Coyotes for Sale?

[Brent Burns Beard]

If simple outsiders like us can look at a situation and discuss it, then surely accountants with detailed financial information can look at it, and come to an agreement that both sides are happy with.

how simple ... dont try and brush this very real issue under the rug by poo poo'ng it.

pro linkage people should have to justify the details of how to address it.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Of course they havnt. They cant afford to. Thats where the NHLPA fans just cant seem to get it.

lol ....

dr

 

[PhoPhan]

I keep telling people Gretzky is absolutely clueless about what exactly he is doing and here is another reason why.

You're going to need to elaborate on this.

 

[Sammy*]

how simple ... dont try and brush this very real issue under the rug by poo poo'ng it.

pro linkage people should have to justify the details of how to address it.

dr

I dunno, you seem to very easily say its too difficult to be done when it has been done in other pro sports. Maybe you'r the one who should do the research & tell us all why its not feasible, notwithstanding other pro leagues have it.
I cant imagine this massive difficulty that you seem to think exists has anything to do with your avowed disgust with revenue sharing, now would it?

 

[Sammy*]

You're going to need to elaborate on this.

Ya think his hiring of Barnett, the signing/trading for as many ex-oilers as he can get his hands on & the absolutly idiotic signings of Savage, Amonte,& Claude (I think), may be pretty good indicators.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I dunno, you seem to very easily say its too difficult to be done when it has been done in other pro sports.

the only league close to what the NHL wants for a cap doesnt have any corporate owners. in other words, there is no precedence for how a cable company pruchases and accounts for tv rights from a team it also owns within a linkage system.

dr

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Of course they havnt. They cant afford to. Thats where the NHLPA fans just cant seem to get it.

Yes they bloody well can.

They can move to a luxury tax. A luxury tax punitive enough to reduce bidding wars for UFAs.
That is all they need.

If things were so bad, Bettman should have started fixing things when the last CBA was up.

But the league was too greedy, living off expansion fees, and decided to live it up for another 4 years.

In the meantime, they began preparing for a 2004 lockout. A plan that obviously centered on crushing the PA at the labour board, which means the league had every intention of shutting the league down for an entire year.
And while Bettman was preparing for the year long lockout, he continued to neglect the product.
Now the NHL is the only major team sport that gets ZERO in upfront television revenue from the networks.

Bettman is reckless. He's done a terrible job.

The fact that we've even gotten to where we are, and the fact that you support the lockout, is evidence enough that this man has badly managed the league.
That's what we have in common (unless, of course, you believe Bettman should be held harmless for the league's woes. WHich would be pretty darn stupid, which I am sure you aren't).

Where we differ is on the fix.

I say a luxury tax will reduce demand for UFAs and bring down salaries all around the league.
Once the NHL agrees to a luxury tax, and moves off the cap, the PA will be forced to agree to a pretty stiff tax.

But you seem to think that a hard cap, tied to revenues is the only way to go.
Lots of you guys do, though you really don't say why.

As most professional sports-business writers know, Bettman's cost-certainty hard cap has more to do with equity and franchise resale value than it does with allowing teams to keep star players and compete with other teams.

But that's not a good PR selling point.
A luxury tax, set at the right numbers, will bring down salaries and help smaller teams compete.
You could probably convince the PA to sign a Luxury Tax deal that would save teams millions and millions of dollars.

So why are we holding out?
We're holding out because your franchise is worth more when the union is busted.

 

[mudcrutch79]

We're holding out because your franchise is worth more when the union is busted.

If the union is busted, the owners can't impose anything like a salary cap, or have a draft, or have any restraint on player movement whatsoever. How does that increase franchise value?

 

[PecaFan]

Yes they bloody well can.

They can move to a luxury tax. A luxury tax punitive enough to reduce bidding wars for UFAs.
That is all they need.

What happened to the "UFA's don't drive up salaries" mantra?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

What happened to the "UFA's don't drive up salaries" mantra?

If you are responding to me, which is apparently the case, why don't you ask me about a mantra that I may have ever uttered.
I've never said UFA's don't drive up salaries.
Of course they do.

Quit being such an attack dog. Or, if you must, attack people who are spewing the kind of tripe you just spewed to me.
Leave me out of it. I'm here to argue issues, not to demonize anyone.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

If the union is busted, the owners can't impose anything like a salary cap, or have a draft, or have any restraint on player movement whatsoever. How does that increase franchise value?

Do you have any rationale behind that statement?
I'm not talking about getting rid of the union, I'm talking about busting the union and then having it come back as a weak, roll-over institution, like the one in the NFL.

 

[mudcrutch79]

Do you have any rationale behind that statement?

Yeah, it's the law. If you don't have a union with whom you're agreeing on certain restraints of trade, you're colluding and liable for huge damages. The existence of the NHLPA benefits the owners, believe it or not.

I'm not talking about getting rid of the union, I'm talking about busting the union and then having it come back as a weak, roll-over institution, like the one in the NFL.

As nice a dream as that may be for Bettman and Co., do you think it's actually going to happen? Is that a realistic goal? I don't think it is, not for one moment, and think that the players would decertify before they would be an NFLPA type union. What's in it for the players to be an NFLPA type association as opposed to simply blowing up the union?

 

[Wetcoaster]

If the union is busted, the owners can't impose anything like a salary cap, or have a draft, or have any restraint on player movement whatsoever. How does that increase franchise value?

They can in the US IF they can declare a bargaining impasse, impose a CBA and get it by the US NLRB. Canada is a whole other issue however since there is no bargaining impasse/imposed CBA procedure (and scabs cannot be used under any circumstances in Bc or Quebec and possibly Ontario if new changes to the Labour Code are passed as planned). Also the Competition Act provides:

Conspiracy relating to professional sport
48. (1) Every one who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person

(a) to limit unreasonably the opportunities for any other person to participate, as a player or competitor, in professional sport or to impose unreasonable terms or conditions on those persons who so participate, or

(b) to limit unreasonably the opportunity for any other person to negotiate with and, if agreement is reached, to play for the team or club of his choice in a professional league

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.

Matters to be considered
(2) In determining whether or not an agreement or arrangement contravenes subsection (1), the court before which the contravention is alleged shall have regard to

(a) whether the sport in relation to which the contravention is alleged is organized on an international basis and, if so, whether any limitations, terms or conditions alleged should, for that reason, be accepted in Canada; and

(b) the desirability of maintaining a reasonable balance among the teams or clubs participating in the same league.

Application
(3) This section applies, and section 45 does not apply, to agreements and arrangements and to provisions of agreements and arrangements between or among teams and clubs engaged in professional sport as members of the same league and between or among directors, officers or employees of those teams and clubs where the agreements, arrangements and provisions relate exclusively to matters described in subsection (1) or to the granting and operation of franchises in the league, and section 45 applies and this section does not apply to all other agreements, arrangements and provisions thereof between or among those teams, clubs and persons.

 

[Sammy*]

the only league close to what the NHL wants for a cap doesnt have any corporate owners. in other words, there is no precedence for how a cable company pruchases and accounts for tv rights from a team it also owns within a linkage system.

dr

Well then , I guess they would just have to figure this out, now wouldnt they.
I really dont even know why you even argue on this point, under the guise that it is waaay toooo difficult to figure out , when both you & I know that your real argument is you have some philisophical revulsion for revenue sharing.
Try calling a spade a spade & dont try to clothe your position in something its not.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Well then , I guess they would just have to figure this out, now wouldnt they.
I really dont even know why you even argue on this point, under the guise that it is waaay toooo difficult to figure out , when both you & I know that your real argument is you have some philisophical revulsion for revenue sharing.
Try calling a spade a spade & dont try to clothe your position in something its not.

huh ? i could care less really if they share revenue or not. however, the owners are attempting to enforce a linkage system, and i want to know how they plan on dealing with a situation like the one that is going on with NYR.

seriously, how will they mandate that Cablevision pays a *fair* price ? and what is a fair price when two connected parties are negotiating ?

the NHL and its supporters want this iron clad linkage, so lets here how the players are protected ?

dr

 

[Sammy*]

huh ? i could care less really if they share revenue or not. however, the owners are attempting to enforce a linkage system, and i want to know how they plan on dealing with a situation like the one that is going on with NYR.

seriously, how will they mandate that Cablevision pays a *fair* price ? and what is a fair price when two connected parties are negotiating ?

the NHL and its supporters want this iron clad linkage, so lets here how the players are protected ?

dr

Well , given that the NHLPA has steadfastly refused to even discuss the topic, its kinda difficult for the owners to address that issue, dont ya think?

 

[PecaFan]

If you are responding to me, which is apparently the case, why don't you ask me about a mantra that I may have ever uttered.
I've never said UFA's don't drive up salaries.
Of course they do.

Quit being such an attack dog. Or, if you must, attack people who are spewing the kind of tripe you just spewed to me.
Leave me out of it. I'm here to argue issues, not to demonize anyone.

Nobody is being an attack dog. It was an honest question. Every time salaries are brought up, the NHLPA supporters *always* dispute the claim that UFA's salaries affect other salaries. "Show me who's salary was affected by Bobby Holik!" they'll claim.

Ok, your belief is opposite of most PA supporters. But if you're right, I think that makes having a cap even more necessary.

 

[no13matssundin]

And what has Winnipeg done to deserve a team over Phoenix? The correct response is "nothing."

How about "Its not in the middle of the desert, where no ice, snow or hockey would EVER exist naturally" for starters...

Or how about "We've got more hockey fans on one street corner than you have in your entire state"...

Or "We dont have to BEG for season ticket holders, or try to convince people to drive for an hour to watch hockey"

Ya, lets keep hockey in Phoenix where we can laud the exploits of the Coyotes and their non-existant fan base. Why dont we all drink some cyanide-laced kool aid while were at it. Lose the Arizona No-Hockey-Should-Ever-Have-Been-Played-Heres.

 

[no13matssundin]

And one more thing:

I dont care if youve been a hockey fan all your life, if youve got season tickets for the Coyotes since day one of if you even OWN the team. Phoenix, Arizona along with all the teams in the Southern United States should have NEVER been given franchises ever. Hockey is worse off for it and I could care less if 3 or 4 thousand people in Phoenix would be saddened if Hockey leaves the Desert. Hockey means nothing to the city, state and overwhelming majority of your country and you people mean next to nothing to the overwhelming majority of Hockey universe and until ice begins to naturally form in Phoenix, or it starts snowing in the desert on a regular basis and more than 20K kids and families start playing hockey regularly down there, It will remain as such. Dont believe me? Lets take a head count in this forum to see who would cry over the contraction or relocation of the Coyotes and we'll see just how much your team and area means to the sport and its fans.

Hockey belongs where people play it. Not in the desert. Just because you live there and cheer for the abberation that plays there doesnt change that.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Nobody is being an attack dog. It was an honest question. Every time salaries are brought up, the NHLPA supporters *always* dispute the claim that UFA's salaries affect other salaries. "Show me who's salary was affected by Bobby Holik!" they'll claim.

Ok, your belief is opposite of most PA supporters. But if you're right, I think that makes having a cap even more necessary.

It wasn't an honest question to me.
It was a knee jerk response.

I am right. UFAs do increase overall salaries.
I do support the PA in this argument (they're less wrong than the owners, in my opinion).

But I still don't see how that means a cap is the only way to reduce salaries.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Well , given that the NHLPA has steadfastly refused to even discuss the topic, its kinda difficult for the owners to address that issue, dont ya think?

You've eluded the question.


If you believe you are right about the righteousness of cost-certainty, you should answer questions like this one, which is fundamental to the issue.

If not, you aren't contributing to the discussion.

 

[YellHockey*]

Ya, lets keep hockey in Phoenix where we can laud the exploits of the Coyotes and their non-existant fan base. Why dont we all drink some cyanide-laced kool aid while were at it.

If the Coyotes fanbase is non-existant, then how come there have been more people turnout for a single hockey game in Phoenix then has ever turned out for a game anywhere near Winnipeg?

How come attendance in Phoenix has been better then Winnipeg?

Are Winnipeg fans just cheap? Or are they just full of crap about being hockey fans?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Yeah, it's the law. If you don't have a union with whom you're agreeing on certain restraints of trade, you're colluding and liable for huge damages. The existence of the NHLPA benefits the owners, believe it or not.

As nice a dream as that may be for Bettman and Co., do you think it's actually going to happen? Is that a realistic goal? I don't think it is, not for one moment, and think that the players would decertify before they would be an NFLPA type union. What's in it for the players to be an NFLPA type association as opposed to simply blowing up the union?

This is headed toward impasse. The owners last offer was designed to split the ranks.
They obviously plan to bring in scabs next season. If their plan works, most members will come back with their tails between their legs and the union will be what it was in the days of Eagleson.

The actual players themselves, if they decide to cross, won't have a clue what they should do, as single entity.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

How about "Its not in the middle of the desert, where no ice, snow or hockey would EVER exist naturally" for starters...

Or how about "We've got more hockey fans on one street corner than you have in your entire state"...

Or "We dont have to BEG for season ticket holders, or try to convince people to drive for an hour to watch hockey"

Ya, lets keep hockey in Phoenix where we can laud the exploits of the Coyotes and their non-existant fan base. Why dont we all drink some cyanide-laced kool aid while were at it. Lose the Arizona No-Hockey-Should-Ever-Have-Been-Played-Heres.

Just because Winnipeg is in Canada doesnt mean its a better location. No fans here? True or false: The Coyotes have averaged more fans than the Jets?

Oh, believe it or not, it DOES snow in Arizona. Im going skiing next week, actually. In Arizona. Pro hockey has existed here since the seventies, and I can think off the top of my head about a half dozen local places where I can play hockey here. Your comments hold no credibility whatsoever, but then again, neither does any "They should move back to Winnipeg" statement.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

Oh, and here is my standard responce to whenever somebody says something like "The Coyotes should move back to Winnipeg because I am Canadian," which Ive posted a few times

Complete garbage. Southern states can't do well? How about Colorado? Just one state above us, and how many sellouts have they had? Teams like Dallas and LA dont seem to be doing that badly either. I havent checked the stats lately, but Arizona (and in particular, Phoenix) is one of the most rapidly growing areas in the country. Phoenix has millions more people living in it than Winnipeg (yes, even though the fan base in Winnipeg is still strong), and it will only continue to grow. There are so many potential fans in this area. Actually, there are already more fans here then there ever were in Winnipeg (just look at the attendance), and it will only increase. It has been mentioned before that Arizona has somewhat of a strange fan base, as people will flock to the winning team. This is because (with exception of the Suns), all of our teams are new, within what, 15 years? We dont have a Red Wings or Chicago Cubs that have been here forever that we have grown up with. Stable fan bases come with tradition, tradition that we havent accumulated yet. This will eventually happen here as well, as the fans will grow in strength and number with the team, even larger than they already are. If Winnipeg could hold an NHL team, they wouldnt have lost one, its really that simple.