Jobu said:
They're free to communicate offers to each other, that's how. Players are free to collude every year; owners only are at CBA time and the owners are taking full advantage of their opportunity. Kudos to them.
Strachan: Fans just don't understand...like I do
- Thread starter transplant99
- Start date
- Status
They're free to communicate offers to each other, that's how. Players are free to collude every year; owners only are at CBA time and the owners are taking full advantage of their opportunity. Kudos to them.
gc2005 said:
And you accuse those that support the owners of swallowing everything Bettman says as gospel. Good lord, everything you say comes right from the NHLPA prayer book that is read aloud before a kool-aid break.
Is there a luxury tax agreement I'm not aware of? Where are you getting these numbers from? The PA offered a 24% rollback and a 20% tax on salaries over 50 mil. Or is this your new version of the CBA?gc2005 said:
kerrly said:
There's no indication that the players will accept a luxury tax with any real teeth. They certainly haven't offered one (the Dec. 9 tax was a complete joke). Rumors in the media don't count.
Maybe Goodenow offered one late last week but I doubt it.
Jobu said:
But an owner is free to make up the 24% right away.
This really isn't that hard, is it?
Wetcoaster said:
Revenue sharing isn't what's keeping this deal from getting done and to the extent you're saying it is, you're lying.
gc2005 said:
As a fan, I am in favor of owners making a profit and of high franchise values. Both are signs of a healthy franchise and a league full of healthy franchises is good for hockey and for hockey fans.
Competitive parity leads to more fan interest overall meaning higher league revenues. That is, fans are more likely to be interested in their team's chances if they don't see their best players being traded away for financial reasons. That leads to profits and better franchise values overall so they are somewhat related.gc2005 said:
Ticket prices are based on what the market wil bear so there may be some teams lowering them to get more people in the arena but I don't see that happening for all teams. I'm not getting my hopes up that way because even if the owners get what they want they are still going to have hefty payrolls.
Here is what Keith Primeau said after signing his last contract for $4 million:
"I still don't look at it in that regard," he said. "I am captain of a hockey club, but I am also 33 going on 34 and scored only seven goals last season.
"I might have had a tremendous playoff, but I don't want to be rewarded for having a good two-month stretch... . It's ludicrous for me to think that just because I had a great playoff, I should have held out for $6 million."
That essentially is what the union would have preferred. Primeau said the union's executive director, Bob Goodenow, spoke to his agent, Don Reynolds, and voiced concerns about the deal before Primeau signed.
"When the players' association found out what I would sign for, they didn't want me to sign the contract," Primeau said. "I told my agent there were a lot of factors going into it, more than a dollar figure."
That is how the NHLPA helps with salary escalation. The owners can't get a better deal by shopping around, they can only outbid another team for the guy they want because the PA is setting the minimum salary.
mooseOAK said:
Any time a player wants to sign somewhere for less money he always gets a ton of grief and *****ing from his union. They want the player to be focused on money, and money only. They don't care about the players' preferences, loyalty, desires, anything ... only money.
Pure unadulturated greed.
But doesn’t that bother you just a tiny bit? The 24% is league wide, every player. The owners either have the money to re-inflate the salaries or they don’t.Greschner4 said:
On one hand:
We have no more money, we have no more money, …
On the other hand:
We can’t stop spending our money, we can’t stop spending our money, …
It sounds kind of shady to me.
FrozenPond said:
Why talk about the "owners" collectively when there is such a large disparity in their economic circumstances? A few big market owners are the problem, not the "owners" as a whole. And several big market owners can pay the pre-rollback prices and still make a profit. There's no reason they wouldn't and we'd be right back at square one.
CarlRacki
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2004
- 1,442
- 2
Jobu said:Why isn't there a financial benefit? It's one league, right? We're all in it together? So you make the efforts to make more money - sure, you get 1/30th of it, but if all teams are doing the same, it works, doesn't it? Or perhaps the owners don't give a **** about the rest of the league.
So you accept that it's ok for some teams to spend more than others, right? To manage their teams as they see fit to maximize profit?
So what's the problem with the status quo?
You want controls on expenses so that even the worst managed franchise and lowest common denominator can make money no matter their incompetence. I see now.
And I wonder why the players aren't signing up.
Your illogic and inconsistency is mind-numbing.
You inability to base any of your arguments in fact is equally mind-numbing.
First, a cap and/or controls on expenses doesn't guarantee profits. According to Forbes, the Arizona Cardinals - a team with that gets as much in TV money as it pays in salaries - lost $4.9 million last year. Four other teams made less than $10 million. Also according to Forbes, five NBA teams are losing money. Portland, the worst off of those five, lost $47 million last year.
A
Second, I do accept that it's OK for some teams to spend more than others. That's why I'm fine with a modified version of the NBA soft cap. The NHL accepts that some teams will spend more than others. That's why they propose a salary range.
However, a key point you like to ignore is that teams spend money on more than just players. They hire coaches. They hire scouts. They hire personnel people. They build training rooms. They build practice facilities. Why would a team go first-class on any of the above if there were no benefit to it?
Lastly, it's more than a little ironic that you propose 100 percent revenue sharing and later in this thread accuse someone of being a communist. Perhaps you should ask for a dictionary on your next birthday.
Good for Primeau to sign for what he thought was more than fair...not surprisingly Knob Goodenow wasn't thrilled with this deal, and therin lies a major problem for the past 10 years, and is how the PA were able to drive salaries to the point of no return...and now it has all come tumbling down on the PA and it's executive...looks good on ya Bobbie!!!mooseOAK said:
The Iconoclast said:Riiiiight. And credit cards do not lead to over-spending and financial troubles either.
I've been spending over $20,000 a year on my credit card and I have no over-spending or financial troubles. I don't pay a dime in interest and I've made plenty of money by using it.
You'll find you are in the minority. Try researching the topic, as I doubt he was referring to you.BlackRedGold said:
It goes back years ago when Ray Bourque could have been the highest paid defenceman in the league and signed for less because he liked Boston. He took a lot of crap from the NHLPA for that and I am willing to bet they were a lot more vigilant about who signs for how much after that.BLONG7 said:
Cease the personal insults NOW.Greschner4 said:
I never said it was preventing a deal from getting done - do not put words in my mouth. It is an issue. The NHL does not want to share revenues to any significant extent. The NHLPA has said if the NHL is prepared to share revenues at an NFL level then they will look at a salary cap.
Jobu said:
New concept: 50/50 profit sharing with players. Of course, the players are well aware of the NHL being a bush league and likely to hardly ever make a profit, so they want no part of that. So, in essence, they agree 100% that the league is in financial ruins but refuse to do anything to help.
Wetcoaster said:
Sorry didn't mean it as personally as it came out or even personally at all.
You're going to have to give us a cite for sentence two ... I haven't heard that and it's utterly inconsistent with the vast majority of public pronouncements re the PA philosophy.
On the broader point, I don't see the purpose in harping on revenue sharing. It's not an issue on the table and it definitely isn't an issue affecting these negotiations, other than the PA falling back on it when it wants to evade the true issue of the cap. Even if sentence 2 is accurate, the NHL doesn't have TV revenues to share NFL-style; in fact it's not even in the same universe. The NHL is not going to share revenues NFL-style anymore than the moon is going to grow a beard, so the PA's position is really no different than saying "If the moon grows a beard we'll look at a salary cap."
Bruwinz37
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2002
- 27,429
- 1
mooseOAK said:
Not true. At the time Ray signed his contracts I believe they made him the highest paid at his position. I think what you mean is that he could have went to UFA but choose to stay with Boston for less than what he would have made as an UFA. Boston was always very fair with Bourque and he was fair with them.
You are right though, Goodenow probably looks through every contract and comes down hard on anyone who signs for less than market value. If this should be allowed than so should owners collusion.
Greschner4 said:
... and again there's nothing about revenue sharing and the cap that links them in any philosophical or economic way. They've simply been linked in practice in the NFL.
Revenue sharing is not a necessary predicate for a cap; it simply isn't.
snakepliskin
Registered User
HOWEVER-Primeau held the canes hostage by sitting out nearly a year until we traded him to philly for Brind'amore (BTW we won that trade) Maybe as he got older he saw the light in PhillyBLONG7 said:
- Status
