The HFBoards CBA (Let's make one)

[GSC2k2*]

So you think that a $75 Million investment deserves gauranteed yearly profits.
You think that the owner of Nashville should automatically have all the same advantages enjoyed by owners of established NHL franchises.
If he wanted to own the Maple Leafs or Red Wings, well, he should have spent the extra $150 Million and bought them.
Instead, he opted for the low rent version.

Seems to me that I recall the Wings and Leafs sucking just about as bad as teams can suck, back in the early 80s.
Nobody changed the fundamentals of the league to put the longtime doormats on even footing with the Habs, Oilers, and Islanders, did they?

How preposterous. You make it sound like the Nashville guy was going through the store shelves with all the NHL franchises, picking and choosing as if he was selecting which laundry detergent he should pick up. You are critiquing him because he picked up the no-name stuff instead of Tide.

He acquired the Nashville franchise because he was awarded that marketplace, genius. He did not SELECT Nashville over the Leafs or Wings. I feel foolish even responding to such posts as yours. I am diminished by even having read it.

 

[GSC2k2*]

When you show up at a high-stakes poker game intending to compete with the big boys but come to the harsh realization that you overestimated yourself -- you don't get your money back at the end of the night.

Another most excellently helpful analogy. I love 'em. Keep it coming. I know I could never understand these complex issues without people simplifying things by talking about buying cars, playing poker, etc., etc.

Here's my own helpful analogy for all: "When responding to a pro-PA post, never wear potatoes for shoes".

 

[GSC2k2*]

How about this:

No cap.
Free Agency at 26.
1/2 of each teams revenue is put into a pool and shared equally.

Then, the FREE MARKET will decide how much players are worth. No arbitration, no BS, no more whining about players costing too much. The owners would actually controll how much money they spend, by setting a BUDGET.

No collusion among players through their agents? Is that part of your system?

If a "FREE MARKET", why free agency at 26? Why not right away?

Why revenue sharing at all? That is not part of a "FREE MARKET".

Would teams be able to sign guys for $12,000 a year if they can? No minimum salaries? No per diems? No nothing?

How about if teams could sign 16 year olds to contracts that had 25 one-year options at the option of the team? Would that be allowed? Presumably it could.

 

[me2]

Seems to me that I recall the Wings and Leafs sucking just about as bad as teams can suck, back in the early 80s.
Nobody changed the fundamentals of the league to put the longtime doormats on even footing with the Habs, Oilers, and Islanders, did they?

Excellent point. I think your solution of rolling back salaries to the equivalent of 1980s levels is perfect. Lets be generous and make it 92 ($10m indexed up to $13m). Do you think you can get Goodenow to accept $13m average payrolls? It would certainly fix the great divide between rich and poor clubs.

 

[Weary]

How preposterous. You make it sound like the Nashville guy was going through the store shelves with all the NHL franchises, picking and choosing as if he was selecting which laundry detergent he should pick up. You are critiquing him because he picked up the no-name stuff instead of Tide.

He acquired the Nashville franchise because he was awarded that marketplace, genius. He did not SELECT Nashville over the Leafs or Wings. I feel foolish even responding to such posts as yours. I am diminished by even having read it.

So he didn't even know which market he would get? Was there some sort of expansion lottery?

"Put up your $75 million and we'll spin the wheel to see where your franchise will be located!"

 

[WC Handy*]

So he didn't even know which market he would get? Was there some sort of expansion lottery?

"Put up your $75 million and we'll spin the wheel to see where your franchise will be located!"

First of all, the existing NHL owners approved a team in Nashville.

Secondly, there are plenty of teams that existed before Nashville that need just as much financial help as the Predators. Two of those teams are in Canada. Should we fold them?

 

[Weary]

First of all, the existing NHL owners approved a team in Nashville.

Secondly, there are plenty of teams that existed before Nashville that need just as much financial help as the Predators. Two of those teams are in Canada. Should we fold them?

I didn't talk about folding any team. I was just pointing out that Leipold wasn't randomly assigned a market. He chose it.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I didn't talk about folding any team. I was just pointing out that Leipold wasn't randomly assigned a market. He chose it.

That was my point too. THe tone of your last two points suggested you were disagreeing with me (?).

 

[Weary]

That was my point too. THe tone of your last two points suggested you were disagreeing with me (?).

I guess your objection to analogies is well founded. You said "You make it sound like the Nashville guy was going through the store shelves with all the NHL franchises, picking and choosing as if he was selecting which laundry detergent he should pick up." I took that to mean that he wasn't given a choice, but I'm assuming I misunderstood the analogy.

 

[WC Handy*]

I didn't talk about folding any team. I was just pointing out that Leipold wasn't randomly assigned a market. He chose it.

You say that as if it has some relevence. You are one of the few people that fail to realize that the overall health of the league has quite a bit to do with the overall health of the 30 teams in the league.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I guess your objection to analogies is well founded. You said "You make it sound like the Nashville guy was going through the store shelves with all the NHL franchises, picking and choosing as if he was selecting which laundry detergent he should pick up." I took that to mean that he wasn't given a choice, but I'm assuming I misunderstood the analogy.

Touche on the analogies. Here I was complaining about the rampant use of analogies and then I go and use one - and one which apparently confused the issue at that. My bad

What i meant to say was this. My belief is that the league would have decided Nashville was a viable market. Leopold chose to take on that market, in that he had a choice to take that market or go away. He did not have a choice as in "would you like Nashville, or would you rather take an established franchise like To or Detroit for a few dollars more?"

 

[Weary]

What i meant to say was this. My belief is that the league would have decided Nashville was a viable market. Leopold chose to take on that market, in that he had a choice to take that market or go away. He did not have a choice as in "would you like Nashville, or would you rather take an established franchise like To or Detroit for a few dollars more?"

Gotcha. You're right, then. We don't have a disagreement.