Bettman's Presser
- Thread starter X8oD
- Start date
- Status
My question for him is if they knew in 1999 the CBA was ruining the league, why did they extend it that same year?
X8oD said:
Fifteen teams eh? So if you miss the playoffs you probably lose money?
Sounds like pretty good incentive to put a decent team together, if you ask me.
X8oD
Registered User
I in the Eye
Drop a ball it falls
- Dec 14, 2002
- 6,371
- 2,327
Other Dave said:
Or play an ultra-tight, clutch-and-grab, trap system... No risk - No creativity... No fun to watch... But eh, your team has a better chance to make the playoffs... You have a better chance to live to see a scrum another day...
Last edited:
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
X8oD said:
Maybe if those 15 teams who are losing money got a clue how to run their franchise they wouldn't lose money. The owners want the players to save themselves from themselves. It's as simple as that.
Another question, if your a GM and your team lost 20 million dollars. How do you still have a job? Why aren't these owners holding their GM's responsible for more than it's on ice performance?
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
Seachd said:
It's not if they are happy or not, it's more of market value. If the market determines your worth is X amount of dollars then thats what you should make. Thats the problem with professonial sports is market value changes from owner to owner. Marty Lapointe was worth 3.25 million for the Red Wings. The Bruins placed his market value at 5 million. Then you have to ask why did the Bruins overvalue him so much? I really dont know. My point is no owner should spend more than he can afford. If the owners agreed not to spend more than they can afford, the NHL wouldn't be losing 283 million dollars.
Seachd said:
I don't care if the players are happy or not, I resent that the owners have unilaterally halted the season and are (successfully it appears) blaming the players.
Seachd
Registered User
- Mar 16, 2002
- 24,938
- 8,947
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but that's what creates these work stoppages - one side is unhappy.Other Dave said:
If the "free market system" (even though that's not what the league has), decides that the players' salaries all go down, they'd still be whining.
They want to maintain things the way they are, which not only pays them ridiculously generous salaries, but also leaves the door open to more exponential growth.
Seachd said:
if the PA is wanting to keep things how they are, why did they already offer a luxury, something radically different than the current system?
Chelios
Registered User
Chelios
Registered User
hockeytown9321 said:
Radically different eh? 20 cents on the dollar over 50 million, 30 cents on the dollar over 60 million. What a joke.
Seachd said:
Its dollar for dollar over $40 million. Half the teams would pay it this year. Not useless.
hockeytown9321 said:
Because it does not come out of their pocket. Besides the 5% salary rollback all other concessions do not affect the current membership of the NHLPA. It saddens me that the NHLPA is willing to sell out future players (rookie salary caps, bonus caps, etc) who will already be entering the NHL in a new, more economically minded era. On the other hand it does not feel current players earning millions and millions of dollors per year should have new restrictions.
Evgeny Oliker
Registered User
in a funny way, this all reminds me of FANTASY HOCKEY. its a lot like one FANTASY hockey gm giving another gm 6 pretty good offers and being willing to compromise even more from there...and then the other gm thinks about those offers and throws in return an offer that is not even close to the 6 offers of the first gm. the NHLPA needs to show a bit more respect cause i'd say their offer was a JOKE.
Seachd
Registered User
- Mar 16, 2002
- 24,938
- 8,947
hockeytown9321 said:
Do you have a link for that? The Toronto Star said that the older proposal started with a $.10 tax for every dollar over $40 million, $0.20 at $50 million, and $0.30 at $60 million.
TSN says the "new" deal just offered starts with a tax at $50 million.
Chelios
Registered User
hockeytown9321 said:
I think that could work, unfortunately that isn`t what was proposed by the union.
Chelios said:
Sorry, $50 million.
and like Saskin said last night on CBC, this is negotiable, except the NHL isn't even willing to look at it.
What's funny about this entire situation is that I'm already sick of the CBA talks and the lockout isn't even technically in effect yet. This reminds me of when your favourite team makes the stupidest trade of all time and you spend all your time talking about it.
Owners want a salary cap, players say no. Players say luxury tax and revenue sharing, owners say no. There's zero compromise on either side. Both have an economic system in mind, but both sides refuse to consider any alternative method to achieve that system beyond their own proposals...that's why this situation looks so hopeless.
It just appears to me that the owners created a horrible situation for themselves and now they're demanding that the players help bail them out of it. Even though the players should certainly do that since the league will suffer if they don't, I know it would piss me off big time if I was faced with a similar scenario, particularly when there's so much distrust that the players can't even be sure if the owners are actually losing money or not. Could you imagine MLSE trying to tell the players that they need help with their profts? Yikes.
Owners want a salary cap, players say no. Players say luxury tax and revenue sharing, owners say no. There's zero compromise on either side. Both have an economic system in mind, but both sides refuse to consider any alternative method to achieve that system beyond their own proposals...that's why this situation looks so hopeless.
It just appears to me that the owners created a horrible situation for themselves and now they're demanding that the players help bail them out of it. Even though the players should certainly do that since the league will suffer if they don't, I know it would piss me off big time if I was faced with a similar scenario, particularly when there's so much distrust that the players can't even be sure if the owners are actually losing money or not. Could you imagine MLSE trying to tell the players that they need help with their profts? Yikes.
Seachd said:
I think nearly everyone will agree that a luxury tax set at that level would be useless. I (and I think others) have a hard time seeing how any luxury tax system would be useless, though.
With the players clearly more willing to work on a luxury tax system than a cap, why aren't the owners looking to find a way to make the luxury tax system work for them? Now I've seen people point to baseball's system as being a failure, but I don't think that system was viewed positively the moment it was created. Everyone doubted it would work real well, and it hasn't (at least where the Yankees are concerned, but I think league spending overall has dropped).
I'm not for either side, and neither side has appeared too anxious to save the season. But, so far, I think the owners appear to want to break the union rather than get a CBA done.
- Status
