Too good to be true? Report that NHL might start Jan 24th

[Motown Beatdown]

Whatcha waiting on Alfie - if your so certain the season will be cancelled I'm sure you can catch a flight over to Sweden in the next few days..???

..more rhetoric..

no doubt, who wants to put money on tomorrow someone from the Owners side will come out and say they aren't talking? Seems like every day someone continues to come about and saying they aren't working on anything, yet they feel the need to continue to tell us that??

 

[Beatnik]

I'd be stunned if the players are dump enough to accept a cap under 64.75%(NFL) of the revenus. IF it's at 56% the cap have to be "soft" like the NBA.

 

[Beauty eh?]

Anything Eklund says = Never true.

Agreed. He also has the worst grammar and punctuation of any "journalist" I have ever seen.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

In the article it says teams are quietly getting ready for a minicamp....

Just for fun, i did a search of each CDN teams website. The Calgary Flames posted up in their employment opportunites on 01/03/05 for parking lot attendants for the 04/05 season. Seems kind of odd to start looking for people if they know in about 10 days, the season's going to be cancelled.

Don't the Flames manage the arena they play in? Don't the Hitmen also play out of the same arena? How about other events? You still need parking attendants for those events. I wouldn't get so excited because the Flames are advertising for parking attendants.

 

[ScottyBowman]

In the article it says teams are quietly getting ready for a minicamp....

Just for fun, i did a search of each CDN teams website. The Calgary Flames posted up in their employment opportunites on 01/03/05 for parking lot attendants for the 04/05 season. Seems kind of odd to start looking for people if they know in about 10 days, the season's going to be cancelled.

I don't know. This whole lockout thing just seems like it was all pre-planned. Everything seems to happen on or around the same day (14) & there doesn't seem to be any signs of desparation on either sides part even though at stake is a $2 Billion Plus industry..... I guess I'll find out soon enough probably the 14th , but it really seems like they planned all along to cancel half a season ... the non-profitable half; then they get a contract signed and move on with life... Goodenow and Betman probably had a skeletal deal and timeline worked out a couple of years ago!!!

:lol Nice find. I don't buy any of this either. I think their will be a season this year and the owners and players are putting on a show. By Feb 1st, this forum will be deserted and everyone will be making up crazy 10 team trade rumors.

 

[hockeytown9321]

It has to.

If not, it'll be January 2007. That's when the owners pretty much get a clean slate to start over with less than 100 players under contract. Past mistakes erased.

Didn't they get a calen slate with the 24% rollback?

 

[PecaFan]

Didn't they get a calen slate with the 24% rollback?

Hardly. The 24% offer rewinds time back to 2001 or so. This is *years* past when salaries were already way out of control, and the league was losing money.

Almost every single player will get that 24% back on their *first* new contract after settling. *Especially* when they were making it before. You used to make 5 million. Now you make 3.8. Your contract is up. What do you ask for? You bet your sweet bippy, 5 million.

In fact, I'd bet it would be unofficial PA policy. Everyone must ask for the 24% back, and if they don't get it, they'd all hold out. Five or six guys on each team holding out simultaneously would just devastate a team. They'd have to give in.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Hardly. The 24% offer rewinds time back to 2001 or so. This is *years* past when salaries were already way out of control, and the league was losing money.

Almost every single player will get that 24% back on their *first* new contract after settling. *Especially* when they were making it before. You used to make 5 million. Now you make 3.8. Your contract is up. What do you ask for? You bet your sweet bippy, 5 million.

Then who's fault is it that they get it? Never mind. We'll just go around in circles as always. BUt at some point, they guy running the team has to be accountable.

 

[GKJ]

Almost every single player will get that 24% back on their *first* new contract after settling. *Especially* when they were making it before. You used to make 5 million. Now you make 3.8. Your contract is up. What do you ask for? You bet your sweet bippy, 5 million.

Because the owner HAS to give that player 5 million, instead of telling him to take a hike.


Please. This excuse has become so lame because hardly any thought is put into it.

 

[SENSible1*]

Because the owner HAS to give that player 5 million, instead of telling him to take a hike.


Please. This excuse has become so lame because hardly any thought is put into it.

I always get a chuckle when PA supporters get mad at owners for taking their advice and using their leverage during this lockout to tell the players collectively to take a hike. The difference is, that this move doesn't disadvantage their clubs quest for a playoff spot.

 

[ceber]

Anything Eklund says = Never true.

His information could easily be correct. He talks rumors, not fact. Lots of rumors end up being wrong; doesn't mean they weren't real rumors.

Agreed. He also has the worst grammar and punctuation of any "journalist" I have ever seen.

No editors on that blog to correct him. ('Course, maybe you're an editor, in which case you would see the raw output of a lot of journalists and could make a good comparison.)

 

[PecaFan]

Then who's fault is it that they get it? Never mind.

It's nobody's fault. Why are people always looking to lay blame? It's just the natural inevitable occurrence under the old system.

The point was, the 24% isn't a clean slate. A clean slate implies a different outcome is a possibility. Anything can happen.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Hardly. The 24% offer rewinds time back to 2001 or so. This is *years* past when salaries were already way out of control, and the league was losing money.

i disagree ... it would roll Iginla's contract back to level of Pavel Bure's in 1994. In 1994 Bure was arguable the top forward in the NHL and in 2005 Iginla is arguable the top skater in the NHL.

dr

 

[thinkwild]

2001 expenses with 2005 revenues is pretty good.

 

[PecaFan]

i disagree ... it would roll Iginla's contract back to level of Pavel Bure's in 1994. In 1994 Bure was arguable the top forward in the NHL and in 2005 Iginla is arguable the top skater in the NHL.

So many errors, so little time...

Of course you're aware that Iginla doesn't have a contract, and wouldn't be subject to any rollbacks.

Secondly, even if Iginla was willing to settle for the same as last year ($7.5 million), a 24% drop from that takes him to $5.7 million, not $4.5 million like Pavel in 94/95.

Finally, Pavel was a top four salary in 94/95 at that $4.5 million. Anybody making that much after a rollback won't be anywhere close to top 5.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

So many errors, so little time...

Of course you're aware that Iginla doesn't have a contract, and wouldn't be subject to any rollbacks.

Secondly, even if Iginla was willing to settle for the same as last year ($7.5 million), a 24% drop from that takes him to $5.7 million, not $4.5 million like Pavel in 94/95.

Finally, Pavel was a top four salary in 94/95 at that $4.5 million. Anybody making that much after a rollback won't be anywhere close to top 5.

well goodenow said all new negotiations would be based on the rolled back salaries. so yes iginla new contract is subject to rollbacks

secondly, iginla cant settle for anything the flames dont offer. fact is, 7.5m is a good value for iginla in the CGY market.

finally, im sure you recall the rumour pavel threatened to hold out in the finals for a new 5.5m contract. no one knows if he did or not, but he did sign a shiny new contract that paid him on average 5.5m.

dr

 

[GKJ]

I always get a chuckle when PA supporters get mad at owners for taking their advice and using their leverage during this lockout to tell the players collectively to take a hike. The difference is, that this move doesn't disadvantage their clubs quest for a playoff spot.

Who said I was a PA supporter? I support whatever route gets us back to watching NHL hockey the fastest.



It's that simple. If you don't want to pay him what he wants and he doesn't have a contract, don't pay him. Let someone else overpay and run their team into the ground. This is all about who want to make as much money as possible. Does anyone really think both sides are thinking about the teams trying to make the playoffs every year? Is this why we consistently have teams on the lower end of the salary spectrum making the playoffs every year and teams like the Rangers missing the playoffs and the Avalanche and the Red Wings going out in eary May? The Minnesota Wild were 30th in payroll when they went to the WCF. How many years were the Devils on the lower end and they were winning Stanley Cups?

 

[clumping platelets]

Then who's fault is it that they get it? Never mind. We'll just go around in circles as always. BUt at some point, they guy running the team has to be accountable.

And when owners are accountable......union screams collusion. It's a handful of irresponsible owners (NYR, Det, Phil, etc) who overpay for players and that brings the bar on salaries and makes it more difficult on the lower revenue teams

 

[hockeytown9321]

And when owners are accountable......union screams collusion. It's a handful of irresponsible owners (NYR, Det, Phil, etc) who overpay for players and that brings the bar on salaries and makes it more difficult on the lower revenue teams

Why would they have to collude? I own a team. I make x amount from hockey operations. I decide to spend x amount on players. Its called a budget.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

And when owners are accountable......union screams collusion. It's a handful of irresponsible owners (NYR, Det, Phil, etc) who overpay for players and that brings the bar on salaries and makes it more difficult on the lower revenue teams

Actually collusion if I am remembering right was uniquely a baseball thing. The owners are so wimpy in baseball that they allowed the union to get that clause in their contract so that they could not even get together when costs were getting out of control and agree to keep them somewhat in control.

Baseball owners are composed of pigs and whores. Pigs who gather all the all stars for their bench role players and whore owners who rather than actually fix baseball's problems in the last CBA (and when the top spending team spends over 7 times the collective salaries on players than the lowest spending teams and triple or more what 70% of the teams spend, you have a problem) pocket the chump change.

Again, another reason to love hockey, where they seem to be getting their house in order.

 

[Charge_Seven]

Why would they have to collude? I own a team. I make x amount from hockey operations. I decide to spend x amount on players. Its called a budget.

Because, we all know it's ridiculous to expect a business to take care of it's finances. Clearly it's up to the employees to ensure the owner makes money.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Because, we all know it's ridiculous to expect a business to take care of it's finances. Clearly it's up to the employees to ensure the owner makes money.

That is not entirely fair. As I have said before, baseball is not the average type of business. When the Yankees or Boston (or Tornoto or Detroit or the Rags in hockey) overpay with huge contracts for marginally good players because they have sick amounts of money to waste, it trickles down to lower teams in their negotiations who do not have sick amounts of money to throw away. Also, some owners do not mind losing money, they will throw money around anyways to 'win.' There is no comparison in a simple business.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

That is not entirely fair. As I have said before, baseball is not the average type of business. When the Yankees or Boston (or Tornoto or Detroit or the Rags in hockey) overpay with huge contracts for marginally good players because they have sick amounts of money to waste, it trickles down to lower teams in their negotiations who do not have sick amounts of money to throw away. Also, some owners do not mind losing money, they will throw money around anyways to 'win.' There is no comparison in a simple business.

except that in hockey, the owners have a fair number of leverages they can use to deny their own players a contract they cant afford. at least under the old CBA.

dr

 

[hockeytown9321]

That is not entirely fair. As I have said before, baseball is not the average type of business. When the Yankees or Boston (or Tornoto or Detroit or the Rags in hockey) overpay with huge contracts for marginally good players because they have sick amounts of money to waste, it trickles down to lower teams in their negotiations who do not have sick amounts of money to throw away. Also, some owners do not mind losing money, they will throw money around anyways to 'win.' There is no comparison in a simple business.

Thats fine, but this lockout is not about ensuring all teams can compete. Its about assuring the poorest teams a profit. Since its all about profit, teams can individally decide what they want to spend.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Thats fine, but this lockout is not about ensuring all teams can compete. Its about assuring the poorest teams a profit. Since its all about profit, teams can individally decide what they want to spend.

That is the goal of the owners. I am not naieve nor do I believe the owners to be saints. However, their proposal as an added benefit adds competitive balance, which happens to put me in their corner in this fight . . . not on moral grounds, but pure self interest of bringing a better game to the fans. But I agree, that is a secondary concern to the owners.