Fan590- Linden will address the media from the NHLPA at 2pm et

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hockey_Nut99

Guest
JWI19 said:
Basically the players are saying there is no reason for a cap. Pay us what the market determines we are worth and what you can afford.

Now the Owners are going to pay the players what they can afford. They have said NO. They can only afford to pay them anything up to a cap.
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
JWI19 said:
Basically the players are saying there is no reason for a cap. Pay us what the market determines we are worth and what you can afford.

Fine, there's no reason for a cap, then there's no reason for guaranteed contracts then...done deal. wher do these dirtbags sign
 

Crease

Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
Jul 12, 2004
23,976
25,014
It's an insult because the owners are forcing the players to make major concessions based on their own mistakes, not the players. The biggest thing that bothers me out of this whole labor dispute is that the owners are in the drivers seat yet they blame the players for the CBA mess. The owners lockout the players and then say that the players are preventing the season because they won't accept the salary cap. In my eyes, the owners are the ones looking like the bullies in the playground but there are obviously minute details that we all don't know about the negotiations taking place. I really don't care anymore who gives in and who caves, I just really want to watch some hockey. It just pisses me off because even though I'm pro-player, I know this won't end unless the players cave. It disappoints me because of the principle under which the lockout was brought was because of the owners' irresponsible money management, yet I truly understand now that since the owners hold the key, it's the players that must make the concessions if they want to play. Not exactly called negotiating, but it's going to work.


On another note, the one thing I do agree with is the removal of arbitration. I think Adam Sandler's character said it best in Mr. Deeds when he said, "If we can't take away salary from your contract if you have a bad season, why are you entitled to get an increase in salary if you have a good one?" Guaranteed contracts also bother me. I'm a Ranger fan and I've seen marquee names be lured into NYC with large contracts yet when they arrive, they're a shell of their former selves. I would have no problem with a base-typle salary system that increases by the number of years a player is in the league, in which they are all given incentive-laden contracts based on the type of role the team wants him to play. When a player is traded from team to team, that contract has the ability to be readjusted after the season is over, but the number of years on the contract remains the same.
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
Crease29 said:
It's an insult because the owners are forcing the players to make major concessions based on their own mistakes, not the players. The biggest thing that bothers me out of this whole labor dispute is that the owners are in the drivers seat yet they blame the players for the CBA mess. The owners lockout the players and then say that the players are preventing the season because they won't accept the salary cap. In my eyes, the owners are the ones looking like the bullies in the playground but there are obviously minute details that we all don't know about the negotiations taking place. I really don't care anymore who gives in and who caves, I just really want to watch some hockey. It just pisses me off because even though I'm pro-player, I know this won't end unless the players cave. It disappoints me because of the principle under which the lockout was brought was because of the owners' irresponsible money management, yet I truly understand now that since the owners hold the key, it's the players that must make the concessions if they want to play. Not exactly called negotiating, but it's going to work.


On another note, the one thing I do agree with is the removal of arbitration. I think Adam Sandler's character said it best in Mr. Deeds when he said, "If we can't take away salary from your contract if you have a bad season, why are you entitled to get an increase in salary if you have a good one?" Guaranteed contracts also bother me. I'm a Ranger fan and I've seen marquee names be lured into NYC with large contracts yet when they arrive, they're a shell of their former selves. I would have no problem with a base-typle salary system that increases by the number of years a player is in the league, in which they are all given incentive-laden contracts based on the type of role the team wants him to play. When a player is traded from team to team, that contract has the ability to be readjusted after the season is over, but the number of years on the contract remains the same.

I could easily say the players are trying to force the owners in securing the players futures, because they never bothered getting an education, a profession or haven't saved/invested their money properly, therefore are trying to secure maximum earnings...
 

Crease

Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
Jul 12, 2004
23,976
25,014
417 TO MTL said:
I could easily say the players are trying to force the owners in securing the players futures, because they never bothered getting an education, a profession or haven't saved/invested their money properly, therefore are trying to secure maximum earnings...

But do you truly believe that?
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
Crease29 said:
It's an insult because the owners are forcing the players to make major concessions based on their own mistakes, not the players. The biggest thing that bothers me out of this whole labor dispute is that the owners are in the drivers seat yet they blame the players for the CBA mess. The owners lockout the players and then say that the players are preventing the season because they won't accept the salary cap. In my eyes, the owners are the ones looking like the bullies in the playground but there are obviously minute details that we all don't know about the negotiations taking place. I really don't care anymore who gives in and who caves, I just really want to watch some hockey. It just pisses me off because even though I'm pro-player, I know this won't end unless the players cave. It disappoints me because of the principle under which the lockout was brought was because of the owners' irresponsible money management, yet I truly understand now that since the owners hold the key, it's the players that must make the concessions if they want to play. Not exactly called negotiating, but it's going to work.


On another note, the one thing I do agree with is the removal of arbitration. I think Adam Sandler's character said it best in Mr. Deeds when he said, "If we can't take away salary from your contract if you have a bad season, why are you entitled to get an increase in salary if you have a good one?" Guaranteed contracts also bother me. I'm a Ranger fan and I've seen marquee names be lured into NYC with large contracts yet when they arrive, they're a shell of their former selves. I would have no problem with a base-typle salary system that increases by the number of years a player is in the league, in which they are all given incentive-laden contracts based on the type of role the team wants him to play. When a player is traded from team to team, that contract has the ability to be readjusted after the season is over, but the number of years on the contract remains the same.

Again...so what? employees pay for the mistakes of management. Why? because management controls the money. It isn't about blame it's about fixing the problem. The owners are accepting the bulk of the blame by pursuing the system that prevents these things from happening again. THat is why the players have to cave on the system...they don't hold the leverage in the negotiation. The owners have not provided any take it or leave it offer only a take it or leave it system of which there are multiple variables to negotiate.

AS for your suggestion that is a variation on a framework the NHL provided in the summer that was soundly rejected by the players.

Ask yourself why is it the owners who are losing money hand over fist according to every report that should cave? Just because they caused the mess? Doesn't work that way.
 

jfont

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
16,337
533
Los Angeles
417 TO MTL said:
I could easily say the players are trying to force the owners in securing the players futures, because they never bothered getting an education, a profession or haven't saved/invested their money properly, therefore are trying to secure maximum earnings...
and its wrong because the owners are the one that gave it to them...

i see...
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
Crease29 said:
But do you truly believe that?

Until the NHLPA provides a viable reason as to why they won't accept a cap...Hell yeah, i'll believe that....the only players who don't want to accept a cap are the players who've made alot of money and are seeing their careers come to an end in the next 4-5-6 years...the other players trying to proven themselves to earn that kind of money don't care...they will 10 years from now whenever this soon to be new deal comes through and they'll want to secure their futures, it's the cycle, the NHl is moving into a new generation of high paid superstars, and if this continues, there's no tellling how much money they'll want
 

Habs13

Registered User
Dec 30, 2004
13,918
10,802
Montreal
anybody listening to Luc Richardson right now? Going on and on about a partnership.. I'd love to have a partnership at work too but hey, I'm just an employee.. same as Richardson.

This is disgusting! No wonder there's no deal..
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
jfont said:
and its wrong because the owners are the one that gave it to them...

i see...

No it's wrong because like the players say, it's not up to the players to fix the owners mistakes of the past 10 years...it's not up to the owners to secure each players families futures either...

Anyway you look at it, this has nothing to do with what's at stake, i'm just offering a different point of view
 

Crease

Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
Jul 12, 2004
23,976
25,014
I understand. I know that the players can't win. It's just dissappointing my eyes that the players are the ones who are being blamed for this mess. Have the owners come out and said we were irresponsible with our money. When the Devils, Rangers, and Maple Leafs began a bidding war on Bobby Holik, the Devils offered what if I remember correctly was a 7.5M a year contract, in which the Maple Leafs countered with 8.5 a year, and the Rangers ultimately won by offering him 9. That was the market value of Holik that summer. That was what the owners of those three teams felt he was worth to play for their team. No one put a gun to the Leaf's organization and said offer him 8.5. They couldn't have just said Jesus, the Devils are way off by thinking he's worth 7.5. The Rangers coughed up the extra 500,000 and now we're stuck with him. He definately doesn't deserve the money but hindsight is 20/20. This is what happens in a free-market system. It is up to the consumers (the owners) to decide what they are willing to pay for the products (the players).
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
Crease29 said:
I understand. I know that the players can't win. It's just dissappointing my eyes that the players are the ones who are being blamed for this mess. Have the owners come out and said we were irresponsible with our money. When the Devils, Rangers, and Maple Leafs began a bidding war on Bobby Holik, the Devils offered what if I remember correctly was a 7.5M a year contract, in which the Maple Leafs countered with 8.5 a year, and the Rangers ultimately won by offering him 9. That was the market value of Holik that summer. That was what the owners of those three teams felt he was worth to play for their team. No one put a gun to the Leaf's organization and said offer him 8.5. They couldn't have just said Jesus, the Devils are way off by thinking he's worth 7.5. The Rangers coughed up the extra 500,000 and now we're stuck with him. He definately doesn't deserve the money but hindsight is 20/20. This is what happens in a free-market system. It is up to the consumers (the owners) to decide what they are willing to pay for the products (the players).

So what will coming out and saying they were irresponsible with their money accomplish in CBA negotiations?There's no time to sit back and reflect on mistakes past, the owners have lived and learned...
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
tantalum said:
Again...so what? employees pay for the mistakes of management. Why? because management controls the money. It isn't about blame it's about fixing the problem. The owners are accepting the bulk of the blame by pursuing the system that prevents these things from happening again. THat is why the players have to cave on the system...they don't hold the leverage in the negotiation. The owners have not provided any take it or leave it offer only a take it or leave it system of which there are multiple variables to negotiate.

AS for your suggestion that is a variation on a framework the NHL provided in the summer that was soundly rejected by the players.

Ask yourself why is it the owners who are losing money hand over fist according to every report that should cave? Just because they caused the mess? Doesn't work that way.

That's one very important point there, very well said :handclap:
 

Crease

Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
Jul 12, 2004
23,976
25,014
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the owners have been adament about not accepting any NHLPA offer that does not include a hard cap
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Linden wants the owners to compromise. The owners compromised to get the last CBA, got screwed. They compromised to get the NHLPA to agree to participate in the Olympics, got screwed again.

I can understand if they don't want to do it this time, compromise can be used as a trap.
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
JWI19 said:
Basically the players are saying there is no reason for a cap. Pay us what the market determines we are worth and what you can afford.

That would work if not for the simple fact that the players don't accept that their salaries should ever decrease. Qualifying offers have to be mark-ups of their existing salaries. Arbitration awards are outrageous. Plus, "the market" is always set by the outlier, not the mean (cf: Bobby Holik, Trent Klatt, etc.).
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
Crease29 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the owners have been adament about not accepting any NHLPA offer that does not include a hard cap

And the players have been adamant about not accepting anything with a hard cap.

The difference between going the players system or with the owners system is that the owners have the leverage and with that leverage they want a system that is predictable. And as well no one has any idea if it is a hard cap or not. They may be more than willing to negotiate exemptions. Who knows but until the PA negotiates in that framework they are never going to truly know how far they can push the variables.
 

Hockey_Nut99

Guest
mooseOAK said:
Linden wants the owners to compromise. The owners compromised to get the last CBA, got screwed. They compromised to get the NHLPA to agree to participate in the Olympics, got screwed again.

I can understand if they don't want to do it this time, compromise can be used as a trap.

Exactly. The NHL has gave in to these guys 2 times. It's not going to work this time. It's not the NHL's turn to bend. They both have to, but the PA has to change their attitude this time.

The NHL asked the PA to renegotiate the cba before it expired. The players obviousley didn't want that. They knew where this was all going.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
mooseOAK said:
Linden wants the owners to compromise. The owners compromised to get the last CBA, got screwed. They compromised to get the NHLPA to agree to participate in the Olympics, got screwed again.

I can understand if they don't want to do it this time, compromise can be used as a trap.

The owners are willing to compromise on every issue but one...the same issue that Linden is not willing to compromise on.
 

kurt

the last emperor
Sep 11, 2004
8,709
52
Victoria
Players' stance

Habs13 said:
anybody listening to Luc Richardson right now? Going on and on about a partnership.. I'd love to have a partnership at work too but hey, I'm just an employee.. same as Richardson.

This is disgusting! No wonder there's no deal..

Do millions of people tune in to watch you work on TV? Does your employer sell tickets so people can watch you work? The comparison people are trying to make with their careers is ridiculous. Hockey players are in the entertainment industry, and they are the entertainment.

As for people asking about the players' reasoning for refusing a cap, there's several reasons. Foremost, it severely limits their ability to earn money. If a market like Toronto or New York is pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, players want the opportunity for a piece of that pie. Players are of the opinion that if a team has the money to spend, they should be allowed to spend it. They don't want to be the ones penalized for certain teams' spending habits. If anyone, those teams should be penalized. That's where luxury taxes come into play. It's only fair, right?

Secondly, a cap based on a % of average revenues dampens their earning potential because new teams have been brought into poor markets, which generate little revenue. These revenues pull the league-wide revenues down, and hurt all the players. The league is making a pile in franchise fees, at the players' expense.

Third, in order to effectively tie salaries to revenues, the players would have to rely upon the quoting of revenues stated by the owners. How can the players trust the owners in such a situation? These owners don't open their books to anybody, and stand to lose nothing and gain everything if they understate their revenues. Look at the glaring differences between the Leavitt report, and Forbes' report. The owners simply cannot be trusted to accurately disclose revenues.
 

Crease

Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
Jul 12, 2004
23,976
25,014
It is Bettman's fault for expanding the league into markets that can't afford to exist. Now he is trying to create a system where no matter where a team is located, what kind of cable deal they have, how many seats the sell per year, they'll still make a profit. He's making owning an NHL team a risk-free venture for these Billionaire owners who view owning a sports team as a hobby. I understand that he works for the owners, but I don't like where the NHL is going if the owners have their way. I believed all along that Bettman had no interest in salvating the season. He knew he could declare an impasse and create a new cba under his own terms, and restart the league with guaranteed profits. At the same time, a hard cap will do a lot to prevent the days of the Edmonton and Montreal dynasties, and that keeping players on the same team for the duration of their careers will almost be non-existant. Call me a traditionalist.
 

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,718
274
North Bay
kurt said:
Secondly, a cap based on a % of average revenues dampens their earning potential because new teams have been brought into poor markets, which generate little revenue. These revenues pull the league-wide revenues down, and hurt all the players. The league is making a pile in franchise fees, at the players' expense.

I agree with some of what you wrote, but this makes no sense to me, what do you think was one of the biggest driving factors for bringing in these new franchises in? The owners just used it as a quick fix, spent the cash on players, now the money's run out. Thats a huge reason the last CBA failed.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
kurt said:
Do millions of people tune in to watch you work on TV? Does your employer sell tickets so people can watch you work? The comparison people are trying to make with their careers is ridiculous. Hockey players are in the entertainment industry, and they are the entertainment.

point taken which is why they are offered a significant portion of the revenues for there salaries. 60% of revenues going to strictly labour is a large percentage for most companies. This percentage reflects the contribution of the players.

As for people asking about the players' reasoning for refusing a cap, there's several reasons. Foremost, it severely limits their ability to earn money. If a market like Toronto or New York is pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, players want the opportunity for a piece of that pie. Players are of the opinion that if a team has the money to spend, they should be allowed to spend it. They don't want to be the ones penalized for certain teams' spending habits. If anyone, those teams should be penalized. That's where luxury taxes come into play. It's only fair, right?

A cap does not necessarily reduce earning potential. ON the contrary a strong argument can be made that a league with such a cap and linkage leads to a healthy league and growing revenues. The only thing that limits salary earnings is a lack of revenues or decreasing revenues. No matter how devoted to the sport owners will only put up with decreasing numbers for so long. Teams fold, players lose jobs and leagues fold....which will happen under the current system or one like it.

Secondly, a cap based on a % of average revenues dampens their earning potential because new teams have been brought into poor markets, which generate little revenue. These revenues pull the league-wide revenues down, and hurt all the players. The league is making a pile in franchise fees, at the players' expense.

Perhaps but with linkage the union can get leverage in how things are run. The NFL union forced the NFL to clean up it's work practices and run efficiently. Whose to say the same can't happen? Whose to say teams remain in that market. Whose to say given a few more years those teams don't develop a strong fan base when the fan knows the league is healthy.

Third, in order to effectively tie salaries to revenues, the players would have to rely upon the quoting of revenues stated by the owners. How can the players trust the owners in such a situation? These owners don't open their books to anybody, and stand to lose nothing and gain everything if they understate their revenues. Look at the glaring differences between the Leavitt report, and Forbes' report. The owners simply cannot be trusted to accurately disclose revenues.

There is no need to trust the owners. These things will be evaluated by independent, mutually agreed upon auditors. Nothing will be hidden. Trust is not an issue but rather a convenient excuse the NHLPA uses.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
Crease29 said:
It is Bettman's fault for expanding the league into markets that can't afford to exist. Now he is trying to create a system where no matter where a team is located, what kind of cable deal they have, how many seats the sell per year, they'll still make a profit. He's making owning an NHL team a risk-free venture for these Billionaire owners who view owning a sports team as a hobby. I understand that he works for the owners, but I don't like where the NHL is going if the owners have their way. I believed all along that Bettman had no interest in salvating the season. He knew he could declare an impasse and create a new cba under his own terms, and restart the league with guaranteed profits. At the same time, a hard cap will do a lot to prevent the days of the Edmonton and Montreal dynasties, and that keeping players on the same team for the duration of their careers will almost be non-existant. Call me a traditionalist.

There are at least a handful of teams -- Carolina, Phoenix, Nashville, Florida, maybe more -- that would not be profitable at the salary floor reportedly proposed by the league.

The thing preventing Edmonton and the Habs from being dynasties again is that they couldn't begin to keep rosters with the kind of guys they had in the 70s and 80s together because the blubbering idiot owner in NY (and I'm a Ranger fan) and a few other owners will always overpay to cover up their grevious managment mistakes. Which will drive salaries up to the point where EDM and MTL can no longer afford their cores ... which is exactly why we're where we are today and why a cap is needed.
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
kurt said:
Do millions of people tune in to watch you work on TV? Does your employer sell tickets so people can watch you work? The comparison people are trying to make with their careers is ridiculous. Hockey players are in the entertainment industry, and they are the entertainment.

As for people asking about the players' reasoning for refusing a cap, there's several reasons. Foremost, it severely limits their ability to earn money. If a market like Toronto or New York is pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, players want the opportunity for a piece of that pie.

Isn't a piece of the pie say 54% of revenues? It seems if anything, revenue sharing is exactly what this means.

kurt said:
Players are of the opinion that if a team has the money to spend, they should be allowed to spend it. They don't want to be the ones penalized for certain teams' spending habits. If anyone, those teams should be penalized. That's where luxury taxes come into play. It's only fair, right?

The problem is that with the current arbitration and free agency, it is presently the other teams (and their fans) that are getting hurt, because poorer teams just loose their players when the players hit 31.
kurt said:
Secondly, a cap based on a % of average revenues dampens their earning potential because new teams have been brought into poor markets, which generate little revenue. These revenues pull the league-wide revenues down, and hurt all the players. The league is making a pile in franchise fees, at the players' expense.
I agree with that. I bet the league would sign on to no more expansion.
kurt said:
Third, in order to effectively tie salaries to revenues, the players would have to rely upon the quoting of revenues stated by the owners. How can the players trust the owners in such a situation? These owners don't open their books to anybody, and stand to lose nothing and gain everything if they understate their revenues. Look at the glaring differences between the Leavitt report, and Forbes' report. The owners simply cannot be trusted to accurately disclose revenues.

Every day in business there are deals where one company relies on revenues of another. Companies by and large don't trust each other, so there are systems in place for independent audits in the business world. These accountancy practices are governed by SEC, and it is a seriouse issue when revenues are not properly reported. ie. people end up in jail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->