Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie

[hockeytown9321]

Fine them heavily?

Or a percentage that is put into a pool and distributed to the 5-10 small market teams?

That sounds an awful lot like the luxury tax\soft cap proposed by the players.

 

[me2]

McKenzie is a Megalencephalic blowhard. Say Hockey Night in Canada (ergo the CBC) came up and offered him a huge raise to jump ship I somehow doubt he'd care one iota what the network's bottom line was like.

Your analogy needs work.

If CBC then came to him and said "We are in financial trouble. We have over spend on salaries by 30%. We will pay your current contract in full, but we need you to take a paycut at your next contract of 30%. Even after the 30% cut you will still be paid 4 times what you can get anywhere else. Please consider our offer."

 

[hockeytown9321]

Sure it fills the pockets of the rich revenue clubs, but over all it helps. It helps the snaller clubs compete on the ice. It helps the small clubs remain financial viable. It gives more fans a chance to feel positive about their club, its future and their cup chances. The more clubs the more players get employed (and higher wages through talent dispersal).

So it does help.

The NFl has a cap, and I've never felt good about the Lions SuperBowl chances. Come to think of it, how can they remain so bad under a cap system? Maybe because a cap can't eqaulize intelligence.

 

[me2]

As for Goodenow, he has every reason to be confident, rightly or wrongly. In his history, he's seen the owners cave into him without fail. He's seen his association and the agents absolutely dominate arbitration, contract negotiations, etc. He has no reason to think the owners won't cave again. He thinks he has all the leverage. I think he's wrong this time, but I can see why he thinks he's right.

At the last CBA the players were not grossly overpaid, the teams had more to lose and the players more to gain. I think its flipped this time.

 

[Licentia]

What do you all think the owners are in it for? They want a cap because they can maximize profits that way. It has NOTHING to do with competitive balance or anything else. Pure greed.

What does any business do when it's not profitable? It restructures itself. People get layed off. It sucks, I agree. It's lacking in compassion, I agree. But if that business wants to survive it has to do it. The NHL is about to do it too.

 

[Licentia]

Well, if pure greed = not wanting to lose tens of millions of $$$, I really think you are on to something.

 

[hockeytown9321]

What does any business do when it's not profitable? It restructures itself. People get layed off. It sucks, I agree. It's lacking in compassion, I agree. But if that business wants to survive it has to do it. The NHL is about to do it too.

Sometimes businesses fail and cease to operate. Happens all the time. Maybe if some teams can't compete they should get out.

You do realize nothing will be able to save the league if they miss a full season, right?

 

[Licentia]

Let's take this one step further...

What if the owners get a cap they want, 31 million dollars.

They are still pulling in 80-100 million roughly (I don't know I'm pulling a number out of my head) with ticket sales, local TV contracts, what little merchandizing they have...

And instead of going, hey let's cut ticket prices (which is outrageous), they pocket the money instead and then take it a step further and RAISE ticket prices, making it 110 million next season and then another 120 million the next...

Is that fair?

Is it fair that 7/11 will only pay up to $11.00 an hour for a cashier? If the store is profitable, then salaries should continue to go up to $30.00!! By your logic anyway. Of course 7/11 is going to keep the profits.

 

[Licentia]

The NFl has a cap, and I've never felt good about the Lions SuperBowl chances. Come to think of it, how can they remain so bad under a cap system? Maybe because a cap can't eqaulize intelligence.

And that's fine. With a cap in place, it becomes the skills of the management that make the difference, rather than how much a team can pay.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Well, if pure greed = not wanting to lose tens of millions of $$$, I really think you are on to something.

So its OK for the owners to be ruining the game for purely selfish and greedy reasons, but not the players?

There is a system where the league won't lose tens of millions, but they refuse to acknowledge or talk about it, because it does not gaurantee them maximum profits. I'm not saying they're wrong on trying to maximize profits, but I think alot of peole here think they have the game's best interests in mind, but lets start being realistic here.

 

[Licentia]

Sometimes businesses fail and cease to operate. Happens all the time. Maybe if some teams can't compete they should get out.

You do realize nothing will be able to save the league if they miss a full season, right?

Then the players better get signing that offer from the owners.

 

[hockeytown9321]

And that's fine. With a cap in place, it becomes the skills of the management that make the difference, rather than how much a team can pay.

And were back to ladt week's argument: a team cannot remain elite for any length of time under a cap, thus teams with good managemnt will suffer.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Then the players better get signing that offer from the owners.

Its the owners who want the season scrapped. They're the ones refusing to negotiate. If they took Burke's proposal as a starting point, they'd be playing hockey by Halloween.

 

[Licentia]

And were back to ladt week's argument: a team cannot remain elite for any length of time under a cap, thus teams with good managemnt will suffer.

Teams can do what Tampa Bay is doing. When someone "bolts," they can sign another player who does the same job for less, or replace that player with a young player from the farm. They will be able to stay competitive under the forced cap that Tampa has now, for just the same reason I mentioned.

Again, why shouldn't every team be under the same restriction that the small markets are currently under? The small markets already have a cap. Let's let everyone have it.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Teams can do what Tampa Bay is doing. When someone "bolts," they can sign another player who does the same job for less, or replace that player with a young player from the farm. They will be able to stay competitive under the forced cap that Tampa has now, for just the same reason I mentioned.

Again, why shouldn't every team be under the same restriction that the small markets are currently under? The small markets already have a cap. Let's let everyone have it.

Isn;t that what everybody whines and complains about now? those poor, defenseless small market teams become the farm teams for the rest of the league,a nd you can never compete if you're constanly rebuilding.

and btw, once again were having a debate over this because you think the owners goal in this is to make sure everybody can compete. Its about profits, nothing else.

 

[Licentia]

Isn;t that what everybody whines and complains about now? those poor, defenseless small market teams become the farm teams for the rest of the league,a nd you can never compete if you're constanly rebuilding.

and btw, once again were having a debate over this because you think the owners goal in this is to make sure everybody can compete. Its about profits, nothing else.

I don't care why the owners are doing it. I just want every team to have the same payroll restrictions.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I don't care why the owners are doing it. I just want every team to have the same payroll restrictions.

And for some reason everyone's restrictions would be different under a soft cap?

 

[hockeytown9321]

I don't care why the owners are doing it. I just want every team to have the same payroll restrictions.

and you didn't answer my first question.

 

[me2]

The NFl has a cap, and I've never felt good about the Lions SuperBowl chances. Come to think of it, how can they remain so bad under a cap system? Maybe because a cap can't eqaulize intelligence.

Build a system thats foolproof and only a fool would want to use it. With the turn over in players its only a matter of time until they get plain old fashioned lucky and fluke a good team.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Build a system thats foolproof and only a fool would want to use it. With the turn over in players its only a matter of time until they get plain old fashioned lucky and fluke a good team.

Then what, back to mediocrity? The Lions have had a couple decent teams and one good team since 1957. they haven't lucked into anything.

 

[Licentia]

And for some reason everyone's restrictions would be different under a soft cap?

Again, I don't care how the NHL gets there, I just want parity. The percentage of league revenue option sounds great.

The reality is that the NHLPA's lux tax offer was like $0.20 per dollar over $50 million. That won't make sufficient difference. Maybe $2.00 per dollar over $50 million might work.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Well, if pure greed = not wanting to lose tens of millions of $$$, I really think you are on to something.

Let me see if I get this right. The owners are allowed to try and maximize profits. Hey, I agree with this, after all 80% of the league operates in a country supporting capitalism.

But, under capitalism, those orginizations that make the most money are the strongest and most dominant. Wal-Mart doesn't subsidize a local grocery store in the interst of fairness.

So, its OK for owners to operate on one level on capitalism and another on communism. Seems like quite the double standard to me.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Again, I don't care how the NHL gets there, I just want parity. The percentage of league revenue option sounds great.

The reality is that the NHLPA's lux tax offer was like $0.20 per dollar over $50 million. That won't make sufficient difference. Maybe $2.00 per dollar over $50 million might work.

The reality was the NHLPA's offer was a starting point. Its called negotiation. Start with the PA's offer on one side and Burke's proposal on the other. Something would get done.

And to be honest, if you want total parity, there's really not that far to go. You might say those fluke teams are never heard from again, but that is parity.

 

[Licentia]

Hey, I agree with this, after all 80% of the league operates in a country supporting capitalism.

And Canada doesn't?

 

[Sammy*]

There is a system where the league won't lose tens of millions, but they refuse to acknowledge or talk about it, because it does not gaurantee them maximum profits. .

Are you talking about the players here?
Its kinda obvious that you side on the side of the players, but I dont get it. They have been proven to care less about the game , the fans & the owners. Why dont you give the owners the same opportunity to show they dont care.
BTW, if the players dont like the salary cap rules, cant they just go play in some other league?
And btw, your Wal Mart analogy is really quite stupid. If the franchises are healthy, the NHL (Wal Mart) is healthy. Wal Mart is much more akin to the NHL than it is to individual franchises. See, in the real world if Wal mart stores were a franchises, it would be very bad for the franchisor (Wal MArt/NHL)if numerous stores were going down the tubes or losing $$$.
See, its really not all that complicated.