cujo- $8 mil., Hasek- $6 mil., and Legace- $1.1 mil.). Throw in Lidstrom for $10 mil., Shanny for $6.5, Chelios and Stevie Y for little less the $6, you've already spent close to $40 mil., just on 7 players. FYI- Total payroll for last season was $77 mil (7 players = over half total payroll). How does a smaller market team compete with this? They can't. Under a $45-50 mil. cap (totally reasonable IMO) the Wings can still sign who they want, for however much they want, as long as they don't go over cap. Does this mean Lidstrom won't get his $10 mil? Nope. If the Wings are approaching the cap limit, but the Pens., Preds., Flames., etc. still have room, they could sign Lidstrom for $10, $11, $12 mil, heck, for however much they want. It works for the NFL and NBA, so why won't it work for us?

USA Today Salaries
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
BlackRedGold said:
But it does if you've already paid for your house and cars. Unlike working guys, hockey players don't have to finance their purchases. When you don't have car or mortgage payments 120,000 can go a long ways even for a hockey player.

Besides a lot of them have money invested away for their retirement and to avoid taxes. And in Canada, the lockout pay is taxfree.

Without knowing the exact numbers, how many of the players live in Canada, as opposed to USA or overseas where they will happily tax it for all it's worth.

Plus, how is this sending a "solidarity" message when they're also paying the players who are playing overseas for money?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
DW3 said:
You're mostly right here Newsguy. Yes, Det. fans have been treated to some very good hockey for about the last 10 years or so. Yes, the team does market themselves well, BUT when you play in one of the largest markets in the NHL and have ABC/ESPN show almost every darn one of your games, I think my 10 year old could market the team well. A good product? Maybe during the regular season, but what about the post? A first round loss to the Ducks 2 seasons ago, a rough time by the Preds before getting KO'ed by the Flames last season doesn't exactly scream good product. But, yes, the fans definitly do pay big bucks to support them.

The Wings, along with NYR, Avs., Stars, Leafs, etc. are what's wrong with the NHL right now and show why a cap is needed. C'mon, who here really thinks Bobby Holik is worth $9 mil./season? Every off-season it was the usual teams driving up the price of the "big time" UFA, which made the price of every player go up. If player X is worth this much then player Y, who is just as good, is worth that much also, so the team that wants him gets stuck paying to much for him.

A cap levels the playing field. I'll use the Wings (and USA Today's salary database) as my example. The Wings paid almost $16 mil. on goaltending alone last season (Cujo- $8 mil., Hasek- $6 mil., and Legace- $1.1 mil.). Throw in Lidstrom for $10 mil., Shanny for $6.5, Chelios and Stevie Y for little less the $6, you've already spent close to $40 mil., just on 7 players. FYI- Total payroll for last season was $77 mil (7 players = over half total payroll). How does a smaller market team compete with this? They can't. Under a $45-50 mil. cap (totally reasonable IMO) the Wings can still sign who they want, for however much they want, as long as they don't go over cap. Does this mean Lidstrom won't get his $10 mil? Nope. If the Wings are approaching the cap limit, but the Pens., Preds., Flames., etc. still have room, they could sign Lidstrom for $10, $11, $12 mil, heck, for however much they want. It works for the NFL and NBA, so why won't it work for us?

USA Today Salaries


First you say the Red Wings don't put out a team that competes in the playoffs, then that no one else can compete with them. Which is it?

Is it possible ABC and ESPN show the Red Wings alot becuase they're the only team that gets ratings? Look at the ratings for the 2002 Finals compared to the last two.

And why would it be fair of the Red Wings wanted to pay lidstrom the $10 million to keep him but didn't have the cap room. Why should they do the work of scouting and developing him only to lose him because of money? Isn't that what everybody complains about now?

and FYI, Hasek paid the team back over half his salary last year when he quit.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
DW3 said:
A cap levels the playing field. I'll use the Wings (and USA Today's salary database) as my example. The Wings paid almost $16 mil. on goaltending alone last season (Cujo- $8 mil., Hasek- $6 mil., and Legace- $1.1 mil.). Throw in Lidstrom for $10 mil., Shanny for $6.5, Chelios and Stevie Y for little less the $6, you've already spent close to $40 mil., just on 7 players. FYI- Total payroll for last season was $77 mil (7 players = over half total payroll). How does a smaller market team compete with this? They can't. Under a $45-50 mil. cap (totally reasonable IMO) the Wings can still sign who they want, for however much they want, as long as they don't go over cap. Does this mean Lidstrom won't get his $10 mil? Nope. If the Wings are approaching the cap limit, but the Pens., Preds., Flames., etc. still have room, they could sign Lidstrom for $10, $11, $12 mil, heck, for however much they want. It works for the NFL and NBA, so why won't it work for us?

USA Today Salaries

One thing: The NBA and NFL have different types of caps. I know I would be far more positive towards a soft cap that allowed for greater spending to re-sign your own players than I would be for a hard cap that screws you over regardless. And I would also agree that $45-50 million seems like a fair number for a cap.

IMO, a $45-50m soft cap (so teams can re-sign their own players who have been with their team for X-number years) with revised arbitration and rookie max salaries would really help get the league's finances back in order. GoCoyotes has an idea posted that is along these lines and it is inspired. But it also isn't a scorched earth strategy so I have a hard time seeing the NHL/NHLPA going this route.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
DW3 said:
A cap levels the playing field.

This labour dispute has nothing to do with a level playing field. (The playing field is already level, but never mind that point. I don't want to revisit that argument.)

The dispute has everything to do with tying revenues and salaries. Read the six "proposals" made by the NHL. In four of the six, there are no limits on the amount of money individual teams can spend. Payroll disparity is not a real issue with the NHL. They have pretended it is an issue to sell the lockout to fans of teams who run lower payrolls. The NHL will accept any system that limits the player share of the pie leaguewide.

The labour dispute is about money. Period.

Tom
 

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
Tom_Benjamin said:
This labour dispute has nothing to do with a level playing field. (The playing field is already level, but never mind that point. I don't want to revisit that argument.)

The dispute has everything to do with tying revenues and salaries. Read the six "proposals" made by the NHL. In four of the six, there are no limits on the amount of money individual teams can spend. Payroll disparity is not a real issue with the NHL. They have pretended it is an issue to sell the lockout to fans of teams who run lower payrolls. The NHL will accept any system that limits the player share of the pie leaguewide.

The labour dispute is about money. Period.

Tom

Well the playing field is not level if you look at traditionally which teams make the playoffs and which teams dont. The dispute has to do with the flawed system....and yes, money. What the cap would solve is that teams with the money cant spend over and over to cover their mistakes all the while throwing off the salary structure of the whole league. In a way that is about levelling the playing (off) the field. Furthermore leveling the playing field, which will be a by-product of a cap (intended or not), will improve the night in night out play. Just my opinion of course.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Bruwinz20 said:
And the owner does this at the expense of the Tigers. If you dont think there is money flowing in a lot of different directions with Illitch then you might want to take another look. How can a town support a 70 million dollar payroll for a hockey team but can barely support a 40 million dollar baseball team?

Nonsense. Baseball and hockey are separate entities.
Illitch's baseball men screwed him over with big deals for guys who couldn't help (Gonzalez, Palmer, Higgison). Randy smith's trades were awful. His money spending was awfu. And they drafted with the worst of them. His tenure came after years of neglect by Monahan, who starved the team by cutting scouting and spending money foolishly.
Had they spend that money on good players who wanted to play in Detroit, the tigers wouldn't have been in such terrible waters.

Illitch grew disillusioned with his baseball team. Now that he's gotten rid of Randy Smith and brought in Dombrowski.
The tigers are now putting themselves in a position where they are close to competing for their division.

This has NOTHING to do with the Red Wings.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Bruwinz20 said:
Well the playing field is not level if you look at traditionally which teams make the playoffs and which teams dont.

I said I didn't want to argue this point. I don't care whether you believe the playing field is level or not. Fine, it isn't, for the sake of argument.

The NHL doesn't give two hoots about it. If the issue was really payroll disparity, the NHL would not be putting forward proposals that would maintain that disparity. If the issue was really payroll disparity, the NHL would be willing to discuss a luxury tax, something that directly addresses the issue.

Anybody supporting the owners side because they hope for a fairer league (however you want to define that) has been conned.

Tom
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
DW3 said:
You're mostly right here Newsguy. Yes, Det. fans have been treated to some very good hockey for about the last 10 years or so. Yes, the team does market themselves well, BUT when you play in one of the largest markets in the NHL and have ABC/ESPN show almost every darn one of your games, I think my 10 year old could market the team well. A good product? Maybe during the regular season, but what about the post? A first round loss to the Ducks 2 seasons ago, a rough time by the Preds before getting KO'ed by the Flames last season doesn't exactly scream good product. But, yes, the fans definitly do pay big bucks to support them.

The Wings, along with NYR, Avs., Stars, Leafs, etc. are what's wrong with the NHL right now and show why a cap is needed. C'mon, who here really thinks Bobby Holik is worth $9 mil./season? Every off-season it was the usual teams driving up the price of the "big time" UFA, which made the price of every player go up. If player X is worth this much then player Y, who is just as good, is worth that much also, so the team that wants him gets stuck paying to much for him.

A cap levels the playing field. I'll use the Wings (and USA Today's salary database) as my example. The Wings paid almost $16 mil. on goaltending alone last season (Cujo- $8 mil., Hasek- $6 mil., and Legace- $1.1 mil.). Throw in Lidstrom for $10 mil., Shanny for $6.5, Chelios and Stevie Y for little less the $6, you've already spent close to $40 mil., just on 7 players. FYI- Total payroll for last season was $77 mil (7 players = over half total payroll). How does a smaller market team compete with this? They can't. Under a $45-50 mil. cap (totally reasonable IMO) the Wings can still sign who they want, for however much they want, as long as they don't go over cap. Does this mean Lidstrom won't get his $10 mil? Nope. If the Wings are approaching the cap limit, but the Pens., Preds., Flames., etc. still have room, they could sign Lidstrom for $10, $11, $12 mil, heck, for however much they want. It works for the NFL and NBA, so why won't it work for us?

USA Today Salaries

And if you ask me, Chelios/SHanahan were/are vastly overpaid and should have been let go at that price. Even Lidstrom isn't worth $10M. Not in yesterday's market, and not in tomorrow's market.
The Wings, as a franchise, however, are loyal to long-time players. To a fault.
But I see your point. Columbus can't compete. But why should they?
It took Detroit 75 YEARS to develop their hockey market. Columbus SHOULD NOT EVEN DREAM OF COMPETING. Why should they? Their owners haven't lived through tough times. Their fans haven't supported the team through years and years and years of misery.
My feeling is that if the owner is willing to pay, and the fans are willing to pay for tickets/jerseys and if they watch the games on local tv (increasing television/radio revenues), then the team should have a competitive advantage.

I point to Chicago and Boston and New York, the three other American Original Six teams.
Chicago's owner is a first class *****. He doesn't even air his home games on local tv. By design. Because it takes away from gate receipts.
Well, that's about as stupid a way to build a fan base as I can imagine. He's playing a losers game.
A winner would spend some chow on his team. At least enough to make it competitive. Fans would come out. Prices would go up. And more fans would watch on tv. creating more deamnd. Bringing more fans to the rink. Raising prices even more.
(High prices, as much as they disgust me, are what owners need. All people who think cap=lowticketprices are living in fantasy world).
Are you telling me that Chicago doesn't have the market?? Of course they do. They just don't have an owner with the balls to exploit it. That's risk. That's business.

Boston is another city that loves hockey (compared to most American cities). Yet years of skinflint ownership have spoiled it.
I need to point to just one thing: Hello Marty Lapointe. Here's 5 Million a year. Goodbye Bill Guerin.
Stupid. A notoriously cheap franchise spends three times the market value for Lapointe (setting a new benchmark in the market for 20 goal scorers) and then they let Guerin walk. Are you kidding?

And the Rangers, who have the support of Madison avenue and are therefore excluded from anything near the market realities which face their peers in the NHL.


Look. If the owners are so set on reducing player costs that they are willing to wipe the game off the face of the planet for a year or two, then why aren't they willing 1) to live within a budget or 2) make decent franchise decisions.

It takes discipline to to the former and smarts/luck to do the latter.
Discipline and smarts and luck are cornerstones of business success.

NHL owners are crying for a system that prevents themselves from exposing their lack of discipline/smarts,

I can't support that.

I can't really support the players either. $10M a year is ludicrous.
But these guys are the very best players in a specialized entertainment industry.
I know why they get paid, just like I know why Matt Damon gets paid.

As for the owners. Mike Illitch may lose money every other season. But consider the following.
He bough the tigers for just a few million, i believe, in like 1980. Some say his team is worth $300Million, and that's without owning the arena.
And it's not only about the bottom line with owners.
Owning a pro-sports team is instant publicity and credibility in other business circles.
Without his success as Wings owner, I'm not sure Illitch would have been able to by the Tigers.
Owning the Tigers helped him get a big stadium built downtown, from which he stands to make millions. He owns a huge chunk of downtown Detroit. He's considered a hero in the efforts to resurrect downtown Detroit, with his Fox Theater, Comerica Park, the Wings, the Tigers, HockeyTown Cafe, the casino owned in part by his wife.

Who knows how many millions he'll make.
Most of it is due to his Pizza chain. But make no mistake, his success as an entertainment entrepreneur is due, in no small part, to his success with the Wings franchise.

And that isn't going to show up in the bottom line.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Newsguyone said:
Raising prices even more.
(High prices, as much as they disgust me, are what owners need. All people who think cap=lowticketprices are living in fantasy world).

If you look at some of the arguments I've gotten in the last two days about replacement players, there is no doubt these people are living in a fantasy world.

Newsguyone said:
He bough the tigers for just a few million, i believe, in like 1980. Some say his team is worth $300Million, and that's without owning the arena.
And it's not only about the bottom line with owners.
Owning a pro-sports team is instant publicity and credibility in other business circles.
Without his success as Wings owner, I'm not sure Illitch would have been able to by the Tigers.
Owning the Tigers helped him get a big stadium built downtown, from which he stands to make millions. He owns a huge chunk of downtown Detroit. He's considered a hero in the efforts to resurrect downtown Detroit, with his Fox Theater, Comerica Park, the Wings, the Tigers, HockeyTown Cafe, the casino owned in part by his wife.

Who knows how many millions he'll make.
Most of it is due to his Pizza chain. But make no mistake, his success as an entertainment entrepreneur is due, in no small part, to his success with the Wings franchise.

And that isn't going to show up in the bottom line.

I'm guessing you meant to say he bought the Wings in 1980(actually 1982) He did only pay about $8 million for the franchise which had been run into the ground by Bruce Norris. He bought the Tigers in 1992. He does own Joe Louis, but operates it as a seperate entity along with Cobo, Fox Theater, etc. This is something most owners do and its part of what is causing the arguments about how much the league really lost.
 

Papa Smurf

Registered User
Jun 9, 2004
1,335
0
Oshawa, Ontario
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Pittsburgh was to fold or relocate it can change the perspective of many franchises. Alot of people believe that if a team has won a Cup in their history, they won't have to worry as much about contraction or relocation. If the Flames of 2000 hadn't proved everybody wrong yet, this will.
 

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
Boston is another city that loves hockey (compared to most American cities). Yet years of skinflint ownership have spoiled it.
I need to point to just one thing: Hello Marty Lapointe. Here's 5 Million a year. Goodbye Bill Guerin.
Stupid. A notoriously cheap franchise spends three times the market value for Lapointe (setting a new benchmark in the market for 20 goal scorers) and then they let Guerin walk. Are you kidding?

Please dont take offense to this, but from what you have said here it doesnt seem you really have a grasp on the whole situation. If you are going to use examples to present an argument sometimes you need the facts behind the facts. Clearly that is where you are lacking.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,999
2,074
Duncan
Tom_Benjamin said:
I said I didn't want to argue this point. I don't care whether you believe the playing field is level or not. Fine, it isn't, for the sake of argument.

The NHL doesn't give two hoots about it. If the issue was really payroll disparity, the NHL would not be putting forward proposals that would maintain that disparity. If the issue was really payroll disparity, the NHL would be willing to discuss a luxury tax, something that directly addresses the issue.

Anybody supporting the owners side because they hope for a fairer league (however you want to define that) has been conned.

Tom

Your complete rah rah support of the players has had a pronounced effect on your ability to rationalize, well apparently anything:

How does a luxury tax directly address payroll disparity, while setting a limit equal for all teams does not? Favouring one over the other would make sense, but your post leaves anyone scratching their heads.

And I believe the NHLPA isn't interested in talking about a "significant" salary cap. They aren't interested in anything that would have an effect on their ability to keep getting more.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
quat said:
How does a luxury tax directly address payroll disparity, while setting a limit equal for all teams does not? Favouring one over the other would make sense, but your post leaves anyone scratching their heads.

The owners have proposals on the table that do not limit the individual team's ability to spend. A salary cap does, but the performance based systems do not. If the NHL really cared about payroll disparity, why do they suggest a system that does not limit Detroit's spending?

And I believe the NHLPA isn't interested in talking about a "significant" salary cap. They aren't interested in anything that would have an effect on their ability to keep getting more.

Well, duh. Who was talking about the NHLPA? They aren't interested in any of the stupid NHL proposals.

My only point is that NHL teams don't care about payroll disparities or reducing them because they are proposing concepts that would do nothing to reduce them. Competitive balance is not an issue in this dispute. It is a pretend issue to suck in the uninformed and stupid. It's worked great, too.

Tom
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
hockeytown9321 said:
First you say the Red Wings don't put out a team that competes in the playoffs, then that no one else can compete with them. Which is it?

Is it possible ABC and ESPN show the Red Wings alot becuase they're the only team that gets ratings? Look at the ratings for the 2002 Finals compared to the last two.

And why would it be fair of the Red Wings wanted to pay lidstrom the $10 million to keep him but didn't have the cap room. Why should they do the work of scouting and developing him only to lose him because of money? Isn't that what everybody complains about now?

and FYI, Hasek paid the team back over half his salary last year when he quit.

First, I never said nobody can compete with the Wings. What I said was:
A good product? Maybe during the regular season, but what about the post? A first round loss to the Ducks 2 seasons ago, a rough time by the Preds before getting KO'ed by the Flames last season doesn't exactly scream good product.
meaning that during the regular season they put out a good product, which in this case I meant to be they win more then they lose. And let's face it, what's the point of playing the 82 game season except to see where/if you're seeded for the playoffs. I don't know of any player that wants to be golfing at the end of April. It's not why they play.

As for the overtelevising of the Wings, this is a circular arguement. Yes, rating were down when the Wings got knocked out of the playoffs. But maybe if the networks had shown more of the NHL then just the same 6-7 teams, more fans would have seen more teams. Tampa Bay won the Stanley Cup with only 2 National TV appearences. Calgary only had 1. The year before, the Ducks and Devils both combined for about 5 or 6 TV games. The Wings had more then all of them combined just after the All-Star break alone.

As for losing a star player over money, how is different from what's going on now? Only difference is, now it's just 5 or 6 teams making the big time offers, instead of the rest of the league. Calgary fans are facing the prospect of losing Iginla. T.B. fans were looking at losing St. Louis, Vinny, etc. Every team faces losing players they "scouted and developed" because of money, only difference is that right now it's the Wings, Avs, Stars, Leafs as the (only) ones (able to) offereing up the big time contracts. And do you really think (insert player's name here) really cares WHO pays him, as long as he gets his big time contract?

That was a noble thing of Hasek to do, but did he have to do it? Nope. How many other players out there would have done it? Not many. I knew he returned the money, I was using the USA Today salary numbers to prove my point, thank you.
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
Winger98 said:
One thing: The NBA and NFL have different types of caps. I know I would be far more positive towards a soft cap that allowed for greater spending to re-sign your own players than I would be for a hard cap that screws you over regardless. And I would also agree that $45-50 million seems like a fair number for a cap.

IMO, a $45-50m soft cap (so teams can re-sign their own players who have been with their team for X-number years) with revised arbitration and rookie max salaries would really help get the league's finances back in order. GoCoyotes has an idea posted that is along these lines and it is inspired. But it also isn't a scorched earth strategy so I have a hard time seeing the NHL/NHLPA going this route.

Sorry Winger, probably should have been a little more in depth and specific. I'm for a cap, I like the $45-50 mil. range, with increases of 10% (or so) a year to allow for Group II and stuff. I'm still ot totally sold on the soft cap idea though, especially after the T-wolves proved how easy it was to get around it. Yes, they got caught, but how teams are there that don't get caught. Either way, both the NFL and the NBA have proven how a cap helps the league prosper. There's no "clear cut, expected" champion, like in MLB and NHL, there's true parity between the teams.

Revised arbitration,lower rookie max salaries, and lower UFA age are all almost a given, no matter which way the CBA goes.
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
Tom_Benjamin said:
This labour dispute has nothing to do with a level playing field. (The playing field is already level, but never mind that point. I don't want to revisit that argument.)

The dispute has everything to do with tying revenues and salaries. Read the six "proposals" made by the NHL. In four of the six, there are no limits on the amount of money individual teams can spend. Payroll disparity is not a real issue with the NHL. They have pretended it is an issue to sell the lockout to fans of teams who run lower payrolls. The NHL will accept any system that limits the player share of the pie leaguewide.

The labour dispute is about money. Period.

Tom

I don't remember asking you if you wanted to revisit an arguement or not. If you don't want to argue it, then don't reply.

We all know this dispute is about money, we don't need PH'D's to figure that one out. What it's about is the owners trying to get some kind of "cost certainty." If i remember right, everyone of the 6 owner proposals had some means of containing payroll, whether it be a cap or a luxury tax.
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
Newsguyone said:
And if you ask me, Chelios/SHanahan were/are vastly overpaid and should have been let go at that price. Even Lidstrom isn't worth $10M. Not in yesterday's market, and not in tomorrow's market.
The Wings, as a franchise, however, are loyal to long-time players. To a fault.
But I see your point. Columbus can't compete. But why should they?
It took Detroit 75 YEARS to develop their hockey market. Columbus SHOULD NOT EVEN DREAM OF COMPETING. Why should they? Their owners haven't lived through tough times. Their fans haven't supported the team through years and years and years of misery.
My feeling is that if the owner is willing to pay, and the fans are willing to pay for tickets/jerseys and if they watch the games on local tv (increasing television/radio revenues), then the team should have a competitive advantage.

If that line of thinking still in the NHL head office, we'd still be cheering for the Original 6. Just because a team hasn't suffered through years and years of mismanagement. Why else would a person but a team if not to have them be competetive? As for supporting the team through the rough times, I've heard and read plenty of stories about how you could hear a pin drop in the Joe during the "80's. And Columbus may have been the wrong example to use here, since they had a 180+ game sellout streak going before the luckless Panthers came into town a few months ago.

Newsguyone said:
I point to Chicago and Boston and New York, the three other American Original Six teams.
Chicago's owner is a first class *****. He doesn't even air his home games on local tv. By design. Because it takes away from gate receipts.
Well, that's about as stupid a way to build a fan base as I can imagine. He's playing a losers game.
A winner would spend some chow on his team. At least enough to make it competitive. Fans would come out. Prices would go up. And more fans would watch on tv. creating more deamnd. Bringing more fans to the rink. Raising prices even more.
(High prices, as much as they disgust me, are what owners need. All people who think cap=lowticketprices are living in fantasy world).
Are you telling me that Chicago doesn't have the market?? Of course they do. They just don't have an owner with the balls to exploit it. That's risk. That's business.

Boston is another city that loves hockey (compared to most American cities). Yet years of skinflint ownership have spoiled it.
I need to point to just one thing: Hello Marty Lapointe. Here's 5 Million a year. Goodbye Bill Guerin.
Stupid. A notoriously cheap franchise spends three times the market value for Lapointe (setting a new benchmark in the market for 20 goal scorers) and then they let Guerin walk. Are you kidding?

And the Rangers, who have the support of Madison avenue and are therefore excluded from anything near the market realities which face their peers in the NHL.

Hey, nobody ever said all the owner's weren't cheap skate tightwads. Everybody will admit that Chicago and Boston need new ownership, somebody not afraid to spend a buck or two on the team. Nothing we can do about it, unfortuneitly.

And on the other end of the scale is NYR, who can't seem to spend money fast enough. IMO-They're one of the worst teams out there for running up salaries. They overpay on underachieving talent, getting rid of hot prospects for aging veterans.

Newsguyone said:
Look. If the owners are so set on reducing player costs that they are willing to wipe the game off the face of the planet for a year or two, then why aren't they willing 1) to live within a budget or 2) make decent franchise decisions.

It takes discipline to to the former and smarts/luck to do the latter.
Discipline and smarts and luck are cornerstones of business success.

NHL owners are crying for a system that prevents themselves from exposing their lack of discipline/smarts,

I can't support that.

I can't really support the players either. $10M a year is ludicrous.
But these guys are the very best players in a specialized entertainment industry.
I know why they get paid, just like I know why Matt Damon gets paid.


As for the owners. Mike Illitch may lose money every other season. But consider the following.
He bough the tigers for just a few million, i believe, in like 1980. Some say his team is worth $300Million, and that's without owning the arena.
And it's not only about the bottom line with owners.
Owning a pro-sports team is instant publicity and credibility in other business circles.
Without his success as Wings owner, I'm not sure Illitch would have been able to by the Tigers.
Owning the Tigers helped him get a big stadium built downtown, from which he stands to make millions. He owns a huge chunk of downtown Detroit. He's considered a hero in the efforts to resurrect downtown Detroit, with his Fox Theater, Comerica Park, the Wings, the Tigers, HockeyTown Cafe, the casino owned in part by his wife.

Who knows how many millions he'll make.
Most of it is due to his Pizza chain. But make no mistake, his success as an entertainment entrepreneur is due, in no small part, to his success with the Wings franchise.

And that isn't going to show up in the bottom line.

I like Matt Damon (a lot more then Ben Affleck anyway, lol) and I'm not saying he, or anyone else for that matter, isn't entitled to whatever they can earn. What I'm saying is, how can Pitt., Calgary, Nashville, etc. compete with Det., NYR, etc.? As you pointed out, Illitch and gang own very profitable side businesses, which some of them have used to make their product better. But some owners don't have a multi-million $$ business to help them out. Some of them only have the team, which isn't enough to compete with the big-timers. It's like me getting a bidding war with Trump or Bush. What I'm saying is needed is a way for the smaller market teams to be able to compete with the big boys. Yes, the Wings may have helped him buy everything else, but if all he had right now was the team and the arena, would he be making money?
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
Tom_Benjamin said:
You don't remember right. NHL Pravda has the details.

None of them have a luxury tax. Two feature caps.

Tom

Thanks for the link. having reread them, all of them had a means of controlling salary, whether it was cap, a "Performance Based Salary System" or some other fancy (but stupid) way of phrasing it (C'mon, P-4?). All in all, the league has said the "status quo" is unacceptable and something has to be done.

And everybody knows a Luxury tax would do about as much good as hiding the owner's pen lol. If a team's willing to overpay for a player, then they'll be willing to pay the tax on him (I urge you to look at the Yankees).
 

FlyersFan10*

Guest
DW3 said:
And everybody knows a Luxury tax would do about as much good as hiding the owner's pen lol. If a team's willing to overpay for a player, then they'll be willing to pay the tax on him (I urge you to look at the Yankees).

Buy a clue. These owners are business men first. If you think an owner wants to pay a tax on a payroll above 40 million and it's a considerable tax, think again.

The only reason the league is in the shape it is in is because of one contract.....Joe Sakic. Sakic you may ask? Yes, that Sakic. After Colorado won their first Stanley Cup, the New York Rangers (no surprise there) presented Sakic with a baseball type of contract. That started the crazy spiral and we're in the situation we're in now. Of course, that caused a spending spree amongst large market teams and all to a modicum of success.

Say what you want, but the big spenders all proved one thing. No matter how much money you spend, you have to have good depth, a great farm system, a keen eye for talent, and most important, great chemistry. New Jersey proved that and it's not as if their payroll was enormous either.
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
FlyersFan10 said:
Buy a clue. These owners are business men first. If you think an owner wants to pay a tax on a payroll above 40 million and it's a considerable tax, think again.

The only reason the league is in the shape it is in is because of one contract.....Joe Sakic. Sakic you may ask? Yes, that Sakic. After Colorado won their first Stanley Cup, the New York Rangers (no surprise there) presented Sakic with a baseball type of contract. That started the crazy spiral and we're in the situation we're in now. Of course, that caused a spending spree amongst large market teams and all to a modicum of success.

Say what you want, but the big spenders all proved one thing. No matter how much money you spend, you have to have good depth, a great farm system, a keen eye for talent, and most important, great chemistry. New Jersey proved that and it's not as if their payroll was enormous either.

So NYR started the whole overpriced contract mess. To quote that annoying bird "Let me have a heart attack from not surprise." But, to defend Sakic, he's proven time and again that he's worth the money, and I don't begrudge him for getting what's he worth. IMO-He's one of the few out there that hasn't inflated his worth, or has an ego as big as his paycheck, unlike some of the other big time, big dollar players (Jagr and Holik come right to mind :joker: ).

The only chemestry that Jersey ever looked for is to see who could best fit into their traping system. They play perhaps the worst kind of "clutch and grab", trap/lock hockey IMO. It takes all the fun out watching it, even for their own fans.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Winger98 said:
One thing: The NBA and NFL have different types of caps. I know I would be far more positive towards a soft cap that allowed for greater spending to re-sign your own players than I would be for a hard cap that screws you over regardless. And I would also agree that $45-50 million seems like a fair number for a cap.

IMO, a $45-50m soft cap (so teams can re-sign their own players who have been with their team for X-number years) with revised arbitration and rookie max salaries would really help get the league's finances back in order. GoCoyotes has an idea posted that is along these lines and it is inspired. But it also isn't a scorched earth strategy so I have a hard time seeing the NHL/NHLPA going this route.

The NHL would gladly negotiate an NBA style soft cap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->