Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by STLBlueshistory, Feb 25, 2012.
Especially interesting given that the last 3 work stoppages have been lockouts and not strikes.
Both have been a disgrace to the game in their dealings with the lockout. Let's call a spade a spade, it takes two to fight. The owners back in the original 6 were even bigger scoundrels than today if you can believe it. At least today you are fighting with someone where you can't come to an agreement between $7 or 8 million. 60 years ago you may have been fighting to get $10,000 from a tightwad owner. We're talking apples and oranges here. The union Ted Lindsay was fighting for and the one we see today are different. I don't back the owners or the players in the work stoppages. Both deserve a Bobby Hull slapshot in a disclosed area the way they dealt with the lockouts.
I agree. And actually I haven't been to an NHL game since the Lock-out (of course, I mostly live in E. Asia so that's difficult).
The NHLPA were big-headed. The leaders, I think, misguided the players into a poor understanding of their bargaining position (which, as workers, was weak). Then, for its part, the NHL/owners waited and waited until the last possible minute to engage in meaningful bargaining talks, which of course the NHLPA exploited to make the League look back and justify their hardline. Result, cancelled season.
FWIW, considering its 5 years after the poster asked why no Bobby Orr.....
Orr sat out the whole 1977-78 season. When he went to Chicago, he signed a 5 year/$3M contract with payments spread out over 30 years to minimize taxes.
Orr famously never cashed a Chicago pay check, saying he was paid to play hockey and would not accept a salary if he was not playing.
For myself it's not that "interesting" at all - the first players strike guaranteed the owners would never again trust the players to negotiate and play
Wayne Dillon, take a bow. You had a good agent.
Any info on NHL revenues from back then?
I remember what a big story it was back then when it was published. It made Joe Contini famous.
I agree, Dionne was the better player after all.
Yikes! Eye opener! I don't recall the contracts being published back in 78, but it's interesting that the Canucks were carrying some bad contracts at the time. They've got six guys at $100,000+, but for other guys in the league in the same pay class at the time, these bums look a little overpaid. Pit Martin really stands out, & makes the initial trade - Canucks giving up Murray Bannerman, who would be heir to Tony O's starter job in Chi-Town, for the 33-year old Martin - who would play out the season & retire - look even worse than it did at the time with this albatross of a contract. I'm guessing they inherited the Graves & Maniago contracts from their respective trades with Atlanta & Minnesota, but neither was worth it at the time - Maniago packed it in like Martin at the end of the season, & Graves was a soft, lazy player who couldn't crack 50 points. Not as much of a problem with them giving The Clever a little extra, & I'm guessing Shakey's salary is what they paid to get him to jump from the WHA, & he earned it by being basically our best player, so I have less qualms about those two. Ververgaert likely negotiated a good contract coming off his 37-goal performance in the 75-76 season, but that turned out to be his peak season & an outlier, he was basically a soft second liner. Overall, they probably overpaid by about $100,000 to this group collectively.
What an awful team, thanks for the bad memories.
Mike Bossy $50,000 = best bargain in the league
But that has to be the last time an NHL-er scored 50+ goals and made less than 100 grand...?
Wow - time machine. I saw my post after 6 years!
Big question..............is the NHL a better place with salary disclosure or without it? My wallet says the second one.
With the cap, some players are hounded for being overpaid while still actually being pretty decent and nowhere near the disasters they're made out to be just because they're overpaid relative to the cap and taking up a bigger chunk than perceived to be worthy of.
If there must be a cap, then salary disclosure needs to come with it. Otherwise, every team in the league would be making baffling, frustrating moves with no explanation on the regular. At least now if you see a team dump a second liner for a 4th round pick or something, you can at least have a pretty good idea why.
If your wallet thinks that ticket prices would be meaningfully lower without salary disclosure, I'd recommend that it looks at college football, where players are (ostensibly) not paid and ticket prices have increased similarly.
Economics says that tickets will cost what the market will bear.
Well sure, now. But in 1978? By 2019 even College Football has figured out that fans will pay anything regardless. In 1978 that wasn't the case. Tickets were a lot cheaper, and I mean in relative to inflation and such.
lol at Dale Tallon being in the top 3 paid Hawks players..he was decent, but wtf??????
For us, the fans, the NHL was a better place in the 1970's. The players played more for pride, for each other, for their teams, and for their fans. But, the owners also made an inordinate amount of money compared to the players. It's more of a business now, and it strikes a fairer balance between the players and the owners. For us fans, we now get/have to watch mercenaries move from team to team, while chasing the almighty buck. You'll still get the odd Tavares that wants to play for a certain team, or a Cup-chasing veteran on his last legs willing to take a discount, but I agree that it's not the same as it once was.
Terry O'Rielly and half the Habs roster should of been getting paid more. Just what stood out at a cursory glance.
Just curious what's wrong with Owners making money? They put down the big bucks and they should get a return on investment.
Not that I'm advocating for 1950's salaries. Realistically the most a PRO athlete should make is 10-20x an average working mans salary given what they put their bodies through. The saving imo should trickle down to the fans in terms of cheaper tickets.
I actually believe that the owners should make money, and good money at that. They are the ones after all who take the financial risk. In the symbiotic relationship, I think the players should also be well paid, since they are the star attraction. Like you say, we don't want players making 1950's salaries in comparison. It's a money world that we live in now. The owners should make as much as they can, and so should the players. It's up to the fans to determine what the market will bear.
Separate names with a comma.