Sunday articles

[sundstrom]

Bottom line



Bettman is not qualified to be commisioner. The reason the common league revenues decreased were "ALL" his fault. Jaques Lemaire ruined the sport in 94 by introducing this Sport killing system called "The Trap". And all the years since 94 Bettman has done nothing to increase flow and goal scoring. Now he starts talking about new rules. What the hell were you doing for the last 11 years Gary.
.

I'm new to this forum, but it didn't take long to find a Devils/Trap killed Hockey guy here too. Montreal played the trap in it's hayday, it was just called "good defense" then. Since the Devils have been playing the trap, they've been on the upper end in scoring most years. The Wings, a very high scoring team and ESPN lovechild plays the Left-Wing lock, a derivative of the trap.

It is not the trap, or a defensive system that has halted scoring. It is the clutching and grabbing by lesser players who can get away with it because obstruction hasn't been called for 5 years.

 

[fifty_in39]

Bottom line

The small markets and hawks dominate the owners ranks and the rangers, flyers, red wings, stars, blues, avalanche and leafs suffer. QUOTE]

They should suffer, they're the ones that caused this mess in the first place. Maybe they should start their own league, they'd surely get a massive tv contract then!

 

[Icey]

Bottom line

Owners called the meeting and should have put 45 mill offer on the table take it or leave it right now.

That wasnt done. The small markets and hawks dominate the owners ranks and the rangers, flyers, red wings, stars, blues, avalanche and leafs suffer. These are the teams that bring the major revenues into this league. These are the teams that are the earners. I know it wont happen, but the above teams should at this point cecede from the NHL and start a new super league. Leave the pipsqueaks out. Gary Bettman should be fired for not coming out this weekend w/o a deal.

Bettman is not qualified to be commisioner. The reason the common league revenues decreased were "ALL" his fault. Jaques Lemaire ruined the sport in 94 by introducing this Sport killing system called "The Trap". And all the years since 94 Bettman has done nothing to increase flow and goal scoring. Now he starts talking about new rules. What the hell were you doing for the last 11 years Gary.

For years Bettman dreamed of this moment, to destroy the Union. If Gary was a hockey man instead of being a lawyer, maybe the new "rules" would have been in effect 10 years ago and this game would be much more popular and have larger national revenue streams. But all Gary did in his tenure is to recruit markets that have no right being in this league(Nashville?, Columbus?, Atlanta?). Any idiot in a new market that could come up with the 50-80 million dollar expansion fee was given a franchise. Where was the Marketing research that showed that Columbus had the wearwithall to compete with New York!! or Nashville with Detroit!!! Or Atlanta with Toronto!!!

Now all the Big Markets are being dragged down by the weak sisters in a watered down league.

Owners, take some responsibility and get this done. The 2.5 million extra on the cap isnt going to make that much difference and no matter what Ted Saskin says, The players would have accepted a 45 million dollar flat cap over 6 years.

Here is an interesting quote from a TSN article

The league was also mystified, privately stunned that the union didn't deliver a new offer with a $45-million salary cap as had been rumoured in the 24 hours heading into the meeting.

"The bottom line is, our understanding was that this meeting was for them to come forward with a new proposal but it never got to that point," said Daly.



Their understand was that the meeting was for the union to make a proposal??? The league called the meeting not the players.

And this is the same game that was played 3 days earlier, just the opposite. Goodenow submites a $49M cap offer and Bettman doesn't submit a counter proposal and then cancels the season. Then later says if they wanted a $45M cap they should have proposed it.

Now fast forward 3 days and the league is now saying " we thought the players were going to submit a $45M proposal and were mystified and stunned when they didn't". Again, if you want them to submit a $45M proposal ask them to don't just assume. And since when does the league listen to the rumor mill about what is going to happen?

Everyone seems to be willing to work with a $45M proposal, but nobody will offer it.

As the old saying goes... when you assume you make an ass of you and me.

 

[bcrt2000]

owners:
- moved from $31M to $42.5M
- moved from linkage of 53-55% of revenues to no linkage
- willing to bring down UFA age 2 years
- wanted 2-way arbitration
- wanted qualifying offers to move from 110% to 75%
- moved from no revenue sharing to minimal revenue sharing

players:
- gave a 24% rollback to move the average salary level back to 2000-01 levels
- moved from no cap to cap
- moved from $52M to $49M
- moved from no linkage to upwards linkage
- want to lower UFAs to 29
- went from 1-way arbitration to allowing owners to send a player to arbitration once in his career
- not sure on qualifying offer status, but weren't pleased with 75%
- wanted heavy revenue sharing

I think the concessions and wants from both sides have been pretty even, unlike what the players are saying

 

[Bruwinz37]

The key paragraph in all the articles I've read this morning: from KPD.

"I thought [$42.5 million] was a figure we could live with, but we were stretching," said Jacobs. "And I know there are teams in this league that cannot survive at [$49 million]. Even at $42.5 million, there are clubs that would still be in peril, definitely. To make that work, we'd still have to take money from other clubs to support them."

Jacobs wants the cap low enough to he doesn't have to share a dime.

Let me ask you a question, why is this so wrong? Jacobs has voted AGAINST expansion every time since 1979. This supposedly money hungry guy has been against expanding this league too fast even if it did mean immediate millions in his pocket. He always spends good money (although *how* he spends it should be questioned) and now he doesnt want to give his money away to teams that can barely run on a 25 million dollar payroll and in some instances dont have the fan base to support a team long term.

So yes, he wants a cap where everyone is viable on their own. Why is this bad?

 

[bcrt2000]

Let me ask you a question, why is this so wrong? Jacobs has voted AGAINST expansion every time since 1979. This supposedly money hungry guy has been against expanding this league too fast even if it did mean immediate millions in his pocket. He always spends good money (although *how* he spends it should be questioned) and now he doesnt want to give his money away to teams that can barely run on a 25 million dollar payroll and in some instances dont have the fan base to support a team long term.

So yes, he wants a cap where everyone is viable on their own. Why is this bad?

to add to that, if the players expect owners to revenue share, then players not only need to accept linkage, but accept some risk too. The problem with heavy revenue sharing based on a league with no big TV contract is you could go from 10 profitable teams and 10 teams that break even and 10 teams that bleed to 30 teams that bleed very easily

 

[GKJ]

The key paragraph in all the articles I've read this morning: from KPD.

"I thought [$42.5 million] was a figure we could live with, but we were stretching," said Jacobs. "And I know there are teams in this league that cannot survive at [$49 million]. Even at $42.5 million, there are clubs that would still be in peril, definitely. To make that work, we'd still have to take money from other clubs to support them."

Jacobs wants the cap low enough to he doesn't have to share a dime.

Jacobs is an assclown and so is Wirtz. They're the 2 central figures of this fiasco.


And it has seemed in recent years that Bruins fans don't go to games because of the owner, much like it has for Blackhawks fans. But at least the Bruins have at least put semi-successful teams. The Blackhawks made the playoffs once in 6 years.

 

[Bruwinz37]

Jacobs is an assclown and so is Wirtz. They're the 2 central figures of this fiasco.

gkj, I know Jacobs is a hardliner, but didnt KPD say he was OK with a cap up to 45m? If being an assclown is being a business person first than I guess he could be. But lets think about this, he owns the building, concessions and the team. If he was making soooo much money why would he risk what will probably be at least 1 1/2 years of income? Maybe, just maybe, he doesnt make as much money as people all assume and knows it will only get worse without change.

 

[vanlady]

gkj, I know Jacobs is a hardliner, but didnt KPD say he was OK with a cap up to 45m? If being an assclown is being a business person first than I guess he could be. But lets think about this, he owns the building, concessions and the team. If he was making soooo much money why would he risk what will probably be at least 1 1/2 years of income? Maybe, just maybe, he doesnt make as much money as people all assume and knows it will only get worse without change.

Is this the same Jeremy Jacobs that just got caught by the IRS for under reporting revenue in reguards to the Bruins????? He's still paying the fine.

 

[GKJ]

Is this the same Jeremy Jacobs that just got caught by the IRS for under reporting revenue in reguards to the Bruins????? He's still paying the fine.

You took the words out of my mouth.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Let me ask you a question, why is this so wrong? Jacobs has voted AGAINST expansion every time since 1979.

No he didn't. Harry Sinden, representing Jacobs, voted in favor of three expansion teams in the early 90's. There are direct quotes from that Board of Governors in Gil Stein's book.

 

[Bruwinz37]

No he didn't. Harry Sinden, representing Jacobs, voted in favor of three expansion teams in the early 90's. There are direct quotes from that Board of Governors in Gil Stein's book.

Ok, I will certainly check on that, but I had read that he voted against each time.

My apologies if I was wrong.

 

[Bruwinz37]

Is this the same Jeremy Jacobs that just got caught by the IRS for under reporting revenue in reguards to the Bruins????? He's still paying the fine.

Thats fine, but it more proves my point than anything else. The questions was (and I will repeat because you answered another question, not mine) was if he is making so much money like everyone claims (and hey--more than he claims according to you) why is he so steadfast in change.

Let me put this more simply for you. If you were making big bucks off a business would you be in favor of drastic change if it meant two years of losing money?

 

[GKJ]

gkj, I know Jacobs is a hardliner, but didnt KPD say he was OK with a cap up to 45m?

No KPD said only said that the way Jacobs was talking, it wouldn't. He actually doesn't even have a direct quote mentioning it, just what John already quoted.

 

[vanlady]

Thats fine, but it more proves my point than anything else. The questions was (and I will repeat because you answered another question, not mine) was if he is making so much money like everyone claims (and hey--more than he claims according to you) why is he so steadfast in change.

Let me put this more simply for you. If you were making big bucks off a business would you be in favor of drastic change if it meant two years of losing money?

If it meant by getting a cap that I would now quintuple my profit and I would get that money back in less than 5 years? You bet I would and that is and always has been Jacobs intent.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Ok, I will certainly check on that, but I had read that he voted against each time.

My apologies if I was wrong.

As long as Gil Stein didn't fabricate the quotes, its true. To be fair, Boston was one of the few teams that urged some caution, saying the league needed to identify the proper markets.

I really do recommend Stein's book for anybody that wants to get a sense of how greedy the NHL owners are. My favorite quote comes from a BOG meeting later when discussing the Ottawa\Florida plan of 50th expansion when the owners said "take the money now, worry about the future later". Its kinda hard for me to support them in a fight over $2.5 million after statements like that.

 

[hockeytown9321]

If it meant by getting a cap that I would now quintuple my profit and I would get that money back in less than 5 years? You bet I would and that is and always has been Jacobs intent.

And guys like Jacobs and Wirtz have an extreme hatred of unions. they want to see the NHLPA completely destroyed.

It'd be one thing if these guys couldn't afford the difference between $42.5 and $45. They don't want to afford it.

 

[me2]

Is this the same Jeremy Jacobs that just got caught by the IRS for under reporting revenue in reguards to the Bruins????? He's still paying the fine.

That can't possibly be true. After all the NHLPAers tell us its impossible to audit the owners because they can hide any amount of revenue they want with 100% success.......

 

[vanlady]

That can't possibly be true. After all the NHLPAers tell us its impossible to audit the owners because they can hide any amount of revenue they want with 100% success.......

No one can hide from God and the IRS. It also took 4 years to catch him.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Let me ask you a question, why is this so wrong? Jacobs has voted AGAINST expansion every time since 1979. This supposedly money hungry guy has been against expanding this league too fast even if it did mean immediate millions in his pocket. He always spends good money (although *how* he spends it should be questioned) and now he doesnt want to give his money away to teams that can barely run on a 25 million dollar payroll and in some instances dont have the fan base to support a team long term.

So yes, he wants a cap where everyone is viable on their own. Why is this bad?

I have no problem with big money teams not wanting to share revenues. If I was Ed Snider the only two team I'd consider helping out would be the Flames and the Oilers.

However if I'm not willing to help out those teams in need, I don't feel that the players should also have to drop down to the lowest threshold in order to ensure their survival.

Don't ask for a "partnership" with the players, if you're not going to form a partnership with your fellow owners.

 

[me2]

No one can hide from God and the IRS. It also took 4 years to catch him.

LOL, so you think dedicated auditors in the employ of both the NHL and NHLPA, stationed at teams offices couldn't find that quicker. Double LOL.

 

[GKJ]

That can't possibly be true. After all the NHLPAers tell us its impossible to audit the owners because they can hide any amount of revenue they want with 100% success.......

The NHL Players Association and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (with the United States government) are two totally different entities.

 

[vanlady]

LOL, so you think dedicated auditors in the employ of both the NHL and NHLPA, stationed at teams offices couldn't find that quicker. Double LOL.

That would be nice and all, but most of the funny dealing don't happen in the team offices. It happens in the related entity business. Let's face it, Jabobs runs the company that runs most of the concessions in the NHL, how fast could that be doctored?

 

[me2]

That would be nice and all, but most of the funny dealing don't happen in the team offices. It happens in the related entity business. Let's face it, Jabobs runs the company that runs most of the concessions in the NHL, how fast could that be doctored?

You don't think the NHLPA-NHL would ask for access to those directly related businesses? Of course they would. It would take less than ten minutes to work out something funny was going on by comparing Jacobs concession revenue to league average.

Smoke screens and excuses.

 

[djhn579]

You don't think the NHLPA-NHL would ask for access to those directly related businesses? Of course they would. It would take less than ten minutes to work out something funny was going on by comparing Jacobs concession revenue to league average.

Smoke screens and excuses.

Actually, it is even easier than that. All revenue going into the team or out of the team is recorded in some fashion. If a team tries to hide revenue by signing a contract with their directly related business (say a cable company, for example...) at less than market value, this will stand out considerably when compared to other teams dealings with cable companies. The team would have to justify that by showing records and proof that the contract signed is in line with other contracts signed by the cable company.