640 Toronto reporting NHLPA proposal

  • Thread starter Vomiting Kermit*
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

mooseOAK*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Well, that remains to be seen.
If they don't get what they want, and then the NHL fans are slow to comeback, then the owners will have screwed themselves.
It's a cost benefit analysis.
I'm just not sure that ANYONE is really considering the long term cost of this lockout.
The owners considered the cost of continuing under the old system and decided that the unknown effects of a lockout were preferable.
 

Flames Draft Watcher

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,793
0
Calgary
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
That's how business works when employees are simply making a product.
But in entertainment, the empolyees are much more than people who produce. They are, in many but not all respects, the actual product.

And that changes things how? Management still dictates wages.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Insults aside, do you mind explaining your logic?
Let me ask you this. WHich is better for the league?
a) A hard cap at 35 Million?
b) a luxury tax system, with a threshold at $35 Million. Taxed at a dollar for dollar for the first $10M. Taxed at $1.50 for the next $10 Million, etc. Taxes dispersed to the small market teams, based on a few criteria.

Think about it.
And then give me your answer.

The hard cap at 35 M is far better for the league. Only a fan of a big market team hoping to retain his spending advantage would think otherwise.
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
The hard cap at 35 M is far better for the league. Only a fan of a big market team hoping to retain his spending advantage would think otherwise.

I still dont know why everyone thinks that it has to be fair..or having more money make it unfair. I mean I see the logic as to why you want to think that..I just dont agree that it has to be fair..it's sports..you make it fair by the rules and game structure.
Im sure I ll get blasted, but I dont get it.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
ResidentAlien said:
you make it fair by the rules and game structure.

That is correct. And the rules and structure of the business side of the game are defined by the CBA. The NHL is taking their business back and trying to place some controls on it so it does not spiral out of control again. Simple as that.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
ResidentAlien said:
I still dont know why everyone thinks that it has to be fair..or having more money make it unfair. I mean I see the logic as to why you want to think that..I just dont agree that it has to be fair..it's sports..you make it fair by the rules and game structure.
Im sure I ll get blasted, but I dont get it.

Fine we'll address it through the rules.

For every M over 35 M, the offending team loses a point in the standings.
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
Fine we'll address it through the rules.

For every M over 35 M, the offending team loses a point in the standings.

sigh
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
The Iconoclast said:
That is correct. And the rules and structure of the business side of the game are defined by the CBA. The NHL is taking their business back and trying to place some controls on it so it does not spiral out of control again. Simple as that.
Taking it back from whom??? ahh nevermind..i give up, just drop the puck already,,this is getting old.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
ResidentAlien said:

I understand your frustration.

How dare fans of ALL markets expect the same chance of winning? Don't they know the big markets have a god-given right to an unfair advantage?
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
Newsguyone said:
Oh.
So then what's the problem?
One would think that your hibernation would have given you a firmer grasp on what this is all about.

If I live in Detroit, and my revenues are $150 million dollars, I have no problem with my $80 million dollar payroll.

Pittsburgh has to compete for players in a free market competing for the same goal with a $60 million dollar revenue stream.

How does the management control the marketplace for players in Pittsburgh when they all want Detroit money?

You know how they control the salary marketplace? With a new CBA.

And I know I didn't have to spell it out for you..but you were getting too sassy. ;)
 

mackdogs*

Guest
slats432 said:
One would think that your hibernation would have given you a firmer grasp on what this is all about.

If I live in Detroit, and my revenues are $150 million dollars, I have no problem with my $80 million dollar payroll.

Pittsburgh has to compete for players in a free market competing for the same goal with a $60 million dollar revenue stream.

How does the management control the marketplace for players in Pittsburgh when they all want Detroit money?

You know how they control the salary marketplace? With a new CBA.

And I know I didn't have to spell it out for you..but you were getting too sassy. ;)
Burn
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
slats432 said:
One would think that your hibernation would have given you a firmer grasp on what this is all about.

If I live in Detroit, and my revenues are $150 million dollars, I have no problem with my $80 million dollar payroll.

Pittsburgh has to compete for players in a free market competing for the same goal with a $60 million dollar revenue stream.

How does the management control the marketplace for players in Pittsburgh when they all want Detroit money?

You know how they control the salary marketplace? With a new CBA.

And I know I didn't have to spell it out for you..but you were getting too sassy. ;)


Oh come now.
There are, in general, two kinds of pro-owner people.
1) The people who think small market teams need league-wide salary restraints for the good of the league.
I can talk to these people. I disagree with them when they insist a salary cap is the one and only way to get the job done. These people generally want what's best for the game and believe their way is the best way.
2) And the people who believe that owners are entitled to everything they want.
These people believe that the owners have every right to dictate anything they want. Conversations with these guys are pretty much useless/
 

kingsfan

President of the Todd McLellan fan club by default
Mar 18, 2002
13,384
1,032
Manitoba, Canada
John Flyers Fan said:
Well I did check every team. Luongo made $1.9 last year to Jokinen's $2.0. Sullivan was the only mistake I made, as his $3 million is more than York's $2.

All numbers courtesy of USA Today.

As guys like Kovalchuk, Nash etc. go up .. the salaries of LeClair, Tkachuk, Allison, Sundin, and Forsberg will be on the decline.

Sure, some players salaries will go down but, bottom line is, even if some guys go down, the overall top paid player on each team will go up. The league wide player average maybe have gone up by over a million to 1.8 million per player in the last ten years, but I'll bet that the average for the top player on each team payroll has grown a whole lot more in that time. And the highest paid players are what this will exclude. I stand by my prediction that the average for the highest paid player will be more like $7 mill per team if this exemption is in the next CBA and that it will only grow with time.
 

Master Shake*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Oh come now.
There are, in general, two kinds of pro-owner people.
1) The people who think small market teams need league-wide salary restraints for the good of the league.
I can talk to these people. I disagree with them when they insist a salary cap is the one and only way to get the job done. These people generally want what's best for the game and believe their way is the best way.
2) And the people who believe that owners are entitled to everything they want.
These people believe that the owners have every right to dictate anything they want. Conversations with these guys are pretty much useless/


You could reverse that and apply it to the pro players people as well. Extremists anything tend to suck.

Regarding the CBA .We should have a deal soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->