eight men out

Status
Not open for further replies.

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
Because it only takes 8 owners to say yes to a plan that Bettman says yes to, but it takes 23 to override a plan that Bettman says no to. SO as long as Bettman supports the plan, only 8 owners have to agree with him.

But remember, the owners gave Bettman this power. It was something that was voted in after the last CBA.
 

ladybugblue

Registered User
May 5, 2004
2,427
0
Edmonton, AB
Actually I think you have it backwards. Bettman only needs eight owners to refuse a proposal from the NHLPA. Since the NHLPA has not and insists on no more proposals this really isn't an issue.
 

R0CKET

Registered User
Jul 2, 2004
320
0
If we're gonna get all democratic and all, then why not have the PA simply vote on the last offer and lets see if the majority would vote to play?!

But then again that would deprive Goodenow of his egotistical joy to be the omnipotant supreme being of the NHLPA...and its little dictator as well.

Dude won't even allow a vote before a season gets cancelled?
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
The Maltais Falcon said:
What makes you certain only eight owners are deciding the fate of the league?
The Eight Man Salary Cap Band - Wirtz, Jacobs, Craig Leipold in Nashville, Peter Karmanos in Carolina, Cal Nichols in Edmonton, Harley Hotchkiss in Calgary, Ted Leonsis in Washington, and Alan Cohen in Florida - wants a system in which the wealthiest teams are reduced to their teams' minimal payroll level - and minimal on-ice success.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/hockey/10830353.htm?1c
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
neg marron said:
it's amazing that the fate of the nhl is in the hands of 8 owners i believe it should be 15 owners since their are 30 nhl clubs
after all that's more democratic

I like how it works out (I'd dump Bettman voting value and make it 21 or 22 owners to approve). No deal should get done unless at least 2/3rds or 3/4s of the owners are happy with it. The idea of 15 owners leaving the other 15 to die is not good, any deal should work for the vast majority not slim majority.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
ladybugblue said:
Actually I think you have it backwards. Bettman only needs eight owners to refuse a proposal from the NHLPA.

Essentially. The whole reason we're in this mess is that *last time*, barely over 50% voted for the CBA in 1994. That's pretty telling, almost half the league knew in 1994 that the CBA was already messed up. But with the 50% + 1 rule in place, it went through.

Now, it's going to take 75% of the league to agree on a CBA. Given the differences in markets, this is a far more equitable arrangement for *all*. It requires a deal to be good for big markets, small markets, etc.
 

Boomhower

Registered User
Aug 23, 2003
5,169
1
Ontario
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Essentially. The whole reason we're in this mess is that *last time*, barely over 50% voted for the CBA in 1994. That's pretty telling, almost half the league knew in 1994 that the CBA was already messed up. But with the 50% + 1 rule in place, it went through.

Nope, in 1994 it was (surprise, surprise) 8 owners who voted against the offer/last deal.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
neg marron said:
it's amazing that the fate of the nhl is in the hands of 8 owners i believe it should be 15 owners since their are 30 nhl clubs
after all that's more democratic
They (owners) voted on it

It was essentially implamented so the large markets wouldn't be pulled apart from the medium and small markets by Bob Goodenow - the main reason why the owners got burned so bad on the past CBA.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
The Messenger said:
The Eight Man Salary Cap Band - Wirtz, Jacobs, Craig Leipold in Nashville, Peter Karmanos in Carolina, Cal Nichols in Edmonton, Harley Hotchkiss in Calgary, Ted Leonsis in Washington, and Alan Cohen in Florida - wants a system in which the wealthiest teams are reduced to their teams' minimal payroll level - and minimal on-ice success.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/hockey/10830353.htm?1c
You'd better believe there are a hellova lot more owners out there that want the salary cap. A very notable omission is Ottawa there. I would think Montreal, Vancouver, Pittsburg and Phoenix would want something there too.
 

Bileur

Registered User
Jun 15, 2004
18,475
7,194
Ottawa
Splatman Phanutier said:
You'd better believe there are a hellova lot more owners out there that want the salary cap. A very notable omission is Ottawa there. I would think Montreal, Vancouver, Pittsburg and Phoenix would want something there too.

:dunno:
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Bileur said:

I think John McCaw would rather have a season, considering his profits have gone up steadily in the last 3 years. Why would McCaw who has spent years turning this team around and putting together a strong business and marketing stratagy want to shoot himself in the foot with this lockout????
 

MLH

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
5,328
0
Splatman Phanutier said:
You'd better believe there are a hellova lot more owners out there that want the salary cap. A very notable omission is Ottawa there. I would think Montreal, Vancouver, Pittsburg and Phoenix would want something there too.

Clearly, Golisano wants one too. I'm pretty sure the only reason he bought the Sabres was because he predicted the league would be changing.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
The Messenger said:
The Eight Man Salary Cap Band - Wirtz, Jacobs, Craig Leipold in Nashville, Peter Karmanos in Carolina, Cal Nichols in Edmonton, Harley Hotchkiss in Calgary, Ted Leonsis in Washington, and Alan Cohen in Florida - wants a system in which the wealthiest teams are reduced to their teams' minimal payroll level - and minimal on-ice success.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/hockey/10830353.htm?1c

Minimal on-ice success??? I thought you PA'ers said that Carolina, Calgary, Washington, Nashville were proof that the NHL's current system was working?
 

Carl Spackler

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
97
0
The Messenger said:
The Eight Man Salary Cap Band - Wirtz, Jacobs, Craig Leipold in Nashville, Peter Karmanos in Carolina, Cal Nichols in Edmonton, Harley Hotchkiss in Calgary, Ted Leonsis in Washington, and Alan Cohen in Florida - wants a system in which the wealthiest teams are reduced to their teams' minimal payroll level - and minimal on-ice success.

Might want to add Hicks to the supposed "Gang of Eight". Hmm, that's one large market owner clearly on board....How many more might there be?

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=114734
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,657
37,449
vanlady said:
I think John McCaw would rather have a season, considering his profits have gone up steadily in the last 3 years. Why would McCaw who has spent years turning this team around and putting together a strong business and marketing stratagy want to shoot himself in the foot with this lockout????



Didn't McCaw sell the team?
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
add Lemieux too


Tampa Bay and the Yotes owner have said they need cost certainty

now its a 12 man band, more than a third of the league...hmmmmm
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
All 30 owners would like a salary cap, that isnt' really up for debate.

What the owners disagree on is, what the floor level should be, what the ceiling should be, how much revenue sharing should there be .... and the big one:

How much pain (loss of games, seasons etc.) is worth the gain (cap) ???
 

ladybugblue

Registered User
May 5, 2004
2,427
0
Edmonton, AB
vanlady said:
I think John McCaw would rather have a season, considering his profits have gone up steadily in the last 3 years. Why would McCaw who has spent years turning this team around and putting together a strong business and marketing stratagy want to shoot himself in the foot with this lockout????

I don't know as there is a lawsuit that still needs to be settled regarding the sale of part of the Canucks. I have heard that it could get messy and that the NHL would even look at the new ownership group until the lawsuit is settled which could take years. Vancouver has had a few good years but I don't know how well they were doing before that...were they losing money too?

I think it is fair to say that most of the owners want a new deal. Being in a big market and high payroll doesn't mean you made a profit (aka New York Rangers) so it is hard to say how many want to play now no matter what or would play if they had the right system.
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
John Flyers Fan said:
All 30 owners would like a salary cap, that isnt' really up for debate.

What the owners disagree on is, what the floor level should be, what the ceiling should be, how much revenue sharing should there be .... and the big one:

How much pain (loss of games, seasons etc.) is worth the gain (cap) ???


do you have a link to back up your statements.......or better known as opinions???
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
kerrly said:
Minimal on-ice success??? I thought you PA'ers said that Carolina, Calgary, Washington, Nashville were proof that the NHL's current system was working?

You think that those teams prove that the current system works?? LOL....I hope I am reading this wrong. Carolina made the finals then has not made the playoffs. Calgary missed the playoffs 7 straight seasons before last season. In fact in a "hockey market" they were mired outside the top 20 in in attendance with those losing seasons and were dying on the vine. Washington is the poster child for cost certainty. Under owner Abe Pollin the Capitals made the playoffs 20+ years in a row, but never really threatened to win the Cup. Pollin was frugal(cheap) and carried the league wide rep as a team that wouldn't commit to doing what it takes to win. Ted Leonsis bought the team and promised to change that. They made one finals(4 and out) and missed the playoffs 3 of the next 5 seasons. In the process Leonsis was convinced that you cant win without spending. He spent, lost worse, swimming in red ink he slashed the payroll back to basics. Nashville barely made the playoffs last season...their first time ever and took a first round exit.

These teams are the reason that they need a salary cap, not the proof that they don't.
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
What the owners disagree on is, what the floor level should be, what the ceiling should be, how much revenue sharing should there be

I have not seen one owner say any of this
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->