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

[Jobu]

Except in this case, Team A refers to every team in the entire league. If every team can spend 59 million dollars in salary (in your proposed scenario) and the revenues are still only 2 billion dollars, that leaves 1.77 billion going directly to players salaries, if teams do not want to overspend. Profit goals have never stopped teams from spending over the limit before. Your answer has done nothing to prove anything. Proof usually requires some facts and certainty, where your answer has provided nothing of the sort. Apparently its alot harder than you think.

$59m is not going to salaries. $59m is going to all expenses.

Also, as has been said time and time again, people are concerned that the big spenders skew the market. This simply couldn't happen on any comparable scale with equivalent resources.

 

[mackdogs*]

Yes it does, because when the free agents are ready to sign, the market is 24% less than what it was, or 76% of what it was.

You've been blinded by the PA I fear. Agents would have had a field day if this was accepted. Mark me down for saying 'no, this wouldn't have reset the playing field by 24%'. Big spenders would have taken the savings and blown it all again. It's nice you seem to believe everything that comes out of BG's mouth but I don't.

 

[Jobu]

Why did you say they rejected it then?

Because they never made a formal proposal and have always been lukewarm to the idea. It's like saying, "The NHLPA can have a luxury tax on top of a cap, if they want" and claiming that this means that the NHL would consider a luxury tax.

 

[kerrly]

Again, what are all these concepts that the owners have tabled?

Re-typing an old offer and posting it on the Webd oesn't make it new.

The players have said no to a cap and linkage but are trying to address the concerns of owners another way, through a combination of concepts. The owners don't care - they want what they want, even if they can ahieve the same ends in a different form.

Seems to me, that since the NHL has started, their hard cap has moved 10 million dollars while increasing the amount of revenue sharing from 65 to 150 million dollars and making a whole new concept of profit sharing which is unprecedented in sports.

Re-proposing their original offer in front of the NHL doesn't mean the NHLPA is actually negotiating.

 

[Jobu]

You've been blinded by the PA I fear. Agents would have had a field day if this was accepted. Mark me down for saying 'no, this wouldn't have reset the playing field by 24%'. Big spenders would have taken the savings and blown it all again. It's nice you seem to believe everything that comes out of BG's mouth but I don't.

Wrong. Any negotiation involves an exchange of comparables, just like in arbitration. There is no basis for asking for $5m when the market is set at $2m.

 

[Jobu]

Seems to me, that since the NHL has started, their hard cap has moved 10 million dollars while increasing the amount of revenue sharing from 65 to 150 million dollars and making a whole new concept of profit sharing which is unprecedented in sports.

Re-proposing their original offer in front of the NHL doesn't mean the NHLPA is actually negotiating.

You still haven't given one example of new concepts suggested by the NHL since over a year ago. The NHL did not ever propose sharing $150m in revenue, or even $65m. All they have said is that the might be willing to implement "meaningful" revenue sharing.

 

[kerrly]

$59m is not going to salaries. $59m is going to all expenses.

Also, as has been said time and time again, people are concerned that the big spenders skew the market. This simply couldn't happen on any comparable scale with equivalent resources.

Big spenders skew the market becuase they are the only ones who can do it. With every team equalling the same amount of revenue, every team becomes a spender. There is NOTHING to stop teams from spending under a 100% revenue sharing scenario, and you have not even come close to proving it to me. All revenue sharing will do, is limit the spending of some teams, but in turn give that spending ability to teams that get a revenue sharing hand out.

 

[mackdogs*]

Wrong. Any negotiation involves an exchange of comparables, just like in arbitration. There is no basis for asking for $5m when the market is set at $2m.

Yet there is nothing stopping dumb owners from making the same mistakes again by giving such a player 5M. You do realize this is why we are currently in a lockout right? Dumb owners? And the cap is the only true mechanism to stop them? ie. do you have a clue what you are talking about?

 

[Jobu]

Big spenders skew the market becuase they are the only ones who can do it. With every team equalling the same amount of revenue, every team becomes a spender. There is NOTHING to stop teams from spending under a 100% revenue sharing scenario, and you have not even come close to proving it to me. All revenue sharing will do, is limit the spending of some teams, but in turn give that spending ability to teams that get a revenue sharing hand out.

Prove it.

 

[Jobu]

Yet there is nothing stopping dumb owners from making the same mistakes again by giving such a player 5M. You do realize this is why we are currently in a lockout right? Dumb owners? And the cap is the only true mechanism to stop them? ie. do you have a clue what you are talking about?

How does a cap prevent these so-called mistakes? So they have a max of $40m they can spend, how does this stop them from signing one player at 3x what he is worth and making up the difference with a bunch of hacks?

 

[CGG]

You've been blinded by the PA I fear. Agents would have had a field day if this was accepted. Mark me down for saying 'no, this wouldn't have reset the playing field by 24%'. Big spenders would have taken the savings and blown it all again. It's nice you seem to believe everything that comes out of BG's mouth but I don't.

There wouldn't be savings to blow on players. In round numbers, the Leafs $60 million salary would now be $45 million. Plus they'd pay $11 million in revenue sharing so that's up to $56 million, meaning they'd have $4 million left in their budget. At a 100% tax they could spend another $2 million on players. Big deal. Everyone ignores the revenue sharing in their attempt to argue that big spenders would "take the savings and blow it all again".

The reason the owners refused to entertain this deal is because they would actually have to be responsible, which of course is impossible.

 

[kerrly]

You still haven't given one example of new concepts suggested by the NHL since over a year ago. The NHL did not ever propose sharing $150m in revenue, or even $65m. All they have said is that the might be willing to implement "meaningful" revenue sharing.

The NHL has proposed over 30 different revenue sharing concepts.

8. Revenue Sharing. In connection with our new economic system, as we have previously explained to you, we intend to implement meaningful revenue sharing by and between the Clubs. As you know, we previously provided you with an extensive description of concepts for enhanced revenue sharing -- including over 30 different models of potential revenue sharing scenarios. We reiterate our willingness to implement, in conjunction with a new economic system, an enhanced revenue sharing program that will allow the new system to operate as intended. Under our proposed approach, all 30 of our Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets), would be provided the ability to spend within the prescribed payroll range.

http://nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlresponse121404.html

The 65 million dollar number came from the much talked about playoff revenue sharing format the NHL was proposing before, and the 150 million dollar number comes from Brian Burke, and what he has said the NHL now has on the table.

 

[kerrly]

Prove it.

Have teams stuck to a budget yet? Nope, they sure haven't in alot of cases. What makes you think they will under a revenue sharing only scenario. Nothing, points to that being the case. There is no salary constraint whatsoever under this scenario to stop inflation, and that is FACT.

 

[Wetcoaster]

The NHL has proposed over 30 different revenue sharing concepts.

8. Revenue Sharing. In connection with our new economic system, as we have previously explained to you, we intend to implement meaningful revenue sharing by and between the Clubs. As you know, we previously provided you with an extensive description of concepts for enhanced revenue sharing -- including over 30 different models of potential revenue sharing scenarios. We reiterate our willingness to implement, in conjunction with a new economic system, an enhanced revenue sharing program that will allow the new system to operate as intended. Under our proposed approach, all 30 of our Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets), would be provided the ability to spend within the prescribed payroll range.

http://nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlresponse121404.html

The 65 million dollar number came from the much talked about playoff revenue sharing format the NHL was proposing before, and the 150 million dollar number comes from Brian Burke, and what he has said the NHL now has on the table.

And none of them are significant or meaningful, unless you consider moving from 9% to 13% meaningful.

Burke estimates that is what is on the table for the upcoming season only. The owners still are proposing nothing more than sharing some play-off revenues.

 

[tritone]

Far be it from me to defend Al Strachan, but you can't simply dismiss everything in here because it comes from a journalist that most people here don't like.

Points raised that are pretty good:
(1) Bettman has flip-flopped and made contradicting statements about Ottawa and Buffalo bankruptcies
(2) Bettman uses false facts to try to get his point across (proven by the Carolina quote, if it is accurate)
(3) Strachan implies that a good chunk of fans don't know what the lockout is truly about, and actually think the season will be cancelled in a righteous quest for competitive balance and lower ticket prices

Sorry, as much as anyone hates Al, we can't dispute any of that.

Yes we can dispute it...
1) Contradicting statements do not resolve any problems nor do they prove that the problem actually does exist...fine Bettman may have stumbled in his explanations but that does not mean that the problems he mentioned do not exist ...they do exist regardless of how it's explained.
2) The Carolina quote is dead wrong on Strachan's part...he uses the Carolina salary after they let go of players that were a part of the team the previous year.
And they have continued to trade players from that Stanley Cup final team ever since .
3) Did Strachan actually take a poll about this? Purely speculation and assumption

 

[kerrly]

And none of them are significant or meaningful, unless you consider moving from 9% to 13% meaningful.

Burke estimates that is what is on the table for the upcoming season only. The owners still are proposing nothing more than sharing some play-off revenues.

The numbers, including the 150 million dollar amount, are in the ballpark of what the NHLPA has proposed. 65, 124, and 190 million dollars in revenue sharing is the three alternatives that the NHLPA gave in their Dec. 9th proposal.

 

[CGG]

Yes we can dispute it...
1) Contradicting statements do not resolve any problems nor do they prove that the problem actually does exist...fine Bettman may have stumbled in his explanations but that does not mean that the problems he mentioned do not exist ...they do exist regardless of how it's explained.
2) The Carolina quote is dead wrong on Strachan's part...he uses the Carolina salary after they let go of players that were a part of the team the previous year.
And they have continued to trade players from that Stanley Cup final team ever since .
3) Did Strachan actually take a poll about this? Purely speculation and assumption

If Strachan is using bad info then yes, he's an idiot. Or someone should at least check his facts before the article runs.

The Bettman stuff is a symptom of a serious problem. He's purposely misleading the public with insinuation and half-truths. Not just about bankruptcies, but also about the reasons for the lockout - ticket prices are a result of higher salaries, we need competitive parity, Levitt report is a superaudit, etc. A lot of people blindly support him, assuming everything he says is absolutely true.

 

[mooseOAK*]

If Strachan is using bad info then yes, he's an idiot. Or someone should at least check his facts before the article runs.

The Bettman stuff is a symptom of a serious problem. He's purposely misleading the public with insinuation and half-truths. Not just about bankruptcies, but also about the reasons for the lockout - ticket prices are a result of higher salaries, we need competitive parity, Levitt report is a superaudit, etc. A lot of people blindly support him, assuming everything he says is absolutely true.

For the league to shut down for this long is at least evidence that the problems are severe.

 

[txomisc]

When did I ever say anything about hardcore fans or fans at HF? Please re-read the entire thread before spouting your ignorance.

Oh, I'm sorry, I just assumed you were talking about that because those are the people who are more relevant. I assumed you were talking about HF posters because:
A) Those are the people you are talking to
B) Those are the people you are constantly insulting and questioning the intelligence of

 

[CGG]

For the league to shut down for this long is at least evidence that the problems are severe.

No one is debating the problems are severe. But the real reasons for the lockout is owner profit and franchise values. Bettman wants you to believe it's about competitive parity and lowering ticket prices.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

The title of this thread reminds me of a pursuit of happiness tune. Not much happiness here however. I am done with the business of hockey section, just worn out. We will be playing hockey no later than january of 2007 so lets be patient.

 

[firstroundbust]

interesting read

 

[Greschner4]

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.

I just explained why it not only should happen, but why it would. You can't just eliminate from people's consciousness what they were willing to pay before the rollback. The rollback was a fraud that has completely backfired. Since the PA has been so ridiculously emotional iand hysterical in response to its rejection, I wish the offer had never been made.

There are a lot of very good businessmen among the owners, and I'm on their side; unfortunately one of the most idiotic owners in sports owns the team in the biggest market.

What I'm really on the side of is more compelling competititon and a salary cap will unquestionably deliver it.

 

[Greschner4]

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.

While some leagues that have salary caps also share revenues, there is absolutely no necessary relationship between the two. You can have a perfectly logical cap system with zero revenue sharing.

 

[Greschner4]

The PA isn't saying that at all. They have recogized the need to re-set the market by offering rollbacks and other concessions.

To expect the players to jump into bed with the owners is ludicrous. Didn't that already happen once?

It won't reset the market; that's its fatal flaw. Why Goodenow and posters continue to repeat this, I can't understand.