Fan 590 Reports NHLPA on Conference Call

Status
Not open for further replies.

greatlakeshab

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
511
0
"I have to admit that for the first time today I am starting to question the owner's motives. I also don't think their are clear cut sides anymore. Both Goodenow and Bettman are losing control.

Today 08:06 PM"

You know it only takes a few to start a riot. I think it is the problem owners and players both causing waves and they are getting the majority all angered. We know some players are big mouthed fools and the same for certain owners.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
greatlakeshab said:
"I have to admit that for the first time today I am starting to question the owner's motives. I also don't think their are clear cut sides anymore. Both Goodenow and Bettman are losing control.

Today 08:06 PM"

You know it only takes a few to start a riot. I think it is the problem owners and players both causing waves and they are getting the majority all angered. We know some players are big mouthed fools and the same for certain owners.


Who said that
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
CarlRacki said:
That's all well and good, but what does it have to do with the concept of a two-tiered or large-market only NHL?

Well, a two tiered league is unlikely.
But a large-market NHL might be in the cards.

If the weak franchises don't survive the lockout, all that will be left are the stronger, big market teams.

ANd revenues will plummet. Players will fondly recall the days of $5 Million salaries.

We'll see.
But this is not good for the future of the league.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
nedved93 said:
the wit is overwhelming.

well, i've always wondered why no one has ever brought up the notion of a free agency salary cap? or perhaps a luxury tax based system (stringent, perhaps even with draft picks involved as penalties for breaching certain payroll thresholds) with exemptions for drafted players?

Thanks for the compliment. I've been working on my wit as of late. Lots of free time with no hockey and all.
I'm not clear on how a luxury tax system that takes away draft picks presents an incentive for building from within. As for the exemption, I'm all for it. However, it would have to be coupled with severe restrictions for the players the exemption is upon, e.g. no trading said player for a minimum four years.
What I don't understand is this: why is everyone blaming the small markets for the hardline stance when it appears the franchises at the forefront of the hardliners are Chicago (#3 market), Boston (#7) and Washington (#9).
 

HabsRenegade

This is fine
Nov 8, 2004
844
106
Montreal
Bettman and Goodenow are becoming crazy.

We gave them the control of a train, everything was alright, until the train get off the rails. They had the mission to get it back on track, but at the oposite they used it to get off road and just kills everyone on their path.

Is this explaining all the matter?
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
CarlRacki said:
Thanks for the compliment. I've been working on my wit as of late. Lots of free time with no hockey and all.
I'm not clear on how a luxury tax system that takes away draft picks presents an incentive for building from within. As for the exemption, I'm all for it. However, it would have to be coupled with severe restrictions for the players the exemption is upon, e.g. no trading said player for a minimum four years.
What I don't understand is this: why is everyone blaming the small markets for the hardline stance when it appears the franchises at the forefront of the hardliners are Chicago (#3 market), Boston (#7) and Washington (#9).

Wirtz and Jacobs are freaks.
But it appears to me, from reports i've read, that Florida and Nashville were the louded dissenters.
Followed by Chicago, Boston, Edmonton, and Washington.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
HaBs_ReNeGaTe said:
So, what happens now?

I thought we hit absolute bottom last week with the cancellation of the season but unfortunately today's antics made the situation much worse IMO. I think you'll see fractions on both sides start to make some noise in the media and its anyone's guess as this point as to what the end game will look like.

Without knowing all the details I personally feel a 45 million dollar cap with some luxury tax measures along with a 24% rollback is quite a fair offer. I also agree with the PA that there needs to be significant revenue sharing for all 30 clubs to exist.

The lack of revenue sharing detail from the owners is the biggest question mark to me right now - not the 2.5 million difference. From the outside looking in it appears the league is divided between the 'have's' and 'have nots' almost certainly b/c the 'haves' don't want to share any significant revenues with the 'have nots'.

Until the revenue sharing issue is resolved, whether it be that the 'have's' decide to share significantly or that the league decides they shouldn't have to share revenues and this thing is decided in court - I don't think we'll see an agreement.

That's my 300 mile view of the situation anyways.
 

Poignant Discussion*

I tell it like it is
Jul 18, 2003
8,421
5
Gatineau, QC
Newsguyone said:
Fox Sports airs just about every Red WIng game.
What do I care?

You small market whiners want to pull down the big markets.
The big market guys were willing to a luxury tax, and even some sort of salary cap.

But now that I've read the garbage posted by some of you guys, I've given up on you.

You live in a minor league town.
Deal with minor league hockey.

Let the real cities have real hockey.


:bow:

Very well said sir. How a team that has a 16 million dollar gate in a new building has any right to even be in a professional sports league is beyond me
 

OilerFan4Life

Registered User
Feb 27, 2004
7,946
42
Heartland of Hockey
NataSatan666 said:
:bow:

Very well said sir. How a team that has a 16 million dollar gate in a new building has any right to even be in a professional sports league is beyond me

Well why don't your "homies" Tanenbaum and Peddie share some of their revenue with the small markets? It would make this whole process go a lot faster.
 

NewBreed19

Guest
This league really must do something now, not later. They need to get a cba signed soon; not to save this season but ensure that the NHL doesn't eventually go under. They already lost 200 million last year, or close to it. I hope both sides wake up , because they are losing fans quick and ruining their industry helpers as we speak. This is out of hand.......... Nhl and Nhlpa are getting ready for a funeral and it isn't pretty.
:shakehead
 

greatlakeshab

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
511
0
"Well why don't your "homies" Tanenbaum and Peddie share some of their revenue with the small markets? It would make this whole process go a lot faster."

Does Toyota motor co. share revenue with GM? Bettman should of never expanded into areas that can't support a hockey team especially when some teams were already having financial troubles. They should of marketed the sport better first.
 

Lobstertainment

Oh no, my brains.
Nov 26, 2003
11,785
1
Toronto
OilerFan4Life said:
Well why don't your "homies" Tanenbaum and Peddie share some of their revenue with the small markets? It would make this whole process go a lot faster.

They HAVE.

did you forget about the collective 300 million dollar war chest?

who is going to dig out of that first?

MLSEL who still has the Raptors making a profit

or

The Oilers Ownership with nothing else right now?

the owners have proposed Luxury taxes in their Caps, Luxury taxes the Big Markets like Toronto would have to pay.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
nedved93 said:
not just the NHLPA, but the fans.

understand this, fans of large market clubs such as myself will not tolerate an NHL with a hard cap far below $45 million - you can take that to the bank. we refuse to pay AT LEAST $40 a ticket just to see little jimmy dolan pocket that money and increase the value of his cablevision stock options. large market teams set the tone for this league - without them this league is finished. and let me assure you that if the small market hawks are successful in implementing a draconian $30-40 million cap, they'll have alienated a sizeable majority of us.
The large majority of you could not fill your own building with the highest payroll in NHL history. Your team claims the most losses of any team in this business, your teams television rating equaled only 60,000 homes in baseball's largest market and you play in almost total obscurity within your own media market.

Your large market team did set the tone for the league, for ratings equal to bowling and a business that cannot even hope to make a profit with a cap of 42 million for the first two years of Bettman's deal with most of those other so-called large makets losing revenue. You drove it alright, right into obscurity with ratings to confirm it on your own Msg Network that telecasts every game.

Ranger fans have not figured it out yet but the joke has been on them all along and Dolan is the punchline.

Too bad you will not support a 40 million dollar team, but when your not going to support an 80 million dollar team, does it matter if you contract or not?
 

OntCanuck

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
48
0
Simcoe, Ontario
:banghead: I think some of you read to many blogs. Two small market teams can't stop anything. At least eight teams have to say no to kill anything!! Some of you can only see lies from one side. The owners lie also, that's what happens in negotiations. When you go buy a car and the salesman says what are you looking to spend you don't blurt out well I've got $30,000 in my chequeing account so what can you do for me. The rumoured cap limit is a bit above the average of the league so although I believe that it would work well it's not as low as some make it out to be. Detroit is able to do many things because it has one of the greatest owners in the league who runs his team like the Rangers to run at no profit except the Rangers have the MSG chanel where all their money is made (so they claim). Illitch said that they budget the team to break even if they make the stanley cup if they don't they lose money(projected). The large market teams have the most to gain from a lower cap. If the cap is lower they don't have to give the small market teams as much money to be competitive if any. Teams like Toronto and Vancouver who were both projected to make 30 million this year (sportsnet) will make even more. If Torontos budget goes down by 25 million then the teachers pocket all that money don't they class. :banghead: :mad: :banghead:
 

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,922
1,152
Winnipeg
Lowetide said:
I don't think it is such a bad idea. Honestly. It is patently unfair to expect the NHLPA to watch millions of dollars go to big market teams like New York and Toronto without a clear and precise template in terms of revenue sharing.

How on earth can reasonable people expect any other result?

Let's assume for the sake of reference that the league dropped the 8 teams mentioned. It would remove 240 jobs or 1/3 of teh NHLPA would be unemployed.

Hmm if i am in the bottom 240 players i really have to vote against that deal.

Geez the players can't win a fight where lower payroll teams existance is negotiated away. Sure the cap they got is 49 million, but 49 million x24 teams is a lot less than 42.5 million times 30 teams.

it simple math here boys but we all know the education level of the players is sadly lacking in that department!

The Herd mentality of the players is appalling as they follow the leaders who are armed with parachutes of the cliff!
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
OilerFan4Life said:
Well why don't your "homies" Tanenbaum and Peddie share some of their revenue with the small markets? It would make this whole process go a lot faster.

This is exactly what Goodenow was talking about earlier this week when he said" The owners don't want a real partnership with the players. They don't even really want to partner with the other owners."

They're willing to fix the problem if the players pay for the entire thing.
And that's it.

Finally, the owner's greed is on full display for EVERYONE to see.
 

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,922
1,152
Winnipeg
SSJTOM said:
They HAVE.

did you forget about the collective 300 million dollar war chest?

who is going to dig out of that first?

MLSEL who still has the Raptors making a profit

or

The Oilers Ownership with nothing else right now?

the owners have proposed Luxury taxes in their Caps, Luxury taxes the Big Markets like Toronto would have to pay.


The oilers have control of their arena and sure they will have losses this year in the range of $ 9 million but if the cap is 45 million and the players are able to rachet every team up there then they will be losing 9 million every years so figure it out how is this a deal they could vote for?
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Chayos1 said:
Let's assume for the sake of reference that the league dropped the 8 teams mentioned. It would remove 240 jobs or 1/3 of teh NHLPA would be unemployed.

Hmm if i am in the bottom 240 players i really have to vote against that deal.

Geez the players can't win a fight where lower payroll teams existance is negotiated away. Sure the cap they got is 49 million, but 49 million x24 teams is a lot less than 42.5 million times 30 teams.

it simple math here boys but we all know the education level of the players is sadly lacking in that department!

The Herd mentality of the players is appalling as they follow the leaders who are armed with parachutes of the cliff!

Dude, that's not how this is going to go down.
The players now got a taste of what Goodenow has been up against.
They may fold or they may say, screw you, Bettman.
I'm not sure.

But if this season is cancelled, teams will start folding and EVERYONE loses.
It's arrogance.
And if you want to believe that the union is the only side messing this up, go right ahead. But get yourself a flashlight, cause it's dark out there.
 

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,922
1,152
Winnipeg
Newsguyone said:
Why should their be exact parity?
If Detroit charges so much more for tickets, why shouldn't the fans get something for it?
If they're willing to pay top dollar, why should they have to watch garbage because fans in Edmonton can't supply their owners with enough money to compete?

Fans should get what they pay for.

I think you have to understand there can not be any entertainment on the ice with out TWO teams. So the fans are coming to watch a game between teh Detroit redwings and anotehr team. If that team has ahl talent then the fans won't want to pay top dollar to see tehm are tehy?
 

NewBreed19

Guest
Everyone must remember one thing; the nhl lost over a 150 mill last year. This lockout is more about the survival of our league! This isn't about which team has more money or are in a bigger market, it's all about a healthy NHL. Yes, people can say get those eight or ten teams out of here, but at the end of the day the NHL is a league and a company that wants to decide what pay scale to use in order to survive. People have to start grasping the big picture; the NHL is dying even without small markets and needs fixing now! :(
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Chayos1 said:
The oilers have control of their arena and sure they will have losses this year in the range of $ 9 million but if the cap is 45 million and the players are able to rachet every team up there then they will be losing 9 million every years so figure it out how is this a deal they could vote for?

Please explain who will force the oilers or any other team to spend $45 Million.

Before they were competing against teams spending $78 million, and they only spent $30 Million.

So now, with competitors spending much less money, they're suddenly going to go out and spend wildly???

It makes no sense, Chayos.
 

Bill McNeal

Registered User
Jul 19, 2003
12,845
225
Montreal
greatlakeshab said:
"Well why don't your "homies" Tanenbaum and Peddie share some of their revenue with the small markets? It would make this whole process go a lot faster."

Does Toyota motor co. share revenue with GM? Bettman should of never expanded into areas that can't support a hockey team especially when some teams were already having financial troubles. They should of marketed the sport better first.

While I agree with your views on expansion and marketing, that analogy is horrible. Toyota doesn't need GM to be viable. Teams need other teams. You can't have a 1 team league.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
NewBreed19 said:
Everyone must remember one thing; the nhl lost over a 150 mill last year. This lockout is more about the survival of our league! This isn't about which team has more money or are in a bigger market, it's all about a healthy NHL. Yes, people can say get those eight or ten teams out of here, but at the end of the day the NHL is a league and a company that wants to decide what pay scale to use in order to survive. People have to start grasping the big picture; the NHL is dying even without small markets and needs fixing now! :(

Nice lecture.

Now explain to me why the NHL will play for $42.5M.

But not $45M.
 

NewBreed19

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Nice lecture.

Now explain to me why the NHL will play for $42.5M.

But not $45M.
Listen , I didn't imply that I wasn't in favor of this league playing for 45mill as their cap. I just think that this needs to get done. Whether the caps set at 45 or 42.5 it has to get done soon too!! Some teams don't want a cap at 45 or at 42.5, but if something doesn't happen quick ; the cap might end up in the low 20s or 30s range. :shakehead
 

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,922
1,152
Winnipeg
Newsguyone said:
Dude, that's not how this is going to go down.
The players now got a taste of what Goodenow has been up against.
They may fold or they may say, screw you, Bettman.
I'm not sure.

But if this season is cancelled, teams will start folding and EVERYONE loses.
It's arrogance.
And if you want to believe that the union is the only side messing this up, go right ahead. But get yourself a flashlight, cause it's dark out there.

I am not saying it is just the PA fault here it is also teh Big Teams who are willing to drink Goodenough koolaid. The league has to be about 30 teams not 8 at either spectrum.

The top 8 can't decide but nor can teh bottom 8, but if the deal is so bad that teh team loses the bottom 8 then someone made a bad deal for everyone players included. The league expanded into non traditional markets to try and get a national TV contract and need all 30 markets to make that work.

I hate to say it guys but it won't be the Canadian teams of EDM and Calgary falling when this ship hits the iceberg. Canadian teams will always get teh support, but teams like Pitts, Ana, Car, Buff, atlanta(again), Nashville, Washington will be teh team who fall in this case.

Those teams are sprinked through out the US and as such limit the league in getting national coverage.

Edmonton could continue to tread water at 28-30 million for 6 more years trading away stars and getting prospects back becasue the fans would support them, but US markets wouldn't and as such the league could end up contracting by as much as 1/4 and that would take away players jobs.

Teh real question in all this is how players under the million dollar salary range feel about losing their jobs, because if the leage contracts it would be bottom 5 players on each team who would lose their jobs. Instead of $500k tehy would be making 60k in teh AHL. Tell me how the NHLPA is working for those guys in all this.

Remember in all of this that if it ever comes to a vote everyone in the NHLPA is equal at that time and that would be the only time these sorts of players would get a say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->