Strachan: Fans just don't understand...like I do

[CarlRacki]

The rollback system would have lasted until this summer, and then an agent would say to the Rangers' owner, "jeez, you were willing to pay Pavel Bure $11 million, why not my guy?" Rangers' owner, idiot that he is would have paused and said, "Yup."

End of rollback.

That's why it was a total joke.

Even worse, agent would have said "Thanks to the rollback you've got an extra $15 million burning a hole in your wallet. Why not spend it to bring (insert star players's name here) to New York. Or Philly. Or Toronto. Or Detroit."

 

[bleedgreen]

the cup run is now a nice piece of history and i agree with you about strachan's salary numbers . i thought the year after our payroll was close to 42 mill--that being said i really like the young guys we have drafted and acquired and am very happy where we are in the rebuild-we have already hit bottom and are now on the way up and if we still have a team after the dust settles from this league "disaster" my family will be back in our seats.

i agree. toughest part for me was watching them deny they needed the rebuild for two years. they really thought they could pull it off again - and just wouldnt give up the ghost. rebuild was the way to go, though i think they couldve done it faster if they just did it all at once instead of spread out over two seasons and counting.

 

[Greschner4]

Reading Strachan is always amusing. Take these lines from the column:

The agents don't understand it. They're complaining that the rollbacks offered by the NHL Players' Association will have a major negative impact on their salaries.
Because they live off commission, their incomes will be cut by 24% off the top. But furthermore, the removal of the pressure points that cause inflation has some of them hopping mad.
Ever since the NHLPA offer was presented, they've been trying to devise ways to quickly ratchet up the salaries if and when the league comes back. And they can't do it.

I can just picture all those agents burning the midnight oil looking for loopholes in the NHLPA’s proposal. And every time they find one, they pick up the phone and give ole Al a call so I can tell the world. Yeah. Right.

Al not only says hockey fans are dumb. He believes it.

Well, it took me 15 seconds to find the loophole, so I must be a lot smarter than ol' Al.

Agent: Jimmy (Dolan), you paid Bure $11 million a year three years ago when your revenues were less than they are now. So I know you have the money. Give my guy $11 mil and he's yours.

Dolan: Can you do the press conference tomorrow?

There's your "loophole," Al.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Because aside from the fact that revenues ought not to be the only variable involved, and that it gives rise to a whole host of perverse incentives and obligations, the owners are not prepared to include in revenue all sources of hockey-related revenue and capital gains that can be attributed to players. To claim that owners are being altruistic is wanting to "share" a "fair" percentage of revenues is not accurate at all; they want to artificially guarantee profits and protect themselves from themselves.

Of course they want to guarantee profits and protect themselves from themselves. This is the only way that can be accomplished - to do it outside the framework of the CBA process is collusion. And yes, money-making franchises are holding out on significant revenue sharing and have only a nominal interest in assuring what many fans want, which is competitive balance.

You're right, the owners are a bunch of bums. That doesn't mean that their bargaining partners/opponents, the players, aren't. You seem to suggest in your post above that the NHLPA would be willing to accept a cap or linkage if it could determine, or at least help determine, what constitutes revenue. Their past actions would seem to suggest otherwise. And the main argument I'm hearing here against linkage is that revenues are going to go down. If this is the reason players oppose linkage, then it sure starts to look like they're after the gravy train.

 

[CGG]

If the NHLPA were interested in such a system, why didn't they offer it last week rather than come back with essentially the same offer as the one made two months ago?

I see, so you were at the meetings last week? No one knows what was offered or even what they talked about. Speculation is that Goodenow dusted off the 24% rollback offer and went from there. But who knows what else the players offered in terms of arbitration, stiffer luxury tax, some type of guarantee, etc. etc. If it was only the same offer, do you really think the owners would have sat there for 13 hours?

 

[Greschner4]

I see, so you were at the meetings last week? No one knows what was offered or even what they talked about. Speculation is that Goodenow dusted off the 24% rollback offer and went from there. But who knows what else the players offered in terms of arbitration, stiffer luxury tax, some type of guarantee, etc. etc. If it was only the same offer, do you really think the owners would have sat there for 13 hours?

News reports said that Goodenow was going to take another more detailed crack at selling the rollback concept; if the owners gave him the courtesy of listening and asking questions, you're almost to 13 hours right there ....

 

[CGG]

Even worse, agent would have said "Thanks to the rollback you've got an extra $15 million burning a hole in your wallet. Why not spend it to bring (insert star players's name here) to New York. Or Philly. Or Toronto. Or Detroit."

Simple. Because they wouldn't have the extra $15 million burning a hole in the wallet, a healthy chunk of that would go to the lesser teams in the form of revenue sharing.

Obviously 100% revenue sharing is a bit of an exaggeration, but some percentage (pick 50% for the sake of argument) is far better than the NHL's idea of "okay maybe we'll throw some playoff cash into the pot, so teams like Calgary and Tampa can help out the New York Rangers".

 

[CGG]

News reports said that Goodenow was going to take another more detailed crack at selling the rollback concept; if the owners gave him the courtesy of listening and asking questions, you're almost to 13 hours right there ....

The rollback concept, sure. Not the same exact proposal. He would have had to alter it in some way to entice the owners, otherwise why would owners sit through the same proposal again? They allegedly did all their questioning and review and due dilligence back in Dec when it was first proposed.

 

[CarlRacki]

I see, so you were at the meetings last week? No one knows what was offered or even what they talked about. Speculation is that Goodenow dusted off the 24% rollback offer and went from there. But who knows what else the players offered in terms of arbitration, stiffer luxury tax, some type of guarantee, etc. etc. If it was only the same offer, do you really think the owners would have sat there for 13 hours?

Perhaps I shouldn't assume, but logic dictates that IF the NHLPA made further concessions and IF those concessions were significant and IF the NHL rejected them outright, then Bob and Ted would have been shouting it from the rooftops, making sure every reporter, fan, NLRB member and judge knew exactly what was happening.

 

[CraigD]

Same old chicken / egg argument. Are those teams good because they're expensive or expensive because they're good? I vote for expensive because they're good. I find it odd that you go back to the early 90's, before the current CBA and before any of the problems started to happen.

Pittsburgh and Montreal were high in payroll because they were good teams with some of the best players in the league (i.e. Lemieux, Roy). They didn't buy their teams, they drafted and traded. Like any good team should do.

Same can be said about just about every team on your list of winners. Crap teams like the current Penguins should not have a 1 in 30 chance of winning every year.

You miss the point entirely. Who cares if they are good because the are expensive, or expensive because they are good. NY Rangers are expensive, but not good, Tampa Bay is good and just on the way to being very, very expensive (salaries up 100% over the past 3 or 4 years). The FACT is good teams in the NHL are more expensive than many of the markets can afford! That is a problem if you are a fan of a small market team!

Craig

 

[CGG]

Perhaps I shouldn't assume, but logic dictates that IF the NHLPA made further concessions and IF those concessions were significant and IF the NHL rejected them outright, then Bob and Ted would have been shouting it from the rooftops, making sure every reporter, fan, NLRB member and judge knew exactly what was happening.

We don't know what happened, but Bob and Ted did storm off in a huff, which makes me think his attempt was shot down by Gary. I think somehow everyone agreed to not actually give details to the press, otherwise Gary and Bill would be saying stuff about the PA rehashing the same old proposal as well.

 

[SENSible1*]

No, it was less equitable in fact. It was intended to appeal to the lesser paid and so excluded them from the rollback.

Higher taxation on higher income is widely accepted as a more equitable form of taxation.

Yup, if the past is any indication, the owners.

This is exactly the miscalculation that Bobby boy has made. Too bad its costing his constituents so dearly.

 

[kerrly]

I don't think I ever said that one could not possibly understand the issues and still support the owners. If by "basic issues," you mean work stoppage and salary cap, I don't argue with you. But so many people base their opinions on misinformation and misguidance, and complete and utter irrelevance (e.g., players should play for the love of the game, teachers and doctors should make more, I work 60 hours a week and get paid less in a lifetime, etc.) - and usually these clowns fall on the side of the owners.

No different than PA'ers using the argument that this is the owners mess and they are the ones who are responsible to fix it.

 

[leaflover]

That is one of the reasons that the owners are willing to sit out 2 or 3 seasons to get this done. Any owner wishing to sell, can recoup his losses of the lockout, and still walk away with a nice profit.

Sorry pal but after another lost season or 2 you literally wont be able to give 6-8 teams away.How many fans do you think are still going to be ponying up the big money to attend games after being completely ignored and treated like crap for 2 or 3 years.The NHL views us as diehard fools that will come crawling back with fistfulls of money for them.I think they're underestimating how bad the on ice product has become and overestimating the viability of many locations,post lockout.

 

[kerrly]

If the league cares so much about 30 teams and ensuring equivalent resources, what's the problem with splitting up revenues by 30?

Why does a salary cap have to be the only answer?

Splitting up revenues equally among all the teams does nothing to curb spending. In fact it encourages it, especially among the lower teams who receive revenue sharing. Also all that would do is split the losses throughout the entire league. You take a league that is losing money, and spread that money around, it is still losing money. Pretty clear and easy to see why that won't work.

 

[kerrly]

Doesn't the fact that all teams who have the exact same resources mean that there would be little risk of certain teams "wrecking" it for the rest? I mean, all I hear here is how the Rangers and Torontos of the league are the problem what with their deep pockets. Just tell those teams to share the wealth.

Wait a second. The owners aren't interested.

Misinformed is not knowing that the owners are interested in sharing revenues and profits. Brian Burke said the number was something like 150 million to be shared.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Why did Bettman try and put a good spin on the bankruptcies of Ottawa and Buffalo? Oh I don't know Al, maybe because he is the NHL commisioner and that's his job?

Weird Al then goes on to say there is parity in the NHL. That line single handedly ruins all his remaining credibility. It's a joke and not even worth answering, but here goes...

1994 - New York Rangers
1995 - New Jersey Devils
1996 - Colorado Avalanche
1997 - Detroit Red Wings
1998 - Detroit Red Wings
1999 - Dallas Stars
2000 - New Jersey Devils
2001 - Colorado Avalanche
2002 - Detroit Red Wings
2003 - New Jersey Devils
2004 - Tampa Bay Lightning

Wow! Look at all those small market teams! I wonder what happened to all those small market teams that made a playoff run and old Strach uses to bolster his case went? Hmmm...

Carolina - Missed the playoffs the next year.
Florida - Missed the playoffs the next year.
Anaheim - Missed the playoffs the next year.
Calgary - Most likely would have missed the playoffs this year.

Then Weird Al goes on to say that a few big market teams are upset that there is a lockout. Wow! What a shocking revalation from the Strach Attack! Thats almost like saying Jeremy Roenick would accept a cap, oh wait... Roenick *did* say that. Any other points Weird Al made that need to be squashed?

SPIN????????? You answered a question that was not asked.

Nice facts but Strachan was dealing with the past three years and Bettman's inability to get basic numbers straight (or not caring to) when he said:

In Tampa last year, it was put to Bettman that the 12 conference finalists over the past three years have been 12 different teams, therefore there was no economic disparity.

Bettman agreed, but said such success was costly: "I think in Carolina's case, their payroll increased by 33% or something like it after they went to the Stanley Cup final."

In fact Carolina's NHL roster payroll went to $33.75 million from $30.5 million, an increase of 10.66%. The team's total NHL payroll, including the farm system, bought-out and injured players, went to $46.1 million from $43 million, an increase of 7.06%.

He was accurate in his statement. the point is that over the past three years when things are supposedly bad and one of Bettman's big pushes for the new deal is parity - the NHL already has that under the current system. Obviously if you are going to have that number of teams rolling over then some teams are going to be out the next year. It was a point on parity.

 

[kerrly]

the cup run is now a nice piece of history and i agree with you about strachan's salary numbers . i thought the year after our payroll was close to 42 mill--that being said i really like the young guys we have drafted and acquired and am very happy where we are in the rebuild-we have already hit bottom and are now on the way up and if we still have a team after the dust settles from this league "disaster" my family will be back in our seats.

Don't worry, I did a little digging and Strachan himself is fudging the numbers to make his argument better. Either that or he can't remember what season Carolina's run to the Cup was in.

2001-02 33 million 2002-03 39.2 million.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

 

[CGG]

Splitting up revenues equally among all the teams does nothing to curb spending. In fact it encourages it, especially among the lower teams who receive revenue sharing. Also all that would do is split the losses throughout the entire league. You take a league that is losing money, and spread that money around, it is still losing money. Pretty clear and easy to see why that won't work.

Everyone seems to point at the big market careless teams that spend at will for ruining hockey and driving up salaries. If there had been 100% revenue sharing all along, there's no way the Rangers give Holik $9 million a year. They wouldn't have the revenues to cover it. And, in theory, every team would have the same amount to spend on players so it works the same as a salary cap, as far as competitive balance theories.

Admittedly, this won't work, since some teams don't seem to want a profit or even break even, so they'd still spend more than they take in. Also, assuming all other operating expenses are the same, teams in Canada would have far less to spend on salaries after paying property taxes, something the US teams magically don't have to pay.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Misinformed is not knowing that the owners are interested in sharing revenues and profits. Brian Burke said the number was something like 150 million to be shared.

Which is not significant in a league with over $2 billion in revenues.

The players have called for significant revenue sharing. Burke pointed that out as well.

 

[Jobu]

If the NHLPA were interested in such a system, why didn't they offer it last week rather than come back with essentially the same offer as the one made two months ago?

Because it's apparently a non-starter from the NHL's point of view. They never came back with any offer. In case you aren't aware of hoe negotiations work, there are two parties and it usually works best when you aren't negotiating against yourself.

 

[Jobu]

The rollback system would have lasted until this summer, and then an agent would say to the Rangers' owner, "jeez, you were willing to pay Pavel Bure $11 million, why not my guy?" Rangers' owner, idiot that he is would have paused and said, "Yup."

End of rollback.

That's why it was a total joke.

Ye have little faith in owners. Of coruse, why would you? They have proven totally inept. How can people be on the side of such poor businessmen? Surely they are able to show some restraint, aren't they?

With a market re-set and together with other controls such as luxury taxes and revenue sharing, this shouldn't happen.

And if it does? Well, maybe that guy is worth $12m.

 

[SENSible1*]

Which is not significant in a league with over $2 billion in revenues.

The players have called for significant revenue sharing. Burke pointed that out as well.

It is significant enough to allow all teams to meet the salary floor and ensure the players get their share of revenue.

If the PA wants to argue for a higher % of revenues, then let them do so, but stop hiding behind "meaninful" revenue sharing.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Ye have little faith in owners. Of coruse, why would you? They have proven totally inept. How can people be on the side of such poor businessmen? Surely they are able to show some restraint, aren't they?

With a market re-set and together with other controls such as luxury taxes and revenue sharing, this shouldn't happen.

And if it does? Well, maybe that guy is worth $12m.

Why does this happen? Collusion. The players get to, and the owners are scared ****less of it. End of story.

 

[Jobu]

So you're suggesting a system by which all teams earn identical revenues? Wow, that'll do wonders for the league's level of competition. Pray tell, why would an owner bother to put a quality product on the ice, hire good coaches and scouts, market his team to fans, etc., if there is no financial benefit in doing so? Why spend the money to finish in first place when you'll get just as for finishing in last?
Even the NFL, which has far more revenue sharing than any other league (thanks entirely to its fat TV contracts), isn't that foolish.

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.