An open challenge to "owner supporters"

[thinkwild]

I don't demand that my GM sign the best player whoever he is for whatever he takes... But I imagine, because it potentially makes for a better movie (i.e. a better product)...

And this perception is proving more and more wrong each day. Spending isnt the advantage. Management, scouting, development is.

THere are $40mil teams with more talent the $60mil teams. The difference is age.

 

[I in the Eye]

And this perception is proving more and more wrong each day. Spending isnt the advantage. Management, scouting, development is.

THere are $40mil teams with more talent the $60mil teams. The difference is age.

Agreed

 

[ceber]

In this sense, it is a free market

Well, OK, if you're going to redefine the term.

It takes away the advantage Ottawa used to become one of the model franchises.

The model franchise is losing less money by not icing a team this season. Doesn't that give some insight into the state of the league?

 

[thinkwild]

The model franchise is losing less money by not icing a team this season. Doesn't that give some insight into the state of the league?

The insight I come away with is that they are a bunch of bald faced liars. Those numbers just arent credible if anything they have ever been forced to reveal before is.

With 70 mil in revenues they have backed themselves into a spot where he can only prevent the loss of an alleged few million by not playing? It takes a real stretch to come to this conclusion. Save $5mil by giving up on $70mil.

If this is true, what is the reason? Certainly not Holiks salary we have no one like him. Is it that Chara and redden are getting 3mil too much? Is it that we have Smolinski, de Vries, Bondra instead of spezza, volchenkov, and vermette?

Is it that we need to raise prices by $10 a ticket.

Is it because the franchise isnt properly valued, is too much in debt, has deferred too many contracts, ia overpaying in management fees?


Or is it because we dont have a salary cap?

 

[Go Flames Go*]

The owners start the year with their financial advisors, probably looking over their 5 year plan, the revenues they are going to get, the rate at which their young players are approaching their right to negotiate their market value, and formulate a plan on how to manage their assets to do it, and what budget to set. In this sense, it is a free market



Im not sure if its limiting supply, but setting the leverage their under 31 years old players have to negotiate their value in the marketplace.

Its possible that making everyone a UFA would lower some salaries. But Thats a drastic change, allowing Crosby and Heatley to negotiate their real value. I dont think the effects would be as pleasing as you seem to be suggesting. It takes away the advantage Ottawa used to become one of the model franchises.

Not a free market. NHL did not run in a free market system. I have studied Economics, and currently I am in a Marceconomics class, none of what you speak of is a free market system.

 

[thinkwild]

Franchise values are set by the market.

UFA's negotiate their salaries in a free market.

RFAs negotiate their salaries in a market in which much of their leverage has been removed. Their mobility rights hampered. THeir chance to earn market value taken away.

If your neighbours paint their house purple and put a zoo in their front yard, your leverage to get a great deal selling your house will be gone. But you still negotiate the value as best you can in the marketplace.

 

[RangerBlues]

Why I support the owners
I'ts their teams, their capatol, their risk. It doesent matter that they run it like crap, it's theirs to do with it what they please. Thats whats so silly about this whole thing, forgett the salary cap, if an owner wants to spend 20 million, thats his business, if he can't compete, close up shop, simple.
Obviously the NHL cant support 30 teams, the market has spoken, it's not about the quality of play, there is just not enough people interested. Thats up to owners and management to get people interested.
If it was so easy, everybody would have a sports team.

 

[quat]

You're correct about Unions often agreeing to wage scales for employees of different experience, etc. This is the one example I believe supports the case for ownership regulation of salaries, so I will definately accept it as a good example for the artificial regulation of an individuals pay rate. Can I trouble you to PM your particular occupation to me and what union governs it? I'd appreciate it.
I'm curious, though, if you feel it's acceptable to cap individual earnings and yet your bosses (the managers of the company, shareholders, etc, whatever the case may be) are free to reap as much profit off the back of your labour as they can with no limiting factors whatsoever?

The "cap" is setting the player payroll at a percentage of revenue. The higher the revenue the higher the payroll.

 

[thinkwild]

I think of it as two different caps.

The first cap, that the owners seem to be pressing for is a link between overall league revenues and payrolls. This concept while it doesnt seem right, I as a fan can live with. I dont really care, fight it out and decide.

If they choose to implement this through the use of a uniform team payroll cap, this is something else terrible altogether for fans in my opinion. Which is based a lot on the negativism people in and around the NFL have been hinting at lately.

 

[codswallop]

And Bob, listening to Pierre say the Thrashers were sold for nothing. Come on Bob, you are great hockey mind and a good journalist. Look into it, im pretty sure you will find that that perception was an absolutley brilliant bit of deception. And then lets discuss why.

That statement was pretty close to the truth actually.

The numbers might fluctuate up or down a bit from the Forbes valuations and some of the terms included in the agreement between the new and old owners. But nothing materially different.

The sale was for $250M, it included; the Hawks, Thrashers and the operating rights to Philips Arena. At the time of the sale, the Hawks were valued at $204M and the Thrashers were valued at $134M. Don't have a clue what number could be put on the operating rights to Philips Arena, a decent but not overly large amount. The new owners made no bones that the Hawks were the team they were shooting for but since AOL wanted to sell the teams as a package, the ownership group thankfully included more hockey-minded investors from Washington.

A statement like that looks fairly facetious anyhow, probably not meant to be taken at face value. But the numbers come damn close to bearing it out regardless.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The model franchise is losing less money by not icing a team this season. Doesn't that give some insight into the state of the league?

how come VAN can make 45m in 2 years and OTT cant even break even in the same period ?

i call BS on someones part, who is more likely BS'ing under the circumstances, VAN or OTT ?

DR

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Why I support the owners
I'ts their teams, their capatol, their risk. It doesent matter that they run it like crap, it's theirs to do with it what they please..

agree

however, its also the players right to not play in the NHL. if the owners want that particular group of players, i guess they will have to negotiate with them.

or are the NHLPA members simply well paid gladiators, there for our viewing pleasure with no free will. the players have grouped together and said "if you want us, we wont play for a cap".

frankly, us fans better hope the owners DONT call "impasse". then theplayers only have to wait out or even play out the remaining portion of their contracts and they are no longer subject to restrictions like an entry draft. the NHL can NOT have an entry draft without the players approval. Crosby will cash in and a team like PIT which NEEDS Crosby wont even get a sniff. Who do you think will land an unrestricted Crosby ? You would have to ask him, as he will decide.

and who will get Iginla who has no contract ? ya i can see how an impasse helps CGY and many other teams who will no longer "control" the rights to their young superstars.

dr

 

[mr gib]

The NBA caps individual earnings

the nba has a franchise player clause - i think the nfl does too - i agree with the dood that said the nfl gets around the cap by deferred signing bonuses - shaq makes 30 mil - eli manning got a 10 mil signing bonus - i also recall the player can negotiate how it is paid - ie- 1 mil a year for 10 years -

 

[mr gib]

False on both points.

The players' salaries do not take 75% of revenue. And the players' salaries are not climbing rapidly. Player salaries have leveled off in the past few years.

finally someone speaks the truth - as soon as jagr - forsberg - KT - sakic - holic - pronger - and the like are done playing the salaries won't be as high -

 

[mr gib]

Why I support the owners
I'ts their teams, their capatol, their risk. It doesent matter that they run it like crap, it's theirs to do with it what they please. Thats whats so silly about this whole thing, forgett the salary cap, if an owner wants to spend 20 million, thats his business, if he can't compete, close up shop, simple.
Obviously the NHL cant support 30 teams, the market has spoken, it's not about the quality of play, there is just not enough people interested. Thats up to owners and management to get people interested.
If it was so easy, everybody would have a sports team.

its their crappy arena deals too - and the municipal taxes - aka montreal - they want the players to foot the bill for bad management - study the coyotes - gretz and barnett would have turned the whole thing around this year - getting all the revenue from the building is a huge advantage -

 

[Benji Frank]

finally someone speaks the truth - as soon as jagr - forsberg - KT - sakic - holic - pronger - and the like are done playing the salaries won't be as high -

But without some sort of restrictions, those names will be replaced by Iginla, Heatley, Hossa, Thornton, Jovo, Mccabe, etc., etc.

Pronger was qualified this summer at 10... I think Forsberg was offerred a contract at 10 plus .... wasn't he?? There's no restting of the high level with those offers....

It's not just the 10 million $ contracts though ... when a C.Gratton or Brian Boucher gets over 1.5 mill, T.Marchant, Nylander or Niewendyk get 3 mill, a Craig Conroy or Gary Roberts gets 3 & change, K.Primeau approaches 5, E.Belfour gets 8 mill, or Ziggy Pallfy turns down almost 7, there's still a lack of restraint throughout the salary scale.......

 

[me2]

and if you had a really great employee who contributes directly to your companies ability to provide its service and he demanded a raise and you wanted to give it to him, who is stopping you ?

would you be happy if you were told, "sorry, you arent allowed to pay him, only your competitor is"

OR to keep him, you have to cut other productive workers and let your competitor have them.

bye bye employee and you cant do a thing about it, even if you wanted to.

sounds fair doesnt it ... note sarcasm.

dr

It doesn't sound fair that an employees rights are owned until he is 31 either. Or that one company can send him to another company whenever they get bored of him.

If its a free market, then lets have a real free market. No drafts, no RFAs, no restrictions on players right to move teams for more money. Lets see how well a team can "build" when it has no right to retain its young talent.

If people want to bring real world into pro-sports then lets have a real world situation. You can cry "free market" all you like, but cry for true free market or look like a hypocrit.

 

[me2]

It is not illegal, they are setting a celling for salaries, not individual player salaries. THe players are free to negotiate any type of contract they want that fits within a teams cap space.

Maybe that is the answer. There should be no salary cap on team spending, but there should be a cap on the on-ice team.

This way a team can spend as much as it likes on players. It can spend $11m on Jagr as a reserve if it wants. It might cut the legs out from under the NHLPA because the on ice-limit would be a team-NHL competition rule with nothing to do with the NHLPA or CBA. There are after all many NHL implemented rules which affect the teams and are not in the CBA.

 

[me2]

It works both ways, a player would then also be able to resign from one employer (one week's notice, maybe even one day's notice) and move to play for another team.

In a free market sports environment it's usually the teams who want longer and guaranteed contracts for players in their prime or for youngsters with great promise (just look at the European soccer market, which is quite close to free market).

Like Tom Benjamin said it in another thread NHL needs NHLPA much more than the players do.

"If the players decide to chuck the union at some point during this dispute, NHL teams won't be able to do anything at all to suppress wages. They will not be able to hold an entry draft. No entry level salary system. No restricted free agents. No compensation for lost UFA's. They will not hold the rights to any player beyond the term of each contract. The NHL needs the union more than the players do. Tom"

They won't have to surpress wages, they players will do that. Its a myth to think the players will all get rich in a true free market. The rich will exploit their advantages, the poor will scape at the bottom of the barrell for playing talent, and the middle will muddle along minding its finances.

You really think Holik, Roenick, and the other over 31s will get $7, $8 or $9m? NO CHANCE AT ALL. Who would pay Amonte or Kasperitis $6m/y when they could go after Bouwmeister or Kovalchuk? The players in their primes will get the big $, the older richer UFAs will get a 50-75% pay cut. In other words, the plays who run the union (the older guys) will be the first to get the cold shoulder.

As for the competition there may be 5 or 8 teams spending $60m in a free for all. They'll pick up the elite young talent.

The rest of the teams can't possibly win and so they won't even try to spend up big. They'll run as cheap as possible (great news for big spenders as elite talent is even cheap for them) and try to scrape into the bottom of the playoffs.

The bottom 10 or so clubs won't even try to build working clubs. They will load up on prospects and oldies. Right now these team feel obliged to spend because of their drafted pospects and a possible future, under a true free market their future is NIL because big clubs will plunder their talent. They'll pay marginally above AHL wages or fold (or both). Players will line up to try to prove the bigger clubs should sign them. These clubs will fill the jump between the AHL and NHL, they will only have to pay 2 times the AHL wage because the bottom 3rd of players would other option of playing here or going to europe.

 

[me2]

The players would probably go for that. They have agents they trust. Its for competiveness balance and fairness to small market purposes that they accept the restrictions they do.

A true free market is gloomy for the NHLPA. 8-10 teams fold.

Ironically the average salary goes up while player's salaries go down. Yes that makes sense if you think about. The average salary goes up because the teams you drop off the lowest paying teams. The best players from those teams force out the weakest salary players on the remaining teams, the stars on those remaining clubs then have to share that clubs weath around with the new comers. Same payroll more + more talent = less salary each.

Salaries might well go down substantially even if they don't (see above post)

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It doesn't sound fair that an employees rights are owned until he is 31 either. Or that one company can send him to another company whenever they get bored of him.

If its a free market, then lets have a real free market. No drafts, no RFAs, no restrictions on players right to move teams for more money. Lets see how well a team can "build" when it has no right to retain its young talent.

If people want to bring real world into pro-sports then lets have a real world situation. You can cry "free market" all you like, but cry for true free market or look like a hypocrit.

hey, if you want to put words in my mouth, then let me know when its *really* my turn.

i never said anything about "free market". all the things that the players give up are compensated for in other area's (like a huge salary). however, my point was in response to a post in the thread.

and my point remains, this "cap" is supposed to help teams like CGY, I wonder how much they will feel the "help" when NYR has more cap room to sign Iginla away from them (for no compensation).

i see a system today that does not allow NYR to sign Iginla, and if they do the Flames get a pretty decent compensation.

dr

 

[me2]

how come VAN can make 45m in 2 years and OTT cant even break even in the same period ?

i call BS on someones part, who is more likely BS'ing under the circumstances, VAN or OTT ?

DR

Van's market is about twice the size of Ottawa's. Van's owner is trying to sell the team and is likely doing everything possible to make it look more profitable than it is. $45m is probably Canadian. There are mixed reports about the $45m being accurate.

 

[me2]

hey, if you want to put words in my mouth, then let me know when its *really* my turn.

i never said anything about "free market". all the things that the players give up are compensated for in other area's (like a huge salary). however, my point was in response to a post in the thread.

and my point remains, this "cap" is supposed to help teams like CGY, I wonder how much they will feel the "help" when NYR has more cap room to sign Iginla away from them (for no compensation).

Losing Igilna is the least of their problems. They are going to lose him anyway over the next few years if Calgary keeps improving.

Calgary will likely trade him before it lost him under a cap system.

NHL can set higher compensation for lost UFAs. They already have a reward for lost UFAs.

Igilna can still price himself out of a market. See Kariya in Anaheim who got release for nix.

Under a cap, players salaries will come down. Right now Calgary are a 1 star team. Its highly unlikely they lose their one star under a cap. I'd be more worried about teams with 4 or 5 stars than Calgary. Calgary is position so that they would likely be looking to add a star rather than lose one.

i see a system today that does not allow NYR to sign Iginla, and if they do the Flames get a pretty decent compensation.
dr

What is to stop the NHL introducing such a system under a cap. Lose a quality UFA get high compensatory picks (1st rounder or so).

 

[YellHockey*]

Van's owner is trying to sell the team and is likely doing everything possible to make it look more profitable than it is. $45m is probably Canadian. There are mixed reports about the $45m being accurate.

So when a prospective buyer is investigating whether or not to purchase the Canucks he's going to base his decision upon how much Canucks' management told the press the team is making?

Give your head a shake. Any prospective ownership group isn't going to base anything upon what's reported in the media. They'll look at the books. The real books.

And if you think that the $45M is inaccurate, you suggest that management is lying. And if one team's management is lying about that, what are the other teams' management's willing to lie about?

 

[Russian Fan]

So when a prospective buyer is investigating whether or not to purchase the Canucks he's going to base his decision upon how much Canucks' management told the press the team is making?

Give your head a shake. Any prospective ownership group isn't going to base anything upon what's reported in the media. They'll look at the books. The real books.

And if you think that the $45M is inaccurate, you suggest that management is lying. And if one team's management is lying about that, what are the other teams' management's willing to lie about?

LMAO GOOD ONE !!!

Vancouver is lying about how much profit they are making but the other owners are certainly & undoubtly telling the truth about their losses.

LMAO !!! I love those pro-owners.