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

[IWD]

Ironically, the Bettman poodles applaud Bill Daly when he says the owners propose significant revenue sharing. Apparently $65 million is significant. It is the players who want it higher.



While I am more or less solidly on the side of the players, on this one I agree with the owners. I'm against all revenue sharing in the NHL. Either you do real revenue sharing - pool it all - and talk about a player share or you do neither. For hockey, neither is best in my opinion as long as the CBA restricts free agency as tightly as it was restricted in the last agreement.

One reason the owners won't seriously revenue share is because they don't trust each other. It is one thing to put forward a revenue number when it is being shared with the players. Can you imagine the fights among owners if everyone had to put up 75% of their revenues for a common pool? They'd never agree to a definition of revenue among themselves!

Tom

Good post. There is major controversy surrounding how much the owners lost last year. Forbes says one thing, the NHL says another. Personally I'd trust Forbes before I listen to the figures presented by the NHL. You're right. If they won't even post accurate numbers for losses, then why would they post accurate numbers for revenue? Especially if they had to give away that revenue to competing companies?

 

[Bauerkraut]

One reason the owners won't seriously revenue share is because they don't trust each other. It is one thing to put forward a revenue number when it is being shared with the players. Can you imagine the fights among owners if everyone had to put up 75% of their revenues for a common pool? They'd never agree to a definition of revenue among themselves!
Tom

Well, apparently they would or they wouldn't be pushing a salary % tied to revenue. The owners must have found some common ground to base that on so that is a start. You're making a blanket statement based upon conjecture.

Also, revenue sharing is common in the major pro sports, ie TV revenue. It's just that for hockey TV revenue is a pittance compared to the other sports so there isn't much to share. That TV revenue isn't going to increase unless the league stabilizes and hockey markets are grown, but it doesn't mean sharing other forms of revenue is not in the best interest of the league and the owners now.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Well, apparently they would or they wouldn't be pushing a salary % tied to revenue. The owners must have found some common ground to base that on so that is a start. You're making a blanket statement based upon conjecture.

Also, revenue sharing is common in the major pro sports, ie TV revenue. It's just that for hockey TV revenue is a pittance compared to the other sports so there isn't much to share. That TV revenue isn't going to increase unless the league stabilizes and hockey markets are grown, but it doesn't mean sharing other forms of revenue is not in the best interest of the league and the owners now.

Repeat after me: The owners aren't willing to share revenues. They have proposed $65 million in this agreement and rejected player suggestions for a higher amount.

It is very easy to share revenues in a TV driven league. It is not easy to share revenues without a big TV deal. That's the point.

Tom

 

[Seachd]

Again, wrong. The players are the product. So please, don't tell me what I'm paying for because I know very well what I'm investing my time and money into. If I was paying the watch the game, I'd watch any and all levels. But I'm not. I'm paying to see these players play. The NHL is the business, the players are the product and the ones whose trade I'm interested in watching.

Huh? Well, I guess that's the difference. I pay the owners to watch a game, you pay the players to play a game.

Anyway, both the NHL and the NHLPA agree revenue sharing must be part of a new CBA. I'm sure teams like Toronto and Detroit will live with that too. It's not that big of a deal. If the money doesn't go to other teams, it will go into the owners' pockets, which you seem just as opposed to.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Anyway, both the NHL and the NHLPA agree revenue sharing must be part of a new CBA. I'm sure teams like Toronto and Detroit will live with that too. It's not that big of a deal. If the money doesn't go to other teams, it will go into the owners' pockets, which you seem just as opposed to.

Do you consider $65 million revenue sharing? The NHL is barely replacing the revenue lost in the TV deal. Unsder the owner proposal Edmonton gets zero in shared revenue.

The Canadian teams would send 17.9 million south, $6.2 million comes back. The Canadian teams contribute $60 million US in a National TV contract, $24 million comes back.

The revenue sharing winners are Atlanta, Nashville, Buffalo, Washington and Phoenix. Canadian fans are supporting hockey in those cities with their wallets.

This is good?

Tom

 

[IWD]

Huh? Well, I guess that's the difference. I pay the owners to watch a game, you pay the players to play a game.

Anyway, both the NHL and the NHLPA agree revenue sharing must be part of a new CBA. I'm sure teams like Toronto and Detroit will live with that too. It's not that big of a deal. If the money doesn't go to other teams, it will go into the owners' pockets, which you seem just as opposed to.

Well, not quite. I pay the owners to hire good players for me to watch. I expect my money to go towards making a better product.

As far as where money goes. I'm opposed to it going to the owners' pockets. But I'm also opposed to seeing it go to opposition. Revenue sharing and/or a salary cap are really the only two ideas I'm against. Really, anyone who supports a large market team or capitalism should be against it.

Everything else I don't really care that much about. However, I'd be ok with either two deals if they had a way to get rid of guarenteed contracts and moved free-agency down to 25-27 years of age. Ideally, they'd get rid of the draft as well, make the owners woo the players.

 

[Seachd]

Do you consider $65 million revenue sharing? The NHL is barely replacing the revenue lost in the TV deal. Unsder the owner proposal Edmonton gets zero in shared revenue.

This is good?

I didn't say it was good. I also didn't say the revenue sharing proposed by the NHLPA was any good. I've also said I would rather have a system that didn't involve revenue sharing.

But that doesn't look like it will be possible, especially when both sides acknowledge that it's needed (to various extents, sure).

 

[thinkwild]

The reason revenue sharing was supposed to be needed was because the salaries were too high for small marklets to compete? But with this proposal the salaries will now be at the level Bettman wanted. So why would they any longer need revenue sharing once the new proposal is in place? It could only be to prop up owners like Karmanos, suffering startup or marketing losses. A temporary subsidy until they get on their feet. Something you would think 30 partners together in one league would want to ensure.

 

[Seachd]

The reason revenue sharing was supposed to be needed was because the salaries were too high for small marklets to compete? But with this proposal the salaries will now be at the level Bettman wanted.

For how long? A year and a half? With such a weak luxury tax, what good does it do?

 

[PecaFan]

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, it doesn't make it any more of an accurate argument. If your team makes more money, then it deserves to have the right to choose if it wants that money invested back into the team. No one should be punished for being successful. That's common sense.

Every thing you say applied equally to every fan of the New York Cosmos. And they watched all the teams around them crumble, until they were the only one left.

The argument *is* accurate. A healthy league is ultimately best for *all* involved, from low money teams to high money teams. What's going on with your beloved team right now? You raking in the dough? How many millions did you make this month? Enjoyed the game on Tuesday? Of course not, because the lockout is ongoing. And why is that? Because the league is unhealthy, and the owners of those teams you think are beneath you and don't deserve any of your help, are dragging you into the morasse with them.

Yes, the league probably won't cease to exist. I never said it would. But it's in dire enough shape to throw away billions in revenue in an attempt to fix it's problems.

Surely you can see it's better for you to be a big market team in a league raking in dough and with labour peace, vs a league losing money and with extended lockouts.

 

[garry1221]

Well, not quite. I pay the owners to hire good players for me to watch. I expect my money to go towards making a better product.

As far as where money goes. I'm opposed to it going to the owners' pockets. But I'm also opposed to seeing it go to opposition. Revenue sharing and/or a salary cap are really the only two ideas I'm against. Really, anyone who supports a large market team or capitalism should be against it.

Everything else I don't really care that much about. However, I'd be ok with either two deals if they had a way to get rid of guarenteed contracts and moved free-agency down to 25-27 years of age. Ideally, they'd get rid of the draft as well, make the owners woo the players.

and as the larger markets start having less teams to play as they each go bankrupt and fold then the revenue streams for the large markets will get smaller as the league starts to collapse. is this what you want... bigger markets crumbling because the smaller markets have already sunk? soon enough that would turn into a six or ten team league. some of the best players would be ousted just because there's no room in the league. we all know the PA sure as hell wouldn't want that. they'd be down to under 300 members.

the question you've gotta ask yourself is do you want the rich to get richer or to you want your owner to help your team. IMO if revenue sharing is put in place there's got to be a clause saying that at LEAST half of the money would have to be put back into the team in some fashion. If not a better player then locker room/training equip. something like that

 

[IWD]

Every thing you say applied equally to every fan of the New York Cosmos. And they watched all the teams around them crumble, until they were the only one left.

The argument *is* accurate. A healthy league is ultimately best for *all* involved, from low money teams to high money teams. What's going on with your beloved team right now? You raking in the dough? How many millions did you make this month?

Unfortunately, we're not talking about the New York Cosmos or even the sport of Soccer. Neither are we talking about one single team who is dominating. There are numerous teams who can afford a large budget, so your argument about the Cosmos is irrelevant; it is *not* accurate.

The NHL will survive regardless of whether or not there's a cap. What won't survive is a large number of teams who shouldn't even belong to the league. Having an "equal playing ground" with revenue sharing is simply the wrong way to go.

Enjoyed the game on Tuesday? Of course not, because the lockout is ongoing. And why is that? Because the league is unhealthy, and the owners of those teams you think are beneath you and don't deserve any of your help, are dragging you into the morasse with them

No, the lockout is ongoing because the two sides are greedy. The owners moreso. They wish to take back what the players earned so they can pocket the money themselves. That's essentially what it boils down to. If the owners are having trouble affording salaries. Don't pay them. Simple as that. They want to compete, so they've doled out the cash. They have no one to blame but themselves. In the business world companies don't give out salaries that they can't afford to pay. The players put it correctly: The owners want cost certainty to fix their own reckless

Again, I ask. Why should my money go towards helping out an opposing team win the cup? Why shouldn't my money go towards my team? My money = my decision. I keep asking this, but I really don't expect anyone to answer this with a legitimate response since this one argument blows away any argument pro-owner lobbyists have.

Yes, the league probably won't cease to exist. I never said it would. But it's in dire enough shape to throw away billions in revenue in an attempt to fix it's problems.

Surely you can see it's better for you to be a big market team in a league raking in dough and with labour peace, vs a league losing money and with extended lockouts.

Well, actually you implied it with the sentence: "And they watched all the teams around them crumble, until they were the only one left."

Actually, I'd rather see my team have a chance to win a cup every year by investing their hard earned revenue back into the team.

 

[IWD]

and as the larger markets start having less teams to play as they each go bankrupt and fold then the revenue streams for the large markets will get smaller as the league starts to collapse. is this what you want... bigger markets crumbling because the smaller markets have already sunk? soon enough that would turn into a six or ten team league. some of the best players would be ousted just because there's no room in the league. we all know the PA sure as hell wouldn't want that. they'd be down to under 300 members.

the question you've gotta ask yourself is do you want the rich to get richer or to you want your owner to help your team. IMO if revenue sharing is put in place there's got to be a clause saying that at LEAST half of the money would have to be put back into the team in some fashion. If not a better player then locker room/training equip. something like that

Well, actually, as the larger markets have less and less teams to play against then revenue streams would likely go up for those individual teams. Not only that, but salaries would likely start to even out or even decrease. Since Above average players would become average, there would be less of a demand for them. Saying the league will collapse is nothing more than hyperbole, I would say.

I've already answered your question. I want my owner to help my team. And if my money starts going to other teams, then that won't happen. In fact, if you started making revenue sharing mandatory, who is to say that large market teams won't change their ticket prices, for example? I mean, think about it. If my team has to give away $30 million of its revenue, why not fix it so they make $30 million less? Lower prices. You'd make the fans who support your team happier, and you'd weaken your competition by allowing them less money to compete with. As an owner, your financial income would hover pretty much the same either way. Revenue sharing wouldn't work. Nor should it even be considered.

 

[PecaFan]

Unfortunately, we're not talking about the New York Cosmos or even the sport of Soccer. Neither are we talking about one single team who is dominating. There are numerous teams who can afford a large budget, so your argument about the Cosmos is irrelevant; it is *not* accurate.

And the NASL had more than one strong market as well.

Again, I ask. Why should my money go towards helping out an opposing team win the cup? Why shouldn't my money go towards my team? My money = my decision. I keep asking this, but I really don't expect anyone to answer this with a legitimate response since this one argument blows away any argument pro-owner lobbyists have.

And I gave you your answer. You've just got your head stuck in the sand and refuse to see it. A little revenue sharing keeps everyone healthy, and does nothing to stop your competitive advantage. What you lose by sharing you gain in other benefits. Like say, avoiding 90+ day lockouts, and season cancellations, etc.

Healthy organisms do better than sick ones.

 

[IWD]

And the NASL had more than one strong market as well.

Now you're changing your story. You wrote: "they watched all the teams around them crumble, until they were the only one left." That does not sound like a league with more than one strong team. Which is it?

And I gave you your answer. You've just got your head stuck in the sand and refuse to see it. A little revenue sharing keeps everyone healthy, and does nothing to stop your competitive advantage. What you lose by sharing you gain in other benefits. Like say, avoiding 90+ day lockouts, and season cancellations, etc.

No, you haven't given me a legitimate answer. Saying that "a healthy league benefits everyone" is not acceptable. And despite repeating it, it won't make it any more acceptable. I invest money and I do it for a payoff. Not out of the goodness of my heart and certainly not to help ungrateful opposing fans or teams that I can't stand to win the cup. I want results for my money and if those results aren't there, why would I, or anyone for that matter, invest? I follow team A. If I invest in team A, my money goes to help team B. Eventually team B beats team A.

As for revenue sharing. First of all, we're not talking about "a little" revenue sharing. We're talking upwards of $30 million dollars for some teams. That's not "a little". Secondly, the league will continue to be healthy regardless of revenue sharing and a cap as long as there are big markets who are willing to invest in teams. In fact, less teams would make the league even healthier, but that's for a whole other debate. Here's the bottom line. My money=my choice of where it goes. If people can't invest in their team, they simply won't.

The owners made the choice to lockout, not the players. If it were up to the big market teams, we'd be watching hockey as we speak.

Here's the problem as I see it. You refuse to acknowledge that a person's money should go into their investment because a) you don't want to admit your side is wrong since you've made so many arguments on these boards trying to prove your point or b) you just want big market teams to lose their natural advantage so your team can compete better.

Healthy organisms do better than sick ones.

Really? Well, some organisms are bigger, stronger or faster than others. That's the way the world works. Especially in the business world where some companies, believe it or not, can use their revenue to improve their product since if they don't, investors will stop investing.

 

[PecaFan]

Now you're changing your story. You wrote: "they watched all the teams around them crumble, until they were the only one left." That does not sound like a league with more than one strong team. Which is it?

You're intentionally being obtuse. It's both, silly. Teams that started out as strong ones became weak and died because of the sickness of the league.

That's been my whole point from the beginning. It's the how illness works. It doesn't just affect the sick part. It affects the entire being.

Just like your strong team is being affected by the illness in the NHL right now. It's costing you tens of millions of dollars, and a chance to win the Cup.

I want results for my money and if those results aren't there, why would I, or anyone for that matter, invest? I follow team A. If I invest in team A, my money goes to help team B. Eventually team B beats team A.

By that reasoning, a millionaire should never give a penny to charity. "Why that bum could eventually buy my company, and put me out of business!"

And no, before you start in, the NHL is not a charity.

If you give 5 away, and make 15 from it, then giving 5 was an investment, correct?

As for revenue sharing. First of all, we're not talking about "a little" revenue sharing. We're talking upwards of $30 million dollars for some teams. That's not "a little".

That's either a lie, or just plain stupidity. The NHLPA proposal has the largest team Toronto sending $10.9 million. The NHL wants to share even less.

Here's the problem as I see it. You refuse to acknowledge that a person's money should go into their investment because a) you don't want to admit your side is wrong since you've made so many arguments on these boards trying to prove your point or b) you just want big market teams to lose their natural advantage so your team can compete better.

First of all, fans pay for a night's entertainment. They're not investors.

Secondly, I have no fear of being proven wrong. It just rarely happens, because I always rely on facts and logic to back my arguments.

As to "my side", I'm clearly supporting the NHL's proposal. You know the one, with *less* revenue sharing? That thing that you're so against?

Thirdly, there's no such thing as a "natural advantage" with franchises. Certain teams have advantages not because they deserve it, but because they happened to be allowed in the league first decades ago.

Fourthly, unlike yourself, I have no problem putting the health of the league above my team. My team would also be forced to give money to it's competitors.

Really? Well, some organisms are bigger, stronger or faster than others. That's the way the world works. Especially in the business world where some companies, believe it or not, can use their revenue to improve their product since if they don't, investors will stop investing.

An arm isn't a different organism than a head. The arm can't shoot the head to get ahead in business, using it's "natural advantage".

You think your team would be better off putting the others out of business. But the NHL is a single organism. That's the fundamental point you can't see.

 

[IWD]

You're intentionally being obtuse. It's both, silly. Teams that started out as strong ones became weak and died because of the sickness of the league.

That's been my whole point from the beginning. It's the how illness works. It doesn't just affect the sick part. It affects the entire being.

Just like your strong team is being affected by the illness in the NHL right now. It's costing you tens of millions of dollars, and a chance to win the Cup.

Not quite. The reason the NHL is locked out is because small-market teams are the teams that seem to benefit by locking out the players for a better CBA. Since small-markets make up the majority of the league, the large-market teams who are fine with the current system are ignored. For whatever reason, a team like Nashville has as much of a vote in the system a team like New York. Which is about as fair as Ontario having as much political power as Prince Edward Island. That's why the "illness" of the NHL is spreading. The small-market teams are largely the problem.

By that reasoning, a millionaire should never give a penny to charity. "Why that bum could eventually buy my company, and put me out of business!"

And no, before you start in, the NHL is not a charity.

If you give 5 away, and make 15 from it, then giving 5 was an investment, correct?

Your analogy is a little bit off. Let's change it a bit. Substitute that bum for a young entrepeneur with an up-and-coming business specializing in the same field your company. Now imagine you donated millions to help fund research for new technology. Eventually they use that technology to create a product that is able to outsell your similar product. There we go. That's a much more accurate analogy.

That's either a lie, or just plain stupidity. The NHLPA proposal has the largest team Toronto sending $10.9 million. The NHL wants to share even less.

I certainly hope you're not implying what I think you're implying. If you can't make an argument without making a personal insult, then you're not welcome and you're going straight to the ignore list.

Anyway, so let's say $10.9m is an actual number. Are you telling me that's still not significant?

First of all, fans pay for a night's entertainment. They're not investors.

Secondly, I have no fear of being proven wrong. It just rarely happens, because I always rely on facts and logic to back my arguments.

As to "my side", I'm clearly supporting the NHL's proposal. You know the one, with *less* revenue sharing? That thing that you're so against?

Thirdly, there's no such thing as a "natural advantage" with franchises. Certain teams have advantages not because they deserve it, but because they happened to be allowed in the league first decades ago.

Fourthly, unlike yourself, I have no problem putting the health of the league above my team. My team would also be forced to give money to it's competitors.

Wrong.

First, fans pay for entertainment. But they are investors despite you denying that fact. The vast majority of fans want their money to go to their team. And if you asked fans around the world for any sport, I'm sure the majority would tell you they'd lose interest in their team if they could somehow know their team would never win a championship again. This is common sense. Losers aren't exactly big attractors for a fanbase.

Secondly, who said you weren't on the side of the owners? In fact, I specifically said you were.

Thirdly, yes, there is a natural advantage when it comes to franchises. It's called a fanbase. A team like Toronto will obviously have a natural advantage over a team like Nashville when it comes to generating revenue.

Fourthly, the health of the league is not in jeopardy. In fact, removing several teams would improve the health of the league if anything. If you want your money to go to help the teams you dislike win the cup, that's fine. I don't really care what you want to do with your money. It is, afterall, yours to spend as you wish. My money, however, should go to my team. No one else. If it starts going to someone else, I'll simply stop spending the money on them since it'll only hinder my team's ability to win.

An arm isn't a different organism than a head. The arm can't shoot the head to get ahead in business, using it's "natural advantage".

You think your team would be better off putting the others out of business. But the NHL is a single organism. That's the fundamental point you can't see.

An arm isn't a different organism, no. But the NHL isn't like a single organism. Single organisms don't compete against themselves. The NHL is more like an ecosystem in the sense that you have numerous organisms (teams) competing against one another for resources (the cup, revenue, playoffs, whatever). Natural selection will ultimately choose those individuals who are better adapted for the environment (in this case, the teams who earn their money will not be able to use it). It is the equivalent of the Hyena telling the Lion "You're bigger, stronger and faster than me, but you're now no longer allowed to use those advantages because it's just not fair to me."

 

[John Flyers Fan]

You should care. All fans should want their owners to be *raking* in the money. That means several things:

1) Stability. Your team ain't moving. Winnipeg, Hartford, and Quebec all recent cases where the owner could make more bucks elsewhere.

2) Entertainment. It doesn't always follow, but generally the teams raking in big bucks will have better players, bigger stars, a better on ice product.

2) Success. And from those better players, better coaches, etc, comes *prolonged* success. Multiple long runs in the playoffs. Better chances of winning the Cup.

That's assuming a fan actually follows a team, and desperately wants them to win the Cup, of course.

I'll disagree there. Ther Flyers currently aren't raking in big profits, because the owners are putting the money back into the team. The Flyers are in no danger of moving, are very exciting and for the most part have been successful for most of the last 30 years.

In a salary capped world, instead of putting money back into the team, Snider will be putting it into his pocket, or sending it to owners in Nashville, Edmonton, Carolina etc. I as a season ticket holder, would much prefer that my money is being spent of players for the Flyers than wither going into Snider's pocket or buying players for the Predators.

 

[misterjaggers]

Bob's offer better have cap type terms this Thursday or at least composed of language that leaves the door open for a counter offer. Anything less such as a drag on salary, luxury tax, etc. just won't cut. If the door closes look for the new NHL to start up next year with players getting less than half of what they got before the lockout began. The blind (players) being led by the blind (Goodenow) better open their eyes and salvage what they can while they can. This is their last chance for a say on how things will turn out. It is possible to have a cap without saying it's a cap. Find a way to get it done which is what players have been coached to do since they were very young. Time to step up and take the high road for the fans who will still be here long after current players are retired and mostly forgotten about.

Hear, hear!