Two sides: Close as they have ever been

[Mess]

Having lived on both sides of the border as well as in multiple states I can call BS on the tax issue. The whole "personal income tax" thing is a scam. I thought it was going to be beneficial when I moved to Florida until I saw how they tax the hell out of you in other ways. I paid four times what I do in property tax in Florida as to what I do in Arizona. There are more hidden taxes and fees for anything you do in Florida than anywhere I've ever been. You get nickle and dimed to death in Florida because everything is purchase oriented so they can screw the snowbirds and tourists. It's not much different in Arizona either, where they hit for you do. Personally, I made more money and was taxed less living in Alberta than anywhere else I've been. I took a pretty substantial hit to chase the sunshine and a little white ball.

As for the arena, if you're being over-paid to play, who cares where you play? For an extra million a season most of these guys would play in your backyard rink and change in the garage. They are modern day mercaneries and will go where the green is for the most part, conditions be damned.

That's part of the overall problem .. Isn't it.??

When posters suggest that cost of living is an issue and it cost far more to live in Toronto then Calgary, or NY verses Arizona, yet its fair to have all players salaries unilaterally effected by Total league Revenue and that a HARD CAP equal in all markets is fair to players .. What about the players paying 4 times the property tax as you say, or the cost of a house is 3 times if not more to live in one city verses the other .. This is all complicated by the fact that a team owns your rights from 18-30 and the player has no say or choice to move away from Florida as you did and head to Arizona .. So even if he gets the same 1 mil in each city .. His money stretches farther and his quality of life is better for his family in different markets ..

Parity on the ice does not equal parity off the ice ..

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Yet when posters suggest that cost of living is an issue and it cost far more to live in Toronto then Calgary, or NY verses Arizona ,yet its fair to have all players salaries unilaterally effected by Total league Revenue and that a HARD CAP equal in all markets is fair to players .. What about the players paying 4 times the property tax as you say, or the cost of a house is 3 times if not more to live in one city verses the other .. This is all complicated by the fact that a team owns your rights from 18-30 and the player has no say or choice to move away from Florida as you did and head to Arizona .. So even if he gets the same 1 mil in each city .. His money stretches farther and his quality of life is better for his family in different markets .. Parity on the ice does not equal parity off the ice ..

Well Sparky, I was poking holes in his BS theory that teams will have "non-monetary" advantage over other teams because of the "no personal income tax" advantage. I was pointing out that he was incorrect in his belief and that the advantage was not there. To the whole off ice advantage, that is true in some regards, but not in others. It is a case by case scenario which must be played out to see what each individual player as to what his motivations are. Some players may put their desire to win first (Selanne and Kariya) and decide to forgo big money to play for a team they think will win a championship. Some may want a lifestyle where they have non-hockey or winter related options away from the rink. That is why some players would prefer the Florida or California teams over others. Some may want a city that offers a great family atmosphere (Turek and Lowry) and decide a smaller more cosmopolitan city is where they would like to play. Some may want to live out a childhood dream (Roberts and Nieuwendyk) to play for their favorite team growing up. Those motivations are impossible to guage as they change throughout a player's career and differ from player to player. You never know what can motivate a player, so the advantage is not an advantage until it can be sold to an individual.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I thought you were talking about the Toronto Maple Leafs for a second there!

mock the Leafs if you want ....

but arent the Leafs the nexus of the issue ? one one hand, we mock them that they sign old and overpaid players and have nothing to show for it, on the other hand we complain how it makes the league unfair that they can do that...

i say, let the Leafs continue to sign old and overpaid players. lets NOT make them use their resources wisely (a cap). i maintain that TOR is going to be the biggest winner out of this CBA mess, not teams like CGY. CGY (for example) in fact will remain status quo and in fact in a capped world could be damaged. players like Roberts or Scott Young (for example) might have decided to join CGY instead of TOR and DAL, maybe because CGY had more cap room, or a better tax enviroment or whatever reason. yikes, now CGY is stuck with an overpriced, too old to help player instead of TOR and DAL !

i dont know about you, but I prefer seeing CGY make do without the burden of even considering signing these types of players.

dr

 

[GSC2k2*]

I always get a kick out of the fact that PA supporters get their pants in a knot if anyone suggests that hockey players as a group aren't the best educated or informed, yet think nothing of portratying the vast majority of fans as ignorant to the basic facts of this dispute.

Ditto here. THe relative education of hockey players goes without saying, actually. Regardless of their intelligence, which robably varies greatly, the nature of their profession precludes the players from furthering their education (at least during their playing careers). There are one-in-a-million exceptions, but that proves the rule more than anything. It escapes most pro-player posters that there is a distinction between education (which the vast majority of players do not have) and intelligence (which is at least debatable).

The PA has been offered 54% PLUS PROFIT SHARING. That would ensure their % take rose as revenues climbed (assuming other fixed cost remained somewhat constant)

In fact, as I demonstrated in another thread, it increases their take beyond 54% as far as the incremental revenue is concerned (up well past 70% in fact).

 

[Hoss]

Ditto here. THe relative education of hockey players goes without saying, actually. Regardless of their intelligence, which robably varies greatly, the nature of their profession precludes the players from furthering their education (at least during their playing careers). There are one-in-a-million exceptions, but that proves the rule more than anything. It escapes most pro-player posters that there is a distinction between education (which the vast majority of players do not have) and intelligence (which is at least debatable).

Why is it so many of the pro-ownership group equate intelligence with education? I know a few stupid lawyers and a few brilliant cabbies. Education is more aptly equated with opportunity.

 

[Mess]

i dont know about you, but I prefer seeing CGY make do without the burden of even considering signing these types of players.

dr

That's the whole bases of the new CBA .. To allow those vary teams access now to the UFA market that they before could not compete in .. Toss in some shiny new Revenue sharing found money and the NHL is making Toronto into Calgary and Calgary in to Toronto in terms of spending habits and team composition.

The teams near the cap will employ their own young farm players and draft picks while the former poor will now be like kids in a candy store uncontrolable in their spending with lots of Cap room to go nuts.

The only thing that will now change in Bettman's new NHL is that, it will be the small market teams that hand out bad over priced contracts to aging vets and force the NHLPA salary scale higher for all players in comparison , the very thing that big market teams are accused of today.

In the end the Hard Cap could end up doing the exact opposite as it is intended ..

Carolina's Owner Karmonos threw good money at Federov before as a RFA .. now he can throw it at him with a loaded revenue sharing wallet.

 

[Mess]

Why is it so many of the pro-ownership group equate intelligence with education? I know a few stupid lawyers and a few brilliant cabbies. Education is more aptly equated with opportunity.

Donald Trump's street smarts verses book smart last show proves exactly your point ..

 

[Chili]

Why is it so many of the pro-ownership group equate intelligence with education? I know a few stupid lawyers and a few brilliant cabbies. Education is more aptly equated with opportunity.

I liked your statement, providing the pro ownership part is left out.

Education is only one form of knowledge/skill acquisition. And as far as intelligence goes read Thomas Edison's bio.

 

[London Knights]

Donald Trump's street smarts verses book smart last show proves exactly your point ..

Donald Trump's roughly 50/50 banruptcy/success ratio continues to prove this point.

It's great that they are talking, but being closer than ever means very little when they have never been close in the first place. Unless they are covering up the actual advancements in these talks all reports sound like they are microanalyzing the books of the owners to determine the starting point for cap levels. They haven't solved any of their problems yet. Once the cap is agreed upon, concessions are going to have to come from the owners regarding UFA age, and the players are going to have to come off of salary arbitration more. There are many critical issues that probably haven't even begun to be discussed at this point. It would be nice to see the league have at least the cap set in place by early June to give teams an idea of what their team is going to look like. TSN would gladly halt any of their programming to put on the NHL draft at the last minute to give the players their proper ceremony.

 

[Habsaku]

Why is it so many of the pro-ownership group equate intelligence with education? I know a few stupid lawyers and a few brilliant cabbies. Education is more aptly equated with opportunity.

Yes, but whats the proportion of smart lawyers and smart cabbies? You have a higher probability of getting a smart lawyer then a smart cabbie and even though I am generalizing, I'm having a course on Statistics and its amazing how acurate those "generalizations" are.

Personnally, when it comes to Ownership and Players. I would say their greed clouds their intelligence.

 

[WC Handy*]

Why is it so many of the pro-ownership group equate intelligence with education? I know a few stupid lawyers and a few brilliant cabbies. Education is more aptly equated with opportunity.

I'd say education is more aptly equated with ambition. Anyone can get loans to go to college.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Why is it so many of the pro-ownership group equate intelligence with education? I know a few stupid lawyers and a few brilliant cabbies. Education is more aptly equated with opportunity.

I am a pro-ownership poster (as defined by you), yet I was describing the distinction between education and intelligence.

Coming from a lower-middle-class upbringing, I can tell you definitively that education has no connection to opportunity. That may have been the case seventy-five years ago, but far from the case today.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Donald Trump's roughly 50/50 banruptcy/success ratio continues to prove this point.

I don't really see how. Trump has both street smarts and book smarts.

 

[Hoss]

I'd say education is more aptly equated with ambition. Anyone can get loans to go to college.

How many NHL teams are going to wait for thier draft pick to finish his PHD? Face it, a players ambition is to play with the elite 700+ people on the Earth capable of playing in the NHL.

 

[Hoss]

I am a pro-ownership poster (as defined by you), yet I was describing the distinction between education and intelligence.

Coming from a lower-middle-class upbringing, I can tell you definitively that education has no connection to opportunity. That may have been the case seventy-five years ago, but far from the case today.

My question was not meant to challenge your comments.

 

[WC Handy*]

How many NHL teams are going to wait for thier draft pick to finish his PHD? Face it, a players ambition is to play with the elite 700+ people on the Earth capable of playing in the NHL.

In other words... players don't have the ambition to get an education...

 

[mackdogs*]

In other words... players don't have the ambition to get an education...

Ya... they take the easy route and go for the money instead. Not all of course, just about 98.67% of em.

 

[WC Handy*]

Ya... they take the easy route and go for the money instead. Not all of course, just about 98.67% of em.

I would too... I wasn't being critical of the players for the decision, just pointing out that education is about ambition and not opportunity.

 

[Hoss]

I would too... I wasn't being critical of the players for the decision, just pointing out that education is about ambition and not opportunity.

Too simplistic. The drive to be in the top 700 people in the world at whatever you do, whether it's hockey or criminal law indicates that these individuals have great ambition. The fact you seem to equate the incredible ambition of hockey players to succeed in thier chosen field as being less than individuals pursuing more mundane ventures, like television broadcasting or animal husbandry indicates a prejudice on your part.

 

[thinkwild]

Hockey players are smart enough and rich enough to have surrounded themselves with many top notch advisors to do whats in their best interests.

One of the ideas to get around the different cost of livings in different cities was to pay players in NHL dollars which are adjusted depending on which city you play in. Players in New York for example would have a higher cost of living than in Ottawa or Calgary so could be paid the same NHL dollars, but the revenue sharing pool provides the cola adjustments.

 

[SENSible1*]

Hockey players are smart enough and rich enough to have surrounded themselves with many top notch advisors to do whats in their best interests.

And what happens when the "top notch advisors" are effectively neutered by having their livelyhood left at the whim of an individual whose tactics may be working contrary to the players interests?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

And what happens when the "top notch advisors" are effectively neutered by having their livelyhood left at the whim of an individual whose tactics may be working contrary to the players interests?

who knows, its never happened.

dr

 

[CGG]

WTF??? So the players will be okay with 54% of $2.1 billion, but won't be happy with 54% of $3 billion dollars? What is the difference? They get 54% of both. It's called linkage and is the fairest way of distributing the wealth. Why, because reveunes go up, should the players get a bigger chunk? Listening to you pro-PA types its not the player's responsibility to grow the game, so why should they benefit when the game grows and the revenues grow with it? Shouldn't the ones who grow the game get the bountry from their efforts? If the players are not participating in this growth, and are not responsible for it, why should they get an increase in their share?

Why are you and absolutely every owner lover out there convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that 54% is THE magic number, and the magic number has to be 54% regardless of how much revenue there is?

Try explaining why the NFL players and NBA players all get more than this magical 54%. In short, because those leagues rake in a whole bunch more than $2.1 billion. Therefore the NFL can easily afford to dish out 63% (I don't know the exact number) to the players and still have buckets of money left over.

Gary's main argument at using 54% (a LOWER number than all other leagues) is that the NHL is a weak sister to all other leagues and has lower revenues. What if it catches up to the NBA at $3 billion 5 years down the road? How is he possibly going to stare into a TV camera and say that the league can still only afford to pay 54%?

Your assumption that players would be "happy" with 54% of $2.1 billion is wrong, they might have to accept it though, and deal with it for 5 or 6 years, but once that CBA expires, if revenues are up to $3 billion, why would they still be "happy" with a system that only allows them 54%?

 

[CGG]

I always get a kick out of the fact that PA supporters get their pants in a knot if anyone suggests that hockey players as a group aren't the best educated or informed, yet think nothing of portratying the vast majority of fans as ignorant to the basic facts of this dispute.

Nice to see you up on your high horse again.

First off, regardless of what you think, the age-old notion of a bunch of idiotic, uneducated barbarian hockey players being lead blindly through the confusing world of money and finance has got to go. Period.

Now, nowhere did I say the vast majority of fans are ignorant to the basic facts. This site does not cater to the vast majority of fans though, there hasn't been hockey in a year now, I'd say we're a lot more than just casual fans if we're posting on a Business of Hockey board. I'm sure most if not everyone here knows exactly what's going on with the dispute, have followed it closely, have actually read the Levitt report, etc.

But when you get a Legere poll in Canada of 1,000 random homes and "who do you support, owners or players?", how can you possibly think that all 1,000 of those people answering the poll questions are as well-informed as the posters here?

The word "strike" works its way into non-sports newspaper and internet articles. People who consider themselves as hockey fans but either don't have the time or don't care enough to study the issues in depth probably don't care if it's a strike or a lockout, and can easily make the false assumption that the players are at fault because they're asking for more money, therefore they throw their support behind the owners.

The PA (for some reason) doesn't care about public relations and getting fans on their side. The NHL does, they even hired PR firms, and engineered the Levitt report to try to convince everyone that they should be supporting the owners. Unless you really care, most of the clips you heard at the time of the lockout were from Gary Bettman who keeps repeating three things:

(1) Levitt Report 75%
(2) Ticket prices too high because of salaries
(3) Won't apologize for a $1.3 million avg salary

You have to do a little digging to realize that the 75% is a ratio of grossed-up player costs divided by grossed down "net revenues", a calculation specifically designed to make the number high. GB and/or Daly have even referred to the ratio as "salaries" instead of what it actually is, "player costs". Do you think everyone who heard or read about the Levitt report took the time to see exactly what that 75% meant?

Keep throwing out that the NHL is offering players a $1.3 million avg and over half the revenues, in absence of other information I think the average person would think yeah, that seems fair, good deal owners, players must be greedy to turn that down.

Compare all the PR efforts from the league side (along with mis-information, such as "this is to save the small markets" or "this is about competitive balance") to the PR efforts of the PA, which are minimal at best, and how can you possibly think that non-hard-core fans who really don't care all that much would be persuaded to "support" the owners, or at least answer that "Yes, I support the owners" when someone asks, even though they clearly don't know everything about the issues and parties involved?

 

[thinkwild]

The PA (for some reason) doesn't care about public relations and getting fans on their side. The NHL does, they even hired PR firms, and engineered the Levitt report to try to convince everyone that they should be supporting the owners.

Well one likely reason the PA dont care about PR is that its none of our business. And secondly, they arent trying to win a PR battle, it serves them no purpose. They went in knowing they are going to lose and that the owners are going to claw back a lot of the gains they negotiated for the first time in the last CBA. For 70 years the pendulum swung one way. For the first time, they get a real negotiation and some rights and the owners think the pendulum has been in the players favour too long. Thirdly, even if the players win a PR battle, it gets them nothing. Its just something they have to waste time concentrating on.

Keep throwing out that the NHL is offering players a $1.3 million avg and over half the revenues, in absence of other information I think the average person would think yeah, that seems fair, good deal owners, players must be greedy to turn that down.

And lest not forget, the players propsed a system where they would get a $1.3mil average salary and the owners rejected their own proposal.

So the players will be okay with 54% of $2.1 billion, but won't be happy with 54% of $3 billion dollars? What is the difference? They get 54% of both. It's called linkage and is the fairest way of distributing the wealth. Why, because reveunes go up, should the players get a bigger chunk?

If revenues went down, and the fixed costs stayed the same, the players would get less than 54%. Similarly as they rise ... in a fair marketplace ...

Listening to you pro-PA types its not the player's responsibility to grow the game, so why should they benefit when the game grows and the revenues grow with it? Shouldn't the ones who grow the game get the bountry from their efforts? If the players are not participating in this growth, and are not responsible for it, why should they get an increase in their share?

The players have no participation in growing the game? Its all owners work??