Strachan Nails It

  • Thread starter A Good Flying Bird*
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,966
2,059
Duncan
Newsguyone said:
Look, try turning the question around and answering it yourself.

If $42,5 M is reasonable, can $45 be THAT unreasonable?
How much impact does the difference have on the NHL? Seriously. Think about it.

Now ask yourself this:
Why did the NHL imply that they'd move up from $42.5M?
Why did they allow this charade to continue?

My guess is that he wanted to say to the NLRB, look, we tried up unitl the deadline. Then we tried again. ANd now its too late. And now, because of the cancelled season, we desperately need to link revenues to salaries ... because this lockout is going to hurt revenues and we can no longer afford even a $42 Million cap.

My guess is that he's going to get laughed out of the NLRB.

If all you can really afford is 40,000 but you figure you'll offer 42,500 because you really love that vehicle, but the guy selling won't move from 46,000 what will you do? It's only a few more thousand after all.

Your argument doesn't make sense. There comes a time when it's just over you budget.
 

Mats

Registered User
Jul 27, 2003
106
0
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
Dude, the entire hockey world announced yesterday that a deal was almost done. At $45 million.

Obviously, that was not the case.
What makes you so sure $42.5 could get the deal done.

42.5 was the offer the NHL made only days ago. I know you're aware of this. So, in theory, the players could have accepted at 42.5.

I don't get why this is a difficult thing to comprehend.
 

Mats

Registered User
Jul 27, 2003
106
0
Visit site
sundstrom said:
you've got this a bit backwards. bettman needs only 8 if he DOESN'T approve of the deal. 22 owners need to overrule him in this case. but if bettman signs the deal, he only needs 16 (a simple majority) to pass.

I appreciate the clarification.

I still think he'd have had that.
 

loudi94

Master of my Domain
Jul 8, 2003
8,507
1,533
Alberta
I'm not sure many owners were very happy with the 42.5 million dollar figure. When Bettman said that was the final offer, it was indeed the final offer. It's unfortunate that the players couldn't see that. Now I wonder where do the players go from here. Any subsequent NHL offer will be less than this. The clock is ticking on players careers, while the owners can outwait them.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Look, try turning the question around and answering it yourself.

If $42,5 M is reasonable, can $45 be THAT unreasonable?
How much impact does the difference have on the NHL? Seriously. Think about it.

Now ask yourself this:
Why did the NHL imply that they'd move up from $42.5M?
Why did they allow this charade to continue?

My guess is that he wanted to say to the NLRB, look, we tried up unitl the deadline. Then we tried again. ANd now its too late. And now, because of the cancelled season, we desperately need to link revenues to salaries ... because this lockout is going to hurt revenues and we can no longer afford even a $42 Million cap.

My guess is that he's going to get laughed out of the NLRB.
I thought this had already been beaten to death already?

For every pro-PA side that says "Whats the difference between 42.5 million and 45 million" the pro-league side says "Whats the differencew between 49 million and 45 million."

Obviously, something since neither side wanted to cave.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
quat said:
If all you can really afford is 40,000 but you figure you'll offer 42,500 because you really love that vehicle, but the guy selling won't move from 46,000 what will you do? It's only a few more thousand after all.

Your argument doesn't make sense. There comes a time when it's just over you budget.

Fine time for the owners to figure out what a budget is, and stick to it. They haven't done it for 10 years why start now.
 

Ar-too

Zealous Scrub
Jan 8, 2004
11,108
15
Columbus, OH
Wetcoaster said:
REVENUE SHARING

The NFL learned that one 40 years ago - before the big TV deals and well before a salary cap.

I'm a pretty pro-owner guy but this is one case where the players are absolutely right and the owners and Bettman are dead wrong. The success of the NFL's salary cap CBA is directly linked to its revenue sharing model - not to mention non-guarranteed contracts.
 

Riddarn

1980-2011
Aug 2, 2003
9,164
0
s3por2d said:
I'm a pretty pro-owner guy but this is one case where the players are absolutely right and the owners and Bettman are dead wrong.

I agree. Why not make it simple, take 25% of everyones gate revenute, add it all up and divide it equally between the 30 teams. That way they get their revenue sharing and no luxury tax money gets fed into poorer clubs salary budgets.

But it's probably way too late now anyway. It's so stupid. No matter who "wins" it will only be a pyrrhic victory and the NHL and the world of hockey in general will suffer from this for decades to come.
 

ATLANTARANGER*

Guest
It has always been about that.

TouchMyBertuzzi said:
Boy, it sounds really good, but then some three year old is going to get ahold of it and prove it ridiculous.

If Bettman's purpose is a salary cap to triple values of the league's franchises, and the NHLPA offers a salary cap, accepting a salary cap with the league at 45 million dollars would succeed in increasing the value of the franchises just the same as having a court impose it.

Bettman sold the existing owners on all of these expansion fees and dreamed of taking the NHL to the top of the sports heap. He could care less about hockey. He's a typical lawyer and Al hit the problem square on the nose, lawyers. I think if you did a survey to determine which profession has the largest number of convicted felons, it would be lawyers. They will tell you that it is day time when in fact it is midnight.
 

Isles72

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,520
465
Canada
simple questions to the nhlpa

What other league will you play in ?

Do you think these other leagues will have team salaries of 20 - 42.5 mil ?

Would you rather play for far less in a foreign country , or , possibly play in beautiful cities across North America and earn a pretty good chunk of change.

Do you think 42.5 mil is going to be on the table in Jan '06 ?

Do you think the fans are going to flock back to games in the cities in which hockey is only starting to ''catch on'' ?

Would you prefer the league to continue bleeding to death until it collapses to only half the current teams ?

I'd take the 42.5 and run with it because you are dreaming if you think its going to get better .

Take the 42.5 and help heal the game over a 5 year span , then we can talk about raising it to 49 .

wake up
 

IslesRule

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
309
0
Visit site
s3por2d said:
I'm a pretty pro-owner guy but this is one case where the players are absolutely right and the owners and Bettman are dead wrong. The success of the NFL's salary cap CBA is directly linked to its revenue sharing model - not to mention non-guarranteed contracts.

Well it was the NHLPA that insisted that there be no linkage in establishing a cap, and then they only wanted escalators once the deal was in place. IN my mind the Owners dropping the link between salaries and revenue was a big win for the players, but they wanted even more.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
IslesRule said:
Well it was the NHLPA that insisted that there be no linkage in establishing a cap, and then they only wanted escalators once the deal was in place. IN my mind the Owners dropping the link between salaries and revenue was a big win for the players, but they wanted even more.

Sounds like they still do ... It looks to me like they didn't budge off the clause 7 and brought Gretzky and Lemieux in on a bait and switch.
 

TheBudsForever

Registered User
May 5, 2002
1,158
0
Visit site
Owner and Player ALL Richly Deserve Punishment

and it's coming down in spades in the near future.

The 2 egomaniacs, Goodenow and Bettman, are 2 Ivy League lawyers who got themselves locked into a game of "my equipment is bigger than your equipment". For both of them, it's all about winning and not about a deal. Like lemmings running off a cliff players and owners followed both until it as too late. Both the players and the owners are to blame.

Honestly, the deal should have been done at a hard cap of $45 million. It was there to be done. Sure, not every team could have afforded it, but most teams would be able to at least afford something not too far off that figure. In short it would have created an almost level playing field for most teams which is generally as good as it gets.

Honestly, at this point in time, I say let Carolina, Nashville, Anaheim, Florida, Columbus and other small market U.S. teams go under if they can't cut the mustard under a $45 million hard cap. As far as Boston, Chicago and Pittsburgh, if their ownerhsip and management continues to be brutal, let them go under as well .... bottom line, somebody will buy those teams and start fresh in all 3 of those markets with new management.

Contraction would be good for the game. Less teams equals better players on the remaining teams which is good for the game. It also means a stable league which is also good for the game. It would also punish players and owners, as they so richly deserve.

I can only hope that to help that coming to pass, ESPN declines to renew their option for next year. In short, televised hockey in the U.S. on a national basis would disappear in the wink of an eye. That would look real good on both the players and the owners. It would look really really good on Bettman and his lets expand into small market USA vision.

A pox on them all!
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
TheBudsForever said:
and it's coming down in spades in the near future.

The 2 egomaniacs, Goodenow and Bettman, are 2 Ivy League lawyers who got themselves locked into a game of "my equipment is bigger than your equipment". For both of them, it's all about winning and not about a deal. Like lemmings running off a cliff players and owners followed both until it as too late. Both the players and the owners are to blame.

Honestly, the deal should have been done at a hard cap of $45 million. It was there to be done. Sure, not every team could have afforded it, but most teams would be able to at least afford something not too far off that figure. In short it would have created an almost level playing field for most teams which is generally as good as it gets.

Honestly, at this point in time, I say let Carolina, Nashville, Anaheim, Florida, Columbus and other small market U.S. teams go under if they can't cut the mustard under a $45 million hard cap. As far as Boston, Chicago and Pittsburgh, if their ownerhsip and management continues to be brutal, let them go under as well .... bottom line, somebody will buy those teams and start fresh in all 3 of those markets with new management.

Contraction would be good for the game. Less teams equals better players on the remaining teams which is good for the game. It also means a stable league which is also good for the game. It would also punish players and owners, as they so richly deserve.

I can only hope that to help that coming to pass, ESPN declines to renew their option for next year. In short, televised hockey in the U.S. on a national basis would disappear in the wink of an eye. That would look real good on both the players and the owners. It would look really really good on Bettman and his lets expand into small market USA vision.

A pox on them all!

Agreed. The league's doomed if a $45 million hard cap wasn't enough to get agreement among the owners. I'd have thought by now that the league would have long ago declared victory and started playing. That they haven't because they want to kowtow to teams in the lame markets you mentioned is really bothersome. Those markets bring absolutely nothing to the table.
 

Habs Icing

Formerly Onice
Jan 17, 2004
19,519
11,177
Montreal
Newsguyone said:
No. You should read with more care.

He's after a cap near $30 million.
Not $40.
$30 Million almost gaurantees profittability.
Gauranteed profittablity will make franchise look like better investments and will increase the values. Owners in Nashville and FLorida could get out of the business and make a tidy profit.


He wasn't going to get a $30M cap through negotiations.
He needed an impasse to do so.


You should listen to what you're saying. He wanted a 30 million cap but offers 42 knowing the players will refuse it. The players did refuse it so now he's going to the labor board and ask for a 30 million cap.What board will agree with that? Do you really think Bettman is that stupid? For crying out loud, you really think Bettman's plan was offer them 42 and we'll get 30 from the board? :shakehead
 

JohnnyB11

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
1,659
96
Saint John, NB
Isles72 said:
simple questions to the nhlpa

What other league will you play in ?

Do you think these other leagues will have team salaries of 20 - 42.5 mil ?

Would you rather play for far less in a foreign country , or , possibly play in beautiful cities across North America and earn a pretty good chunk of change.

Do you think 42.5 mil is going to be on the table in Jan '06 ?

Do you think the fans are going to flock back to games in the cities in which hockey is only starting to ''catch on'' ?

Would you prefer the league to continue bleeding to death until it collapses to only half the current teams ?

I'd take the 42.5 and run with it because you are dreaming if you think its going to get better .

Take the 42.5 and help heal the game over a 5 year span , then we can talk about raising it to 49 .

wake up

I'd LOVE to hear some answers to those questions... we never will, even if they are posed directly by media, but those really are some real doozies I think the PA could never adequately answer. Nice post.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Riddarn said:
And you like preaching.

Like a preacher on the old time gospel hour, stealing money from the sick and the old.
Well the god I believe in isn't shorta'cash, mista!
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,966
2,059
Duncan
vanlady said:
Fine time for the owners to figure out what a budget is, and stick to it. They haven't done it for 10 years why start now.

Well that is a silly comment. You rag on about Owners not being responsible for sticking to budgets, but when they do you rag on them all the same. You jokers just don't want to agree to anything that might not support "your side".

The NHL has just this one shot at getting a CBA that will keep player costs to a reasonable level of revenues. This is it. If they don't get something that works properly, the league won't prosper.

Once they have a CBA inked and signed that is fair to both the Owners and the Players, you'll see the individual players becoming a huge part of the marketing scheme. The game will become much more popular over time when the game on the ice improves as well. The players will still be earning fabulous salaries that continue to grow, and they'll have better endorsment deals to go along with the new marketing.

I for one am not happy missing hockey, but I'll be patient while the NHL and the PA work this out.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
quat said:
If all you can really afford is 40,000 but you figure you'll offer 42,500 because you really love that vehicle, but the guy selling won't move from 46,000 what will you do? It's only a few more thousand after all.

Your argument doesn't make sense. There comes a time when it's just over you budget.

I'd believe this a little more if I trusted that the owners had any concepts of budgets anyway.
The fact is, key figures within the NHL made it known that the league would settle for $45M.
So you tell me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->