Canuck management has been consistent in saying they have not made the $45 mil reported in the media. My guess is the $45 mil is Orca Bay profit which includes numeroud other revenue sources in addition to Canuck revenue.
tantalum said:Canuck management has been consistent in saying they have not made the $45 mil reported in the media. My guess is the $45 mil is Orca Bay profit which includes numeroud other revenue sources in addition to Canuck revenue.
I in the Eye said:"MAKE WAY FOR THE BAD GUY...." - Tony Montana
The players are no more the product than Al Pacino is the product in 'Scarface'...
When people pay to see a movie, they pay to watch the movie - starring the actor... The movie is the product (i.e. the movie is what the ticket is for... the ticket is not to purchase Al Pacino)...
Likewise, when people pay to see a hockey game, they pay to watch the hockey game - starring the players... (i.e. the game is what the ticket is for... the ticket is not to purchase the hockey players)...
guitaraholic said:anyone who doesn't think the players are the product apparently is missing the entire history of sports which is filled with examples of franchises doing poorly until a great player turns around their popularity in the community. this happens repeatedly. Hull in St.Louis, Mario in Pit, Gretz in El Lay, etc. The players, the team as a whole and their talent level, most certainly ARE the product. If you think the NHL could succeed without premium players, you're completely mistaken.
quat said:Yeah! I mean no one would watch hockey if Gretzky retired... uh... or if Bertuzzi wasn't allowed to play, hockey would stop!.... maybe... hmm. Hockey is the "product" and players help define the quality of that product with their lesser or greater degrees of skill. Coaches have a huge effect on the "product", and yet they are valued far less than the players...
If you think the NHL would suffer at all without premium players, you just don't understand sports. It's always a comparison between who is playing at a certain point in time anyway. Expectations change as the talent level changes. Pretty much everyone says the speed and ability of players in the last 20 years has risen dramatically, but I never heard my grandfather talk about how crappy the hockey was when Rocket Richard was on the ice.
guitaraholic said:anyone who doesn't think the players are the product apparently is missing the entire history of sports which is filled with examples of franchises doing poorly until a great player turns around their popularity in the community. this happens repeatedly. Hull in St.Louis, Mario in Pit, Gretz in El Lay, etc. The players, the team as a whole and their talent level, most certainly ARE the product. If you think the NHL could succeed without premium players, you're completely mistaken.
Go Flames Go said:We will survive the Owners will win.
guitaraholic said:If you think the NHL could succeed without premium players, you're completely mistaken.
Go Flames Go said:We will survive the Owners will win.
guitaraholic said:Need I point to any other examples than Chicago, a team that, when competetive, meaning it had marketable players like roenick and amonte, they thrived. withouth them, they're nothing. the NHL is predicated on the idea that these guys are the BEST players in the world. yes, that means they are the product. If they were the 2nd best players in the world, we'd watch another league that HAD the best players.
bottom line? NO FAN EVER showed up to watch an owner. Regardless of what you seem to think.
guitaraholic said:bottom line? NO FAN EVER showed up to watch an owner. Regardless of what you seem to think.
GoCoyotes said:You can't say that the players are the only product, it's very much the teams as well. That's why they are called the St. Louis Blues and the Philadelphia Flyers etc. Part of being the community or municipality sports team is a draw just as much as the players that play on it. If you can give your league some credibility where it is viewed as being truely professional sport, then that helps as well. The players are part of the equation, but it's like saying the actors soley sell a movie or theatre, they may be a big part of it, but they are not the total part of it.
If community wasn't a part of the draw, you would a team called the Kings that would play in Los Angeles, San Jose, and Anaheim and you wouldn't need those other two franchises there. That team could go on into Phoenix and Dallas as well and make stops in Utah and Las Vegas.
I've seen the expression, and I paraphrase, "sweater before player" meaning that someone is a fan of their team before they are a fan of the players on that team. So if the whole team was turned over, you are still a fan of that team even if the players you were familiar with are now gone.
Diaboli said:If I've understood correctly, the teams wanted a cap at 30 or 35 million, so then it wouldn't limit ones pay, but to 30 or 35 mil. That's the same as in the NBA and NFL. The players can decide what they want to demand, but there might be no team capable of paying them what they want. For example Shaquille O'Neal kept his wage "in a reasonable amount", because he wanted to play in a successful team. That isn't possible in a team with just one good player.
edit: btw do you now how much the NFL and NBA get from TV, ads etc.? A lot more than the NHL teams I can assure you.
thinkwild said: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.
me2 said:
First, a little background. For most of its 107-year history, no salary cap has applied in rugby league. In 1988, four years after the AFL put its own cap in place, a league salary cap was introduced.
me2 said:A little more digging around on AFL
The AFL is another style of football that has a cap and a draft. Franchise players don't move around much in the AFL. Teams rise and fall with time. There are good and bad teams. Perhaps the greatest AFL team of all time was built and maintained under a draft + a cap. They just won the finals 3 straight years (2001-2003) and made the grand final again this year (2004).
The AFL also have a veterans list for discounts on retaining a few of that teams long serving players.
A cap and does work. A cap doesn't have to mean parity and boredom.