Economists question Bettmans math
- Thread starter vanlady
- Start date
- Status
richardn
Registered User
of course
Bettman wanted a deal, a deal where they wouldnt lose money every year and where they could grow the sport.
Its the grow the sport part that people cant understand, and why most economic evaluations dont take into account.....the payrolls of the teams have to be close!
Unfortuneately, the players wanted to grow their salaries more then play so there wasnt going to be any deal.
So yes, Bettman was the only one looking for a deal.
Bettman wanted a deal, a deal where they wouldnt lose money every year and where they could grow the sport.
Its the grow the sport part that people cant understand, and why most economic evaluations dont take into account.....the payrolls of the teams have to be close!
Unfortuneately, the players wanted to grow their salaries more then play so there wasnt going to be any deal.
So yes, Bettman was the only one looking for a deal.
why must the payrolls be close? the empirical data simply doesn't support that assertion!AM said:
Well , thats not entirely accurate. Bettman was the only one who was trying for a deal that he thought would work for the owners & players. I sincerly believe that if the players had their way (& in fact history bares that out), the players have been more than happy to have the teams continue to lose hundreds of millions of dollars, & in the process dstroy some teams as well as jobs.likea said:
If the players have shown any consideration for the game, the fans & the owners, they would have agreed to look at the CBA in the years leading up to this last fall, as the owners were losing hundreds of millions & teams were shaky. Alas, things were too good for the players (not for the owners or teams mind you), they said then screw it, showing their true colors.
Because they wouldn't agree to a system that would keep help to keep salaries at that level or even close to it.vanlady said:
Cause they knew would eventually get all the money back & more & if their wasnt a rollback of some kind this year, they had zero chance of of playing, therby costing them lots of $$$. It was selfish & hollow, thru & thru.vanlady said:
petrobruin
Registered User
Betman Was Right.
You dont close down a 2billion dollar bussiness just for the fun of it .
If the deal was there to help the business i am sure he would have taken it .
Dont ya think.
Petr
richardn said:
You dont close down a 2billion dollar bussiness just for the fun of it .
If the deal was there to help the business i am sure he would have taken it .
Dont ya think.
Petr
mooseOAK said:
Did they not agree to a cap??? And so what you are saying is that the owners you defend have no intention of curbing there bad habits that got us in this mess in the first place???? OK the owners got us in this mess and they have no intention of correcting there mistakes, boy I would sure defend that.
NHLFanSince2020
What'd He Say?
how can you defend such a position?Sammy said:
for anyone willing to see it, the PRIMARY cause of salary inflation and hence the problems inflating this league's cost structure, is the arbitration and qualifier system - that is unquestionable!
consider the arbitration system carefully. this is a system that awards contracts based on a range of comparables. if that range is reduced by 24% how can that not be viewed as substantially deflationary, particularly if its combined with two-way, final offer arbitration, 75% qualifiers, and reforms to the ELS!!??
joechip
Registered User
PepNCheese said:
No, I just wonder about their credentials: Keynesian, Monetarist, Austrian.... Most of the comments in that article were opinions that had no economic backing that I could discern... and I consider myself an economist (self-taught, but one nonetheless). The comments made sounded more like sour grapes and ideology than anything.
Ta,
So, I guesss the Owners should have just agreed to any cap number , right.vanlady said:
Riiiight.
Geez, I guess the owners were such super fortunate that the NHLPA didnt offer a 80 mil cap.
Yeah, the $49 million soft cap. As Bettman said , the NFL with 2.5 times the revenue of the NHL has an $80 million cap so in relative terms hockey should be at just over $30 million.vanlady said:
Yes, the owners had intention of curbing their bad habits, but the players wouldn't let them.
I am nor arguing that the 24% wasnt deflationary. It just wouldnt have had much of an effect for very long, even with those other hollow gifts.nedved93 said:
Maybe the NHLPA should have back stopped their magnanimous gesture if they were so sure it would have such a great effect.
joechip said:
Andrew Zimbalist is the world authority on economics in pro sports, heck even the US senate trusts him.
mooseOAK said:
OK as a business owner how in the lords name could an employee force you to spend money??? Sorry I have yet to see a comprehensive plan from the owners on how they intend to fix there problems, I have only seen them try and blame the players for all there mistakes. And force the players to fix problems they themselves have created.
joechip
Registered User
PepNCheese said:
You're welcome. I'm sorry, there are lies, damn lies, statistics and economists. You can get any 'expert' out there to say what you want them to say. I don't take some guy's opinion as valid just because he has a degre in economics, especially when most, if not all, university-trained economists are Keynesians, which, as an economic system, is complete nonsense. Most economists, by extension, are pro-labor, pro anti-trust, anti-free market and it clouds their analysis. My opinion is that the statements made by those economists quoted in that article smacks of this.
The refutation of Keynesianism is far beyond the scope of this forum, but it exists and, in my opinion, perfectly valid.
Ta,
when combined with two-way, final offer arbitration, 75% qualifiers, and reform of the ELS along the lines proposed by TSN?Sammy said:
that position simply isn't grounded in reality and displays a complete mis-understanding of the root cause of rampant salary inflation!
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: Around the League 2023-24 Volume 4: Stretch Drive Edition- Latest: FlameChampion
-
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 6Staked: $2,110.00Event closes
- Updated: