The Dictator Bob Goodenow better leave the door open with Thursday's offer

[MojoJojo]

Salary growth surpassed revenue growth. No business survives when the salary component eats up 76% of revenues. Salaries escalated out of control and its time for them to be brought back under control. The computer industry crashed and almost burned because salaries raced out of control. It has adjusted and salaries are back to normal levels for the most part. Should hackey wait for the whole thing to come crashing down and several teams fold before the league and players recognize the errors in their ways like other industries have?

Who's fault exactly is it that salaries are out of control? The players, for accepting the best offer given to them? The owners are like drug addicts who blame everyone else for their own inability to control themselves. And I dont accept the argumnt that under the current system (or even better, the most recent NHLPA offer) a small market team like Calgary or Tampa cant be competitive against a big spender like Dallas or the Rangers.

 

[kerrly]

Its time? It's been almost a century since the owners first started talking about a salary cap. When are they going to learn that they're never going to get it?

If you don't think the owners are going to get a salary cap, or something that provides cost certainty, then you've lost your mind. The players can either start to negotiate off that right now, or wait two years and get the exact same result. I highly doubt the owners are about to give in, Alot of you NHLPA supporters use the argument that these owners are all billionaires and its their fault if they take a loss. Well they've been so used to taking losses for the past 10 years that what will stop them from taking a couple more years of losses to get what they want. No player ever in this league has taken a loss to play this game. We'll see who can last the longest.

 

[Steve L*]

Are you serious?
Read this thread. In fact, read any post by the author of this thread.
No facts. Just plain old name calling (Dictator Goodenow, etc)

I guess that's what passes for "intelligence" these days.

Hes one of the minority, however if you look at the pro NHLPA people, for every person like you, theres 5 BR, scaredsensfan or Flyline4life.

 

[MojoJojo]

If you don't think the owners are going to get a salary cap, or something thas porvieds cost certainty, then you've lost your mind. The players can either start to negotiate off that right now, or wait two years and get the exact same result. i highly doubt the owners are about to give in, Alot of you NHLPA supporters use the argument that these owners are all billionaires and its their fault if they take a loss. Well they've been so used to taking losses for the past 10 years that what will stop them from taking a couple more years of losses to get what they want. No player ever in this league has taken a loss to play this game. We'll see who can last the longest.

No, my argument is not that they are billionaires and can afford to lose money. My point is that they are businessmen who have the power to decide how much of their revenue to spend on player salaries.

 

[Steve L*]

Steve, none of your posts are logical or intelligent. Anyone who supports the owners clearly does not understand much. I mean, what kind of morons were WANTING a lockout to 'stick it to the players'? Thats assinine.

No, I want a lockout so there will be an NHL in 5 years time, if the players get what they want, there wont be an NHL in the future.

 

[YellHockey*]

If you don't think the owners are going to get a salary cap, or something thas porvieds cost certainty, then you've lost your mind. The players can either start to negotiate off that right now, or wait two years and get the exact same result.

Or the players can decertify.

The players have another option if they don't want what the owners propose.

What options do the owners have if they don't want what the players propose?

The players can break the stalemate without giving the owners cost certainty. The owners can't break the stalemate without giving the players a marketplace for salaries.

 

[kerrly]

Don't have a huge pool of revenue? There's 2.1 BILLION dollars in the pool. Split 30 ways, that's $70M a team. Plenty of money to go around for everyone.

Who cares where the revenue comes from? If they split it there is no longer revenue disparity. There are no more cries about how the Rangers and Red Wings are making the Oilers and Flames suffer since they're all on equal ground.

Why should the players want to be partners with the owners when they don't even want to be partners with themselves?

Yeah but when the leagues losses total 200 million dollars, all it does is spread the losses throughout the league. When over 50% of the league loses money, it really hurts the league more than helps it.

And also, that is not how revenue sharing goes. They don't pool all of the revenue, and then divide it equally between all 30 teams. Each team pays a percentage into a pool and then that is divided 30 times. If there was a big pool of revenue to share from, like a big tv contract, there's no doubt that this a good method and should at least be looked into, but when there isn't a big pool of revenue, it will absolutely not fly.

 

[kerrly]

Both sides need to make some concessions. That much is obvious. I'm not sure why everyone is so pro-owner, though. I mean, as fans, we're the backbone of the league. I'd rather my money go toward the product I'm supporting than a rich owner. Granted, it ultimately will go towards a rich owner who will then dole out salaries. What I mean, however, is that I'd rather a greater portion go towards the players I enjoy watching. I have a feeling that people who think that prices will go down significantly if there's a cap will be in for a rude awakening, but that's me.

The players are the victims, if anything here I would say. How would you like it if someone started telling you they wanted to limit your ability to make money? Oh right, millionaires waive their right to make as much money as they can, right? Oh wait, owners don't. Hmm...

All of that crap doesn't matter anymore. I think that you'll find a bulk of the pro-owner people on here are pro-owner because they are the ones actually proposing a deal that will better the game. Personally I'm not pro-owner or pro-player. I'm siding with the owners proposals. Ultimately, for me, what it comes down to, is which proposal is going to further the success and health of the league for many years to come. Thats all that really matters.

And about your last paragraph. How many players have ever taken a loss to play in the NHL? NONE!!!!! Why is it fair that the owners should be losing money to have a team be successful or try to be successful? Of course both sides are to blame on this issue in different ways, but my point is that the players are hardly the victims here.

 

[kerrly]

Things like salary caps are marginally legal under US employment law, since it basically amounts to collusion and wage fixing across an industry. If they want a cap, it better be with the written consent of teh players union, or it can be shot down by the NLRB or a court of law. If the owners want a cap, they have to give something up to get it.

You mean wage fixing like how the NHLPA decides who goes to arbitration and who doesn't? Or is that not included in your argument to make it seem more relevant.

 

[kerrly]

No, my argument is not that they are billionaires and can afford to lose money. My point is that they are businessmen who have the power to decide how much of their revenue to spend on player salaries.

I think we've all come to the conclusion that most cannot control themselves when it comes to this. And now we need to put some system in place that eliminates these idiots from detrementing the league anymore. It has to be done or nothing will change.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Says the NHL. The only audited set of books I've seen are Ottawa's.

Wow, you're my hero. When can we expect the Tom Benjamin Report?

Says the NHL. The only audited set of books I've seen are Ottawa's.

Wow, you're my hero. When can we expect the Tom Benjamin Report?

See, I can be glib and annoying just like you, how does it feel? How about putting some thought into what you write and come back with something a little more thoughtful than "Says the NHL." If you have seen the auditted Ottawa Senators books then you know very well just how hard up they were, as one of the top teams in the NHL. So what does that say about the rest of the teams who have not had the luxury of having a desireable team and a packed house? Wouldn't it make sense to think they are likely not doing as well as the Senators? Oh I know, you don't have to reply, I'll do it for you.

"Says the NHL. The only audited set of books I've seen are Ottawa's."

This has what to do with hockey?

It has nothing to do with hockey but is an example of what can happen in other industries when salaries spiral out of control. Its sometimes a very good idea to examine other industries and the way outside and inside influences have affected them and see how they rebounded or failed. Oh I know, I'll say it for you.

"Says the NHL. The only audited set of books I've seen are Ottawa's."

Yes. This is a fate that the NHL has claimed is just around the corner for as long as I've been a fan. Bill Wirtz and Harry Sinden were making exactly the same claims in the 1970's. Until I see pieces of the sky actually fall or the wolf actually eatuing sheep, I'm not going to believe them.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

So what are these piece of the sky falling? The Senators (you know, those guys whose auditted books that you have poured over and have an intimate knowledge of) almost failing? The Penguins almost failing? Both getting bankruptcy protection? How about the number of teams that have changed cities in the past decade and a bit? How about the number of teams that have to continually sell off players (come on, you remember what that was like when Yashin was let go for financial reasons) because they are no longer affordable in their market place? How about almost a $60 million dollar spread in salary structures from top to bottom and 2/3rds of the teams being under the average team salary mark? These are all signs of an industry not being healthy. How are you missing these things if you have intimate knowledge of the Ottawa Senator's financials?

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Well, the last time I looked 99% of working people in the world are limited by the amount of money they can make. I would love to be able to walk into my boss at the end of my contract and tell him that I am holding out for three or four times what I was making a few weeks earlier. Even though I get along great with my co-workers, am identified as a key member of the team and provide a leadership role, and customers say I am an invaluable asset to them, the minute I asked more than what the company or industry was able to pay I would be out of a job and someone would be hired to replace me. That is the reality of most of the working stiffs out there. We all have delusions of granduer and that were unreplaceable, but we also recognize how fragile our employment can be and don't take a hardline stance that might inflame the ownership/management and see us terminated.

But I know why my salary has limits on it: experience, company I work for, location I live in, etc. If I have 7 yrs experience, I should make more money than someone fresh out of college doing the same type of job. If I work for a small, privately-owned company, I can't expect to make the same as a big public corporation. If I live in East Bum-phook, I can't possibly expect to make the same as if I lived in New York City.

Maybe it just happens where I work but my department head (ie my boss) towards of the end of the year looks at what was spent last yr and looks at what he expects to spend in the next yr. Lets call him the GM in this scenario. He then goes to the company president (let's call him the owner) and makes his case for how much money he needs. The owner then looks at how much money the company made last yr and how much my department wants and decides how much my department is going to get. If some of you don't recognize this, it's called the budget process. Does the budget process and revenues at my company have ANY influence on our competitors budget process and vice versa?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Does the budget process and revenues at my company have ANY influence on our competitors budget process and vice versa?

Yes it does. In the sake of competition and employee retention companies are continually looking at salary and benefit surveys and their competitors to identify what the going rate for people is. These numbers are used to project the budget and see the imact that will have on the business versus projected revenues. If projected reveues don't meat the projected budget, guess what happens. That projected budget gets trimmed or severly cut. No raises or possible layoffs.

Now these numbers that are used also vary from market to market. A worker in New York will get paid more than a worker in St. Louis, because of cost of living. But after cost of living adjustments are factored in the going rate for the employee is about the same no matter where they are. The major difference is going to be the cost of living differential which is an easily identified and substantiated number. Its a challenge to deal with, but so many businesses have done it in the past that there are defined process to deal with this issue.

So after a long winded reply, in short, yes, your budget and what you are willing to spend affects your competition.

 

[CorneliusBennet]

Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Well, the last time I looked 99% of working people in the world are limited by the amount of money they can make. I would love to be able to walk into my boss at the end of my contract and tell him that I am holding out for three or four times what I was making a few weeks earlier. Even though I get along great with my co-workers, am identified as a key member of the team and provide a leadership role, and customers say I am an invaluable asset to them, the minute I asked more than what the company or industry was able to pay I would be out of a job and someone would be hired to replace me. That is the reality of most of the working stiffs out there. We all have delusions of granduer and that were unreplaceable, but we also recognize how fragile our employment can be and don't take a hardline stance that might inflame the ownership/management and see us terminated.
--

Well, the last time I looked 99% of working people in the world are limited by the amount of money they can make. -- what's the basis of your assertion? What are the controlling factors that limit income? How do you arrive at the (incredibly arbitrary) 99% figure. You're making it up as you go along, I see.

I would love to be able to walk into my boss at the end of my contract and tell him that I am holding out for three or four times what I was making a few weeks earlier. -- yeah, you could if you were being offered that higher salary by a competing company who wants to bring you into their organization. The NHL wants to limit your competitors ability to offer you more money to do your job, so you will never be in a position to go to your boss and say "I have a better offer, match it or I'm gone." You do have that right as a worker now if you were skilled enough and in demand, but you're not, few of us are. You cannot compare your situation to that of an NHL player. You're not at as high a premium as they are. Market forces once again. Don't you just hate them?

We all have delusions of granduer and that were unreplaceable, but we also recognize how fragile our employment can be and don't take a hardline stance that might inflame the ownership/management and see us terminated. -- I've been working since I was 18 and in my 20 years of professional employment I can count on one hand the number of employees I've met who think they're unreplacable and have delusionals of grandeur. Check the company you keep. Either that or once again you are just pulling 'arguments' from out your....

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Well, the last time I looked 99% of working people in the world are limited by the amount of money they can make. I would love to be able to walk into my boss at the end of my contract and tell him that I am holding out for three or four times what I was making a few weeks earlier. Even though I get along great with my co-workers, am identified as a key member of the team and provide a leadership role, and customers say I am an invaluable asset to them, the minute I asked more than what the company or industry was able to pay I would be out of a job and someone would be hired to replace me. That is the reality of most of the working stiffs out there. We all have delusions of granduer and that were unreplaceable, but we also recognize how fragile our employment can be and don't take a hardline stance that might inflame the ownership/management and see us terminated.

One thing I think you miss in your argument is assumed risk. The players are not assuming much risk, other than their physical well being, and they are being paid very well for that risk. To have expectations that they should get more money, or even maintain status quo, is sort of silly. When the players wish to start assuming a financial risk then I think they can say some of the things they have. But to spend someone else's money the way they have for the past decade just doesn't work any longer. The NHL is looking for a partnership where salaries are tied to revenues. When revenues go up, so do salaries. When revenues go down, so do salaries. It works that way in all other industries, so why should the NHL be different?

People must stop comparing NHLers to average folk.
The NHL players are the product.

You could plug in anyold anyone to 99 percent of the jobs in the world, and no one would blink (except for those losing their jobs).

But try and replace the NHLers. It's not that easy.
If these guys grew on trees, NHL owners wouldn't have signed them to $10 Million contracts in the first place.

The NHL will never get a revenue/salary tie.
Their revenues can't be trusted.
And no, it doesn't work that way in other industries. If my company increases revenue by 500 percent, I'm probably going to get my regular 3 to 5 percent raise.
If my company sees its revenue cut in half, I'll probably go with out that raise or lose my job.

 

[IWD]

1. both sides need to make concessions?
a. nhl: salary cap b. nhlpa: no salary cap. how do both sides concede on that main point? there is no middle ground there.

2. you'd rather your money go toward the product rather than some rich owner.

Did I say they have to make concessions on the salary cap? No, I didn't. I said they have to make concessions. Period. That means that both sides have to give up something to get something. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, I'd rather my money go towards a player whose trade is what makes the industry exist. If the owners end up with a cap like they want, where will my money go? That's the bottom line. Will it be invested back into the team? Minimally, yes. Where will the rest go? It'll serve no other purpose than to make the owner its going to richer.

thats great if you have a well healed owner with money and knows how to spend it right. thats not so good if the owner is bad(chicago) or doesnt know how to spend it right(washington) or doesnt have to money to come close to competing(edmonton, pheonix, minnesota, nashville).

these teams are only as good the quality of the market they are in the quality of the ownership in control. i suppose you would trust the viability of your favorite team to a guy like Jeremy Roenick?

I don't even know what you're trying to say here, other than the point about the quality of the market. Elaborate?

 

[IWD]

All of that crap doesn't matter anymore. I think that you'll find a bulk of the pro-owner people on here are pro-owner because they are the ones actually proposing a deal that will better the game. Personally I'm not pro-owner or pro-player. I'm siding with the owners proposals. Ultimately, for me, what it comes down to, is which proposal is going to further the success and health of the league for many years to come. Thats all that really matters.

And about your last paragraph. How many players have ever taken a loss to play in the NHL? NONE!!!!! Why is it fair that the owners should be losing money to have a team be successful or try to be successful? Of course both sides are to blame on this issue in different ways, but my point is that the players are hardly the victims here.

Oh, I beg to differ. Where the money the fans invest goes matters quite a bit. If the money doesn't go to the players, it goes to the owners. I don't care much to see an old man get richer. I don't, however, mind seeing my favourite players get richer. It is their trade, afterall, that drives the industry.

I'd say most people who side with the owners appear to resent the players for being richer than them, more than anything. "They're paid millions to play a boys game. They should be grateful, not greedy" is a pretty accurate paraphrase of quite a few comments I've read around here.

Why is it fair that the owners take a loss? Mostly because they're the ones owning running a business. I'm not expert on business, but I do know this. In the business world, you risk losses. Especially if you're a buyer. The players, on the other hand, are the ones applying their trade.

You're right about one thing. Both sides are, in the overall picture, to blame. However, relatively speaking the players not nearly as much to blame as the owners are. The owners screwed up. They're trying to save their skins by taking back what the players worked hard to earn. So yes, the players are certainly more victims in this whole mess than the owners are.

 

[Scheme]

But try and replace the NHLers. It's not that easy.

Says the NHLPA. It's actually very easy to replace hockey players. In 2 years, which I predict is when the lockout ends, none of the fans will care who plays - just that there is hockey.

 

[IWD]

Well, the last time I looked 99% of working people in the world are limited by the amount of money they can make. I would love to be able to walk into my boss at the end of my contract and tell him that I am holding out for three or four times what I was making a few weeks earlier. Even though I get along great with my co-workers, am identified as a key member of the team and provide a leadership role, and customers say I am an invaluable asset to them, the minute I asked more than what the company or industry was able to pay I would be out of a job and someone would be hired to replace me. That is the reality of most of the working stiffs out there. We all have delusions of granduer and that were unreplaceable, but we also recognize how fragile our employment can be and don't take a hardline stance that might inflame the ownership/management and see us terminated.

One thing I think you miss in your argument is assumed risk. The players are not assuming much risk, other than their physical well being, and they are being paid very well for that risk. To have expectations that they should get more money, or even maintain status quo, is sort of silly. When the players wish to start assuming a financial risk then I think they can say some of the things they have. But to spend someone else's money the way they have for the past decade just doesn't work any longer. The NHL is looking for a partnership where salaries are tied to revenues. When revenues go up, so do salaries. When revenues go down, so do salaries. It works that way in all other industries, so why should the NHL be different?

Not quite.

The NHL players don't fall into 99% of the world's working class. You bring up an interesting analogy about the typical working stiff. Yes, a lot of us think we are irreplaceable. Unfortunately, very few of us actually are. NHL players, on the other hand, ARE. If they weren't, then they would be replaced, right? But they're not. It's the whole concept of a buyer's market. In such a competetive field, owners are all too willing to give up millions of dollars to these players. The players know this, so why shouldn't they be trying to make the most in this capitalistic society. Let's go back to your analogy for a second. Let's say you do actually hold out for a significant raise (let's ignore the 3-4 times your salary comment since very few players in the NHL actually quadruple their salaries every year). If your boss was trying to be as competetive as these NHL owners are, and you really were irreplaceable, then yes, he would certainly give you whatever money you wanted. You wouldn't be replaced because a) you couldn't be because of your superiority in the market and b) your boss knows that by having you his chances of reaching the ultimate goal is that much closer.

Again, the players aren't in a position to risk. They don't need to. They're the ones selling their trade on an open market. Where's the risk? Why should they risk if it's a buyer's market and all these owners care about is winning/attracting fans/whatever? I don't know why most people don't seem to realize this. If you can't afford a player, you don't sign him. It's a harsh reality, but not all companies are are as wealthy as the next. For example, the Red Wings make lots of money. So they put a lot of that money back into their team. That's the advantage of having a large fanbase. Carolina, for example, does not. They are losing money. Why should a small-market team be on equal financial footing with a large-market team? Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not make sense that more fans investing in the team = more money to improve the team?

 

[Scheme]

You're right about one thing. Both sides are, in the overall picture, to blame. However, relatively speaking the players not nearly as much to blame as the owners are. The owners screwed up. They're trying to save their skins by taking back what the players worked hard to earn. So yes, the players are certainly more victims in this whole mess than the owners are.

I tend to agree with kerrly. Who cares who's more at fault? Right now, the owners are the only one proposing ideas to make the league healthy for the long term. The players are the ones plugging their ears.

"The teams are all healthy and not losing money."
"Wah, owners lost money, so what? Why should we care? We don't absorb any of the risk anyways."
"What are you talking about? A 5% pay cut is a BIG DEAL. Nevermind that we'll make that back and then some in a year. Or that salaries are 76% of revenues."
"$1.3 million average salary? That's measly! I can barely get by (or feed my dogs) with 1.8!"
"There will NEVER be cost certainty! Why? Just because we say so!"
"Who cares that the NFL, the most healthy sports league has a cap?"
"A cap would make my beloved Red Wings lose all its stars. We might actually have to compete in a fair league. Wah."
"The owners are evil."
"Gary Bettman is evil. Let's call him "the little fella" just because."

 

[thinkwild]

Eventually after a few years, they may even make the players say the sacred linking words. Their position has been very cleverly framed to make it difficult for the players. Yes, the players are vulnerable to this well executed extortion.

But of course its no guarantee. After a couple of years, the fans may say, well we're here. The players will say, well we're here. Yzerman, Roberts, Chelios a whole rack of stars could erect some temporary arena on Gretzkys golf course and begin televising games and growing a new league. A league where the playoff tickets are free. Because the players only play the playoffs for glory. How would the league suffer if they were playing and no owners or Bettman were there, but Crosby was? Would anyone care about the owners. Would the game be any less? Or an Yzerman, Naslind team joins a Super League and televises on Saturday nights. What happens?

Or perhaps a rival league really does take off after a year. All the stars are there, and then some owners cross Bettmans picket line saying im not drinking your kool-aid anymore, and then cross to the new league until Bettman and the owners give up their sure fire win if they hold their breath long enough strategy.

Or after a few years, the owners could win. The remaining ones anyway. The players could eventually give up and a new generation will start hockey again. And the owners will have won. Won something anyway.

 

[Scheme]

The NHL players don't fall into 99% of the world's working class. You bring up an interesting analogy about the typical working stiff. Yes, a lot of us think we are irreplaceable. Unfortunately, very few of us actually are. NHL players, on the other hand, ARE. If they weren't, then they would be replaced, right? But they're not. It's the whole concept of a buyer's market. In such a competetive field, owners are all too willing to give up millions of dollars to these players. The players know this, so why shouldn't they be trying to make the most in this capitalistic society. Let's go back to your analogy for a second. Let's say you do actually hold out for a significant raise (let's ignore the 3-4 times your salary comment since very few players in the NHL actually quadruple their salaries every year). If your boss was trying to be as competetive as these NHL owners are, and you really were irreplaceable, then yes, he would certainly give you whatever money you wanted. You wouldn't be replaced because a) you couldn't be because of your superiority in the market and b) your boss knows that by having you his chances of reaching the ultimate goal is that much closer.

NHL players are very replaceable. I don't see what's so special about an NHL player that they feel that they should fit into that 1% of people. To me, that's just arrogance. Nobody's special - it's just another job. I care about the health of the team and the league, the big picture, not the individual players.

The problem is some teams are richer than others, and some teams are losing money because they can't compete with the spending power of the rich ones. In a competitive environment, you WANT to drive the other companies out of business. That's the goal. But you can't in a sports league. You want those teams in there for your own good - to create revenue and TV deals and fan interest. Without those, you'll have a league of 6 teams and forget about million dollar salaries. Do the players really want that?

Again, the players aren't in a position to risk. They don't need to. They're the ones selling their trade on an open market. Where's the risk? Why should they risk if it's a buyer's market and all these owners care about is winning/attracting fans/whatever? I don't know why most people don't seem to realize this. If you can't afford a player, you don't sign him. It's a harsh reality, but not all companies are are as wealthy as the next. For example, the Red Wings make lots of money. So they put a lot of that money back into their team. That's the advantage of having a large fanbase. Carolina, for example, does not. They are losing money. Why should a small-market team be on equal financial footing with a large-market team? Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not make sense that more fans investing in the team = more money to improve the team?

The Red Wings actually lost money last year. When a playoff team can lose money (see Nashville as well), the league is not healthy. You want all teams to be on equal financial footing because it is good for the health of the league. The difference is that the owners are actually proposing things to help the league, while the players just want to keep the broken system as status quo.

Of course the players don't need to be in a position of risk. They've had it great for the last few years. But they should be in a position of risk if teams lose money. It's actually very shortsighted for the players to not care - because it's not healthy for a league if the team has to disband or move. Ask the fans in Winnipeg and Quebec City about this. The players simply don't get the big picture, and they should before they flush 2 years (which is what I predict) down the drain.

 

[kerrly]

Oh, I beg to differ. Where the money the fans invest goes matters quite a bit. If the money doesn't go to the players, it goes to the owners. I don't care much to see an old man get richer. I don't, however, mind seeing my favourite players get richer. It is their trade, afterall, that drives the industry.

I'd say most people who side with the owners appear to resent the players for being richer than them, more than anything. "They're paid millions to play a boys game. They should be grateful, not greedy" is a pretty accurate paraphrase of quite a few comments I've read around here.

Why is it fair that the owners take a loss? Mostly because they're the ones owning running a business. I'm not expert on business, but I do know this. In the business world, you risk losses. Especially if you're a buyer. The players, on the other hand, are the ones applying their trade.

You're right about one thing. Both sides are, in the overall picture, to blame. However, relatively speaking the players not nearly as much to blame as the owners are. The owners screwed up. They're trying to save their skins by taking back what the players worked hard to earn. So yes, the players are certainly more victims in this whole mess than the owners are.

So what you're saying is that by the owners taking risks to own a business, that its ok if they lose money and eventually have to sell or move the team. By having a league where more than half the teams lose money, is just not healthy for the league overall. If we want to truely make this league even more successful, we need big corporations to back teams with loads of cash. Very few companies or people would buy into a franchise as of right now. We need stability to grow this game, and we all know that there is major potential to do that. I'm not a fan of Goodenow or Bettman, especially Bettman and the way he has handled the state of the game, but this is a step in the right direction.

We need competitive balance to get a tv contract. Otherwise ABC can continue paying money to show 3 Avalanche/Detroit games a season. If at the start of each season, it is possible for any team to be successful, its get more people excited about their teams, especially in the states where the game needs a much help as it can get. In most of these states, the teams are also struggling. It has to be pretty hard to get new fans to the game, when their team has had many losing seasons. And as the demand grows for the game especially in the troubled states, the tv stations will have no choice but to follow suit and try to make some advertising revenue.

Right now, I don't care who's giving up more. As far as I see it, the players aren't really going to take that much of a hit. For most of them it won't change their lifestyle one bit. Jagr might have to stay out of the casinos a little more. I just want this league to be successful like I have said many times. The players keep getting fed propoganda from Goodenow, alot of what they state in their private comments show actually how uneducated they truely are when it comes to this. That might be a little unfair to say, whether or not they are just saying that to show their firm stance, but alot have stated things that about a cap that shows they have not done the research and just throwing out their own opinion without the proper knowledge. And what Bettman has said in the media, has been fairly honest. He has stated when he thinks things will work and what won't and I tend to agree with him in every aspect. A luxury tax will not work unless its paired with a cap, unless of course their is a different model of luxury tax with certain stipulations that will provide some sort of cost certainty.

I do think some players are greedy when it comes to this, but thats not why my view is what it is. I also think some are very misinformed. By Goodenow and the rest of NHLPA head honchos just writing off the Levitt Report or even the Forbes one, it makes it easy to just bypass that in the media. By not really looking at the problems facing the league, they can just go on their merry way and not actually take into consideration that the league is in serious trouble.

All this positioning from both sides is getting sickening. Its not about arguments who is taking the bigger cut, who caused all of this, the players/owners shouldn't give this up because its the others fault. Screw all of that, it means nothing. The bottomline is the league needs stability and few years of so-called "hardship" for the players to get this league back on its feet and moving in a new direction. Am I the only one that sees a major chance for growth if this deal is done. With the cost-certainty, all it takes is the league to garner more interest from fans and tv, and all of a sudden revenues are up and once again the players are loving life.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

So what you're saying is that by the owners taking risks to own a business, that its ok if they lose money and eventually have to sell or move the team. By having a league where more than half the teams lose money, is just not healthy for the league overall. If we want to truely make this league even more successful, we need big corporations to back teams with loads of cash.

Who cares how successful the league is? I'm being serious. We don't need big corporations to do anything.

We just want to watch hockey. I don't care whether it is more popular or not. I like it just fine, it isn't going anywhere, and I don't care if 90% of Americans (or Canadians for that matter) don't like it. Why should I? If more people like it, it will cost more, the players will make more, the owners will complain more and the game won't get any better. Not for me and not for anyone else who follows the game today.

What's good for the business of hockey is not necessarily good for the game.

What's good for the business of hockey is never good for the fan.

Tom

 

[codswallop]

Who cares how successful the league is? I'm being serious. We don't need big corporations to do anything.

We just want to watch hockey. I don't care whether it is more popular or not. I like it just fine, it isn't going anywhere, and I don't care if 90% of Americans (or Canadians for that matter) don't like it. Why should I? If more people like it, it will cost more, the players will make more, the owners will complain more and the game won't get any better. Not for me and not for anyone else who follows the game today.

What's good for the business of hockey is not necessarily good for the game.

What's good for the business of hockey is never good for the fan.

Tom

I tend to agree with those last two lines.

But at this point in time, the NHL is what it is. Corporations and big money are just a fact of its life. To get it back to a point where us fans wouldn't have to pay hand over fist for tickets or merchandise would require a major overhaul of the entire system as it exists today. Chances are very good that the league wouldn't survive such an overhaul, not to mention there would be armies of lawyers lining up to handle the onslaught of litigation to come from that. Catastrophic consequences all around. I doubt that it would ever come to that, but that's the only way I can see us fans getting a decent break in today's NHL and today's marketplace.

I don't like what the NHL is now either. But I've accepted the fact that the corporations and "big business" mentality isn't going anywhere. I too would love it if that wasn't the case. But it is, so it does me no good to keep harping on a more ideal situation for me as a fan.

I honestly believe that looking at this situation with that mentality distorts the views of what is really happening. Any proper perspective just cannot be there. You can disagree, that's just how I see it.