Why can't Goodenow just understand?

[John Flyers Fan]

Anyone who thinks the NHL is a sound investment at the moment, well, like I said, good luck in the business world.

It all depennds on what team you're speaking about.

Would purchasing the Canes be a good investment ??? Absolutely not.

Would purchasing the Leafs ??? Absolutely.

 

[quat]

Good point, except that the Red Wings aren't the ones looking for someone to bail them out of any problems they created. If they lose money, its becase they either spent to much or didn't make enough. Either way, its thier fault, and no one else should be on the hook to pay for it.

You keep saying this... the Owners are looking for someone to bail them out of their troubles.. They aren't doing anything of the sort. They are attempting to set a limit on the costs of running a team, and they are doing it themselves. The players work for the NHL not the other way around. Maybe in your world the NHL is owned by the players, but it's not in this one.

 

[quat]

It all depennds on what team you're speaking about.

Would purchasing the Canes be a good investment ??? Absolutely not.

Would purchasing the Leafs ??? Absolutely.

Last I heard the Leafs weren't for sale.

 

[thinkwild]

It all depennds on what team you're speaking about.

Would purchasing the Canes be a good investment ??? Absolutely not.

Would purchasing the Leafs ??? Absolutely.

Would purchasing the Canes for $250mil be a good investment? Probably not.

Would purchasing the Canes for $50mil, getting a sweetheart deal on the arena where you get all the revenues and a municapal restructuring fund or a slots license pays its expenses for you? Absolutely. And there's a market there. If not, move it somewhere it will like they do in the NFL, but I think theres a market there.

How much money should he make on his $50mil investment a year? More than $5mil? More than Brind'amours salary? THe difference between losing a few mil or making a reasonable profit is one expensive UFA by a GM and scouting staff being paid in the millions. Its reasonable to ask that of management I think rather than expect the players to foot the bill. Thats what they are paid so much to do.

Of course there's 10's of millions in profits available if you go deep in the playoffs. A couple years of that can wipe out a decade of paltry losses while you were rebuilding and developing a product. Not to mention the new franchise value of Carolina when it is successful, selling more tickets at higher prices and winning in the playoffs.

 

[thinkwild]

You keep saying this... the Owners are looking for someone to bail them out of their troubles.. They aren't doing anything of the sort. They are attempting to set a limit on the costs of running a team

My 101 understanding of combines would suggest that this is illegal unless you can get the players to agree to it. And the strategy appears to be to find a way to force them to accept something that is otherwise without that agreement illegal. Starts off on a good footing wouldnt you say?

How about finding a market that works and has risks and rewards?

 

[PecaFan]

Do you have any evidence the arbitration system tilts heavily towards the players? It would be very easy to prove it if this was the case. Why doesn't the NHL name names and demonstrate that this is so?

You've had some decent points at times, but now you're clearly just being argumentative, if not a complete NHLPA shill.

Arbitration is so totally one sided that *anyone* can see it. Only players can file for arbitration. They can choose the most advantageous time when to do so. Bad year= don't file, great year= file. They can file year after year until they get the big score they're looking for. When they do file, they get massive increases, well beyond what could be considered reasonable, all because of the "comparable" system which artificially raises everyone together - "Every ship floats with the tide". Not to mention all the folks who "settled" for huge raises before their arbitration date.

The recent list. Note the huge increases every single time. 50%. 80%. 100% 200%. 300% raises.

D Ruslan Salei
# Awarded $2.4 million ($1.75 million)

D Sergei Gonchar
# Awarded $5.5 million ($3.65 million)

C Joe Thornton
# Awarded $6.75 million ($5.5 million)

G Martin Biron
# Awarded $2.8 million ($2.2 million)

C Daniel Briere
# Awarded $2.55 million ($1.6 million)

G Miikka Kiprusoff
# Awarded $2.95 million ($800,000)

RW Milan Hejduk
# Awarded $5.7 million ($3.2 million)

C Eric Belanger
# Awarded $950,000 ($743,800)

RW Vladimir Orszagh
# Awarded $1 million ($700,000)

C Scott Gomez
# Awarded $2.9 million ($1 million)

D Scott Niedermayer
# Awarded $7 million ($4 million)

C Oleg Kvasha
# Awarded $1.55 million ($800,000)

D Adrian Aucoin
# Awarded $4.25 million ($3.25 million)

D Kim Johnsson
# Awarded $2.8 million ($1.25 million)

LW Nils Ekman
# Awarded $1.2 million ($575,000)

D Pavel Kubina
# Awarded two years at $3.1 million and $3.4 million ($2.5 million)

LW Ruslan Fedotenko
# Awarded $1.5 million ($950,000)

C Cory Stillman
# Awarded $3.9 million ($2.75 million). Lightning decline the contract, making Stillman an unrestricted free agent.

D Brendan Witt
# Awarded $2.2 million ($1.75 million)

If Pronger is the benchmark why isn't Jovanovski making $9 million?

Because he's half the player Pronger is? Which of course is why Jovo is massively overpaid at half his contract.

 

[thinkwild]

Pretty much all the players in arbitration are getting less than market value. Of course they are getting raises. THat is the point. I dont see one contract you have listed that looks wrong. They all look fine to me. Which one is the problem?

 

[chriss_co]

Pretty much all the players in arbitration are getting less than market value. Of course they are getting raises. THat is the point. I dont see one contract you have listed that looks wrong. They all look fine to me. Which one is the problem?

ummm...

D Ruslan Salei
# Awarded $2.4 million ($1.75 million)

Ruslan salei... RUSLAN SALEI!!!!... the guy is 4th-5th defencemen... 3rd on a bad team

G Miikka Kiprusoff
# Awarded $2.95 million ($800,000)

For one good season?! Why do players get such huge pay raises for only one good season! I'll tell you why. Cuz Montreal signed Theodore to his huge contract after his one good season. Montreal had no choice. They weren't going to go into a dispute with their francophone goalie. He's popular with the fans too. Not signing him would mean somone's job would be fired. But how is Theodore related to Kipper?? Arbitrator used Theodore's raise as a model for Kipper.

D Kim Johnsson
# Awarded $2.8 million ($1.25 million)

How does Kubina get more than Johnsson??

LW Nils Ekman
# Awarded $1.2 million ($575,000)

Nils Ekman..... the guy has one solid solid season and is an instant millionare?

D Pavel Kubina
# Awarded two years at $3.1 million and $3.4 million ($2.5 million)

Kubina is a good young defencemen. But no way is he a $3 million defenceman. Not yet anyway.

C Cory Stillman
# Awarded $3.9 million ($2.75 million). Lightning decline the contract, making Stillman an unrestricted free agent.

Cory Stillman.... a $4 million player?? hell no...

Good defensive defencemen but injury prone. Should be getting slightly above the league average... $1.9 or so (but that is already high)

Why are arbitrator decisions always giving players raises? Cuz players get to choose when to go to an arbitrator. Its ridiculous. Make it fair game. Teams should have a choice too when a player is overpaid and should be given a salary cut.

 

[chriss_co]

Well, this works both ways. I think you are either a troll pimping for the owners or a chump who has swallowed the NHL propaganda line.

I think you are the troll and you have swallowed the NHLPA's propaganda. No change that... you manufacture its propaganda.

If Pronger is the benchmark why isn't Jovanovski making $9 million?

I'd give the obvious reason why.. but others have already done so.

Why don't you use an example of a team that does have excellent scouts? Edmonton does not. That's why they are mediocre.

Yet, the Oilers are ranked 4th in organizational rankings of prospects in their system. Hey.. im from calgary and i even admit the oilers have good prospects.

 

[quat]

Would purchasing the Canes for $250mil be a good investment? Probably not.

Would purchasing the Canes for $50mil, getting a sweetheart deal on the arena where you get all the revenues and a municapal restructuring fund or a slots license pays its expenses for you? Absolutely. And there's a market there. If not, move it somewhere it will like they do in the NFL, but I think theres a market there.

How much money should he make on his $50mil investment a year? More than $5mil? More than Brind'amours salary? THe difference between losing a few mil or making a reasonable profit is one expensive UFA by a GM and scouting staff being paid in the millions. Its reasonable to ask that of management I think rather than expect the players to foot the bill. Thats what they are paid so much to do.

Of course there's 10's of millions in profits available if you go deep in the playoffs. A couple years of that can wipe out a decade of paltry losses while you were rebuilding and developing a product. Not to mention the new franchise value of Carolina when it is successful, selling more tickets at higher prices and winning in the playoffs.

I guess you must be pretty free and easy with your money.

Well, investing in the 'Canes is not a sound business move. It's a high risk move that may have a slight chance of working out should the NHL be able to come to a better agreement with it's players. If they just kept the same agreement, it's a stinker only someone who likes to lose lot's of money quickly would make.


lol " A decade of paltry losses " Riiiiight. 10 years of running a business on the lossing end of an equasion, as a way of making money. And then that guaranteed cup after that, because that's how the league works... right? You suck for 10 years and then suddenly you rake in the cash to make up for all those paltry lost 10's of millions.

Funny thing is, Carolina actually did get to the cup finals a few years back, but what happened then? Where's all the promised money that comes from all those fans?

 

[quat]

My 101 understanding of combines would suggest that this is illegal unless you can get the players to agree to it. And the strategy appears to be to find a way to force them to accept something that is otherwise without that agreement illegal. Starts off on a good footing wouldnt you say?

How about finding a market that works and has risks and rewards?

So to you and your 101 understanding, the NHL isn't a business, and neither is the NFL or the NBA? You're not making any sense.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

They can choose the most advantageous time when to do so. .... great year= file..

you mean like how Jarome Iginla filed for arbitration after he won the art ross and rocket richard ? err .. oh ya, he didnt.

dr

 

[thinkwild]

So to you and your 101 understanding, the NHL isn't a business, and neither is the NFL or the NBA? You're not making any sense.

No that is not the point. They are 30 different businesses, in different environments, with different ownership models, different markets, different supply and demand, different tv deals, different attendance, different playoff success, different interest levels from the fans, some vastly different revenues and revenue streams. Businesses like this cant can decide to set a max payroll for running a team. In the States this would be an anti trust violation I believe. I think in Canada its a different Combines legislation.

 

[garry1221]

No that is not the point. They are 30 different businesses, in different environments, with different ownership models, different markets, different supply and demand, different tv deals, different attendance, different playoff success, different interest levels from the fans, some vastly different revenues and revenue streams. Businesses like this cant can decide to set a max payroll for running a team. In the States this would be an anti trust violation I believe. I think in Canada its a different Combines legislation.

then how is the nfl and mlb still in operation? both have caps right? If it were an anti trust violation we would have heard about it long before now

 

[quat]

No that is not the point. They are 30 different businesses, in different environments, with different ownership models, different markets, different supply and demand, different tv deals, different attendance, different playoff success, different interest levels from the fans, some vastly different revenues and revenue streams. Businesses like this cant can decide to set a max payroll for running a team. In the States this would be an anti trust violation I believe. I think in Canada its a different Combines legislation.[/QUOTE

Ah... like Starbucks, or McDonalds, or Walmart? Or maybe Taco time and Seven Eleven are better examples? OK tire? Canadian Tire? Budget rent a truck.... Hotel chains!

I do understand now what you are aiming at though. I to am not clear on what the restrictions are around payroll. Taking a league average of income revenue % as a base line for all team payrolls as a "cap", doesn't seem outrageous or illegal... especially if it is decided as a % of revenue. IE it's a floating amount, that should the league earn more, then salaries increase.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

Pretty much all the players in arbitration are getting less than market value. Of course they are getting raises. THat is the point. I dont see one contract you have listed that looks wrong. They all look fine to me. Which one is the problem?

WOW!!!
Statement for the ages :lol

They all are

 

[dawgbone]

No that is not the point. They are 30 different businesses, in different environments, with different ownership models, different markets, different supply and demand, different tv deals, different attendance, different playoff success, different interest levels from the fans, some vastly different revenues and revenue streams. Businesses like this cant can decide to set a max payroll for running a team. In the States this would be an anti trust violation I believe. I think in Canada its a different Combines legislation.

Excuse me?

As an owner of a corporation, you cannot sit there and designate a value of 40% of your revenues that is your limit for salaries?

I think you are mistaken.

 

[dawgbone]

you mean like how Jarome Iginla filed for arbitration after he won the art ross and rocket richard ? err .. oh ya, he didnt.

dr

And this proves what?

 

[dawgbone]

Pretty much all the players in arbitration are getting less than market value. Of course they are getting raises. THat is the point. I dont see one contract you have listed that looks wrong. They all look fine to me. Which one is the problem?

The market value is the problem. The fact that a guy Colorado pays $4mil for means that Calgary has to pay $4mil for the same kind of player.

What about the guys getting more than their market value, where's the arbitration system for the owners to bring them back down?

 

[ceber]

No that is not the point. They are 30 different businesses, in different environments, with different ownership models, different markets, different supply and demand, different tv deals, different attendance, different playoff success, different interest levels from the fans, some vastly different revenues and revenue streams. Businesses like this cant can decide to set a max payroll for running a team.

Well, look at it this way. There are thirty different business that own an NHL franchise. How they run their businesses is up to them. How they run the franchise is not entirely up to them. The league has decided that in order to have a healthy franchise system, they must limit the amount of money that can be spent on player salaries for franchise teams. I'm sure the owners of those franchises don't all agree on that point and I bet most of them would prefer to not have any interference at all, but that's a tough cookie. In much the same way that corporate McDonald's dictates which napkins a franchise buys and how much they charge for a hamburger, the NHL is going to dictate how much teams can spend on player salary.

It's not about the individual differences between ownership groups and their various enterprises, it's about the franchise system as a whole. (The collective bargaining agreement is what makes this legal, btw. Important to note that the agreement is reached between the league as a whole and the players union, not the individual teams and the union.)

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The recent list. Note the huge increases every single time. 50%. 80%. 100% 200%. 300% raises.

This is not evidence of anything. How stupid do you have to be to think this is an argument? You can't see the logical problem with this "analysis"? Sheesh.

It would be very easy to show whether arbitration was inflationary.

1) List the average league salary year by year.

2) List the average arbitration award year by year.

3) Which average increased faster?

Why doesn't the NHL do it?

Tom

 

[rafal majka]

Excuse me?

As an owner of a corporation, you cannot sit there and designate a value of 40% of your revenues that is your limit for salaries?

I think you are mistaken.

mmmmmmmmmm.... you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sure, any corporation can budget for salaries relative to revenues but owners cannot instal a limit on salaries because they are 30 competing businesses that are in competition for labour resources. Thus the owners cannot institute a cap because it is restraint of trade. This is why the owners need a compliant NHLPA to agree to a CBA with a cap - which, hopefully will not happen in my lifetime.

And I agree with TB: why is the survival of 30 teams sacrosanct? If it is then why isn't anyone suggesting limiting roster size to 20, 19 or even 18 players. That would save some money without installing a draconian cap.

 

[dawgbone]

mmmmmmmmmm.... you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sure, any corporation can budget for salaries relative to revenues but owners cannot instal a limit on salaries because they are 30 competing businesses that are in competition for labour resources. Thus the owners cannot institute a cap because it is restraint of trade.

Excuse me, but they do it now. There are teams who limit the amount of their revenue that they spend on salaires. There is nothing illegal about it, which was exactly what he said. The owners cannot collude and make a league wide agreement that each team will only spend $30mil on salaries... now, I might have read it wrong but he seemed to be talking about the teams as individual corporations, not in terms of colluding with each other.

This is why the owners need a compliant NHLPA to agree to a CBA with a cap - which, hopefully will not happen in my lifetime.

I certainly hope it does... but then again, my team doesn't take my firstborn child from me every time I want to go see a game live. If all you do is watch games on T.V., then as long as your team isn't one that was being slaughtered by the CBA , why should you care?

And I agree with TB: why is the survival of 30 teams sacrosanct? If it is then why isn't anyone suggesting limiting roster size to 20, 19 or even 18 players. That would save some money without installing a draconian cap.

I agree... but if you have a city where the fans are willing to come out, shouldn't that team be worth saving? Hey, if Carolina can't get 11,000 fans out to a game, maybe they aren't worth saving, but what about a team that sells out 95% of the building the whole year?

And do you think the NHLPA would agree to the shortened roster? I certainly don't, and the waiver rules in place make it very difficult for teams to have less than a 23 man roster.

 

[PecaFan]

It would be very easy to show whether arbitration was inflationary.

Yes it was, which is why I just did it in my last post.

1) Inflationary means salaries only go up.
2) It is impossible to get a salary reduced in arbitration.
C) Therefore, arbitration is inflationary.

Nice debating technique, by the way. Why don't *you* get off your lazy ass and do some of your own research to try and prove your points? If you think average league salary vs average arbitration is relevant (which I don't), then *you* go get the numbers and try and prove your point.

But no, all you do is make these declarations to others to go get research:
"It would be very easy to prove the earth isn't 75% water. Go collect either earth or water from each square inch on earth. Why hasn't the NHL done this?!"

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

1) Inflationary means salaries only go up.

NHL salaries go up and go down.

2) It is impossible to get a salary reduced in arbitration.

The reason salaries are never reduced in arbitration is that in every single case both the player and the team agree the player is entitled to a raise. The only question is "how much"?

C) Therefore, arbitration is inflationary.

This is logic? The issue is not whether salaries awarded in arbitration have gone up significantly over the past ten years. The market has gone up significantly so of course they have. If player awards have risen faster than the market, the system is clearly inflationary. If awards went up slower than inflation, the system is a drag on salaries. If the inflation rate is about the same, the system is behaving as it should.

Nice debating technique, by the way. Why don't *you* get off your lazy ass and do some of your own research to try and prove your points? If you think average league salary vs average arbitration is relevant (which I don't), then *you* go get the numbers and try and prove your point.

I don't have the data. The NHL does. If they want to show arbitration is inflationary, they can easily show that it is inflationary. They have not done that. Instead they spin out a percentage increase won by players in arbitration and pretend that proves a point. Why? Are they that stupid? Are they that unprofessional?

Nope. They do think you are that stupid and it looks like they are right.

Tom