Forbes, Leavitt - who cares - just an excuse by the players and the PA not to concede

[eye]

The onwers take the risk and without owners and a league to play in the players are really just like numbers on a wall. Let's say the numbers are actually between what Forbes say and what the Leavitt report suggests. Does it really matter? Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that there are huge financial problems and that the owners are not just taking this stand for the fun of it. There is little TV revenue relative to the costs of operating a hockey team, stands that are generally 2/3's full in most cities at least those with fans that show some common sense, seats that are already overpriced for the brand of hockey we have been watching the last few years played by players that take many nights off during the season and that only really put out 100 percent come playoff time with refs that are no longer willing or capable of calling the rulebook. Players and the PA must be able to see this and even the few fans or players that post in favor of the players on this board must acknowledge problems with the financing of already overpaid players. Fans were as responsible as the owners and players for rising payroll. Listen to any talk show or read any paper and you see fans urging their teams to sign overpaid players. Fans are the ones that overpaid for tickets. I could see the writing on the wall for years now. Fans were starting to refuse to pay for overpriced tickets and overpaid players and now the owners want a cost certainty system that not only protects themselves against each other but provides them with an excuse or reason for not overpaying for players simply because of fan and media pressure to do so. Open up your eyes players-Goodenow, the game needs you to concede your position if we ever hope to move forward and revive the NHL as we know it.

Click to read more...

 

[BLONG7]

Forbes by their own admission just estimates these numbers... at least Levitt took the time to review numbers and revenue streams. Both the league and the PA need to back off their original stances and start NEGOTIATING ... at this point all they are doing is trying to discredit the other side! What a joke this has all become!!!

 

[gary69]

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that there are huge financial problems and that the owners are not just taking this stand for the fun of it.

Players and the PA must be able to see this and even the few fans or players that post in favor of the players on this board must acknowledge problems with the financing of already overpaid players. Fans were as responsible as the owners and players for rising payroll. Listen to any talk show or read any paper and you see fans urging their teams to sign overpaid players. Fans are the ones that overpaid for tickets. I could see the writing on the wall for years now. Fans were starting to refuse to pay for overpriced tickets and overpaid players and now the owners want a cost certainty system that not only protects themselves against each other but provides them with an excuse or reason for not overpaying for players simply because of fan and media pressure to do so. Open up your eyes players-Goodenow, the game needs you to concede your position if we ever hope to move forward and revive the NHL as we know it.

Well, I don't see that every team has huge financial problems, so I could argue that by your reasoning those owners are taking stand just for the fun of it. But more likely those owners just want more profit. Not any nobler cause than players wanting money.

You really need more convincing arguments for the fans of big-market teams, for fans who are willing to pay top dollar for their hockey and want to see that money used to improve their teams instead of owner just pocketing more profit. And those fans usually don't see any flaws in NHL's competitive balance either. Other than perhaps they're starting to wonder, whether players have already conceded too much in this regard, and the system is now favouring teams like Carolina in competitive balance department somewhat more than is necessary.

These fans might think it's not worth having a lockout to revive NHL as we knew it.

 

[eye]

Well, I don't see that every team has huge financial problems, so I could argue that by your reasoning those owners are taking stand just for the fun of it. But more likely those owners just want more profit. Not any nobler cause than players wanting money.

You really need more convincing arguments for the fans of big-market teams, for fans who are willing to pay top dollar for their hockey and want to see that money used to improve their teams instead of owner just pocketing more profit. And those fans usually don't see any flaws in NHL's competitive balance either. Other than perhaps they're starting to wonder, whether players have already conceded too much in this regard, and the system is now favouring teams like Carolina in competitive balance department somewhat more than is necessary.

These fans might think it's not worth having a lockout to revive NHL as we knew it.

Actually teams like the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers and Red Wings need this cost certainty system more than anyone else. Not because they need to make more money but because they need to set an example for all other teams to follow. Bill Watters said a couple weeks back that he was the happiest guy in the world when they lost the auction for Holik, Kaspairatis and Lindros as Leafs fans were demanding that the team spend the Teachers Union money to get them signed. Teams are not legally allowed to collude so the CBA has to provide the protection that the game, the fans and the owners need.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

The onwers take the risk and without owners and a league to play in the players are really just like numbers on a wall....

Sure the owners take the financial risk but without the players there isn't a product to sell and the players take risks too...with their health. The relationship between the 2 are mutual...a partnership.

...and now the owners want a cost certainty system that not only protects themselves against each other but provides them with an excuse or reason for not overpaying for players simply because of fan and media pressure to do so. Open up your eyes players-Goodenow, the game needs you to concede your position if we ever hope to move forward and revive the NHL as we know it.

They need to be protected from themselves?? Does anyone else see the problem with this statement. They need excuses and reasons not to overpay for players?? This statement is even worse. The only excuse you should need is that the player isn't worth the salary they're asking for. I think if the owners started to admit that they got themselves into the situation just as much as the players...things might start to move forward. If teams like Boston didn't sign Marty Lapointe, or the Rangers & Holik, or Carolina signing Fedorov to an offer sheet and I can't remember who signed Sakic to that offer sheet...those teams started the league down a slippery slope. I think the players have already admitted that there is financial problems in the league...they're not contesting it (just the exact numbers...which can be altered to make the league look better or worse depending on which accounting practices are used). They just don't feel that a cap is needed to solve the economic problems. And I tend to agree with them because I've seen what can be done in baseball with an owner that maintains a budget for player payroll. That's why I don't feel sympathy for rich owners (people that have more money than the players) who are complaining about player costs. They had all the power to control their own spending and they screwed up. In other business circles, if you can't control your spending and it exceeds your revenues for a long time...you end up going out of business.

Teams are not legally allowed to collude so the CBA has to provide the protection that the game, the fans and the owners need.

Sure teams can't collude but that doesn't stop team owners from setting a budget every season. If they know they took in $25 million in revenue last season, setting a budget at $25 million for player costs would make sense to any normal business person. Sure the budget will be different in different markets but so what? It costs you more to live in NY than it does in North Carolina (for instance)...why do you think in certain parts of the US they pay more salary for the same exact job?? Although I myself actually took less money for my current job, I felt that I would be treated better and the other benefits would be better. Maybe the teams need to start looking for ways other than money to entice the players...stock options anyone I know from my work that even the budget can be flexible depending on the situation and how the extra expenditure can benefit the rest of the company.

The Marlins won the World Series in baseball with a budget of less than one half of the Yankees. The owner has slightly increased the budget for the team but it often has its effects on the team (like losing Pudge last season because he wanted $10 million/yr...the Marlins weren't going to overpay for him). But the team is still competitive and retained most of the key players. And they always give fair offers to their FAs and attempt to re-sign them. But no matter what you do, most players are going to be more influenced by the almighty dollar than loyalty to a city or team.

 

[SENSible1*]

But no matter what you do, most players are going to be more influenced by the almighty dollar than loyalty to a city or team.

So set up a system that allows all teams to offer similar money.

 

[eye]

Sure the owners take the financial risk but without the players there isn't a product to sell and the players take risks too...with their health. The relationship between the 2 are mutual...a partnership.
They need to be protected from themselves?? Does anyone else see the problem with this statement. They need excuses and reasons not to overpay for players?? This statement is even worse. The only excuse you should need is that the player isn't worth the salary they're asking for. I think if the owners started to admit that they got themselves into the situation just as much as the players...things might start to move forward. If teams like Boston didn't sign Marty Lapointe, or the Rangers & Holik, or Carolina signing Fedorov to an offer sheet and I can't remember who signed Sakic to that offer sheet...those teams started the league down a slippery slope. I think the players have already admitted that there is financial problems in the league...they're not contesting it (just the exact numbers...which can be altered to make the league look better or worse depending on which accounting practices are used). They just don't feel that a cap is needed to solve the economic problems. And I tend to agree with them because I've seen what can be done in baseball with an owner that maintains a budget for player payroll. That's why I don't feel sympathy for rich owners (people that have more money than the players) who are complaining about player costs. They had all the power to control their own spending and they screwed up. In other business circles, if you can't control your spending and it exceeds your revenues for a long time...you end up going out of business.
Sure teams can't collude but that doesn't stop team owners from setting a budget every season. If they know they took in $25 million in revenue last season, setting a budget at $25 million for player costs would make sense to any normal business person. Sure the budget will be different in different markets but so what? It costs you more to live in NY than it does in North Carolina (for instance)...why do you think in certain parts of the US they pay more salary for the same exact job?? Although I myself actually took less money for my current job, I felt that I would be treated better and the other benefits would be better. Maybe the teams need to start looking for ways other than money to entice the players...stock options anyone I know from my work that even the budget can be flexible depending on the situation and how the extra expenditure can benefit the rest of the company.

The Marlins won the World Series in baseball with a budget of less than one half of the Yankees. The owner has slightly increased the budget for the team but it often has its effects on the team (like losing Pudge last season because he wanted $10 million/yr...the Marlins weren't going to overpay for him). But the team is still competitive and retained most of the key players. And they always give fair offers to their FAs and attempt to re-sign them. But no matter what you do, most players are going to be more influenced by the almighty dollar than loyalty to a city or team.

Are you a player, a player's parent/spouse or a Leafs fan? You are missing the point totally. The Leafs would have been next in line for Holik and Kaspairitis. it's what fans demanded. Owners and Bettman have acknowledged making mistakes in the past and want to move forward with a better system that is fair to all of their 30 partners in the game. Why continue to point fingers of blame for things in the past - It's getting us nowhere. Overwhelming public opinion is seldom wrong and the players and the NHLPA will have to concede in order for this to move forward. The owners would be destroyed if they caved now after gaining all the support that they have to date. The pubic want the players to return to a world of realitiy and to allow owners and the NHL to operate in a more fiscally responsible manner and they need a CBA that allows for that. Agnets/Lawyers will take advantage of anything less or any type of compromised proposals that the PA have considered to be reasonable. Goodenow has sold the players/agents a load of crap. I can't believe they have bought into it and after when they all claim they were ambushed and their pay and benefits are cut in half because there won't be enough fans or corporate sponsorship left - don't come crying on this board.

 

[YellHockey*]

Owners and Bettman have acknowledged making mistakes in the past and want to move forward with a better system that is fair to all of their 30 partners in the game. Why continue to point fingers of blame for things in the past - It's getting us nowhere.

Wrong. It's the ridiculous notion that the owners couldn't control their spending if they tried that is costing us a season of hockey.

The NHL wants a system where they don't have to be smart to make money. Why not just fire the idiots who don't know how to run a team and get on with the season?

Overwhelming public opinion is seldom wrong and the players and the NHLPA will have to concede in order for this to move forward.

Wrong again. The public is, on a whole, pretty damn stupid. Especially when they're being manipulated by a bunch of billionaires.

Goodenow has sold the players/agents a load of crap. I can't believe they have bought into it and after when they all claim they were ambushed and their pay and benefits are cut in half because there won't be enough fans or corporate sponsorship left - don't come crying on this board.

The one who is selling a load of crap is Bettman. He's lied and used half-truths to manipulate the public into accepting this idiotic work stoppage.

Goodenow has used Bettman's dishonesty to unite the players against the greedy owners.

 

[SENSible1*]

Wrong. It's the ridiculous notion that the owners couldn't control their spending if they tried that is costing us a season of hockey.

The NHL wants a system where they don't have to be smart to make money. Why not just fire the idiots who don't know how to run a team and get on with the season?

Wrong again. The public is, on a whole, pretty damn stupid. Especially when they're being manipulated by a bunch of billionaires.

The one who is selling a load of crap is Bettman. He's lied and used half-truths to manipulate the public into accepting this idiotic work stoppage.

Goodenow has used Bettman's dishonesty to unite the players against the greedy owners.

Given that you assume that people, other than yourself, are "generally stupid" and given that it only takes a few "stupid" GM's to cause a salary spiral such as we have seen in the past decade, it logically makes sense for the owners to make the system "idiot-proof" until they can find 30 people as intelligent as yourself.

Perhaps you should consider the fact that some of the "stupid" GM's were actually making smart business decisions, based on their individual market. As soon as they attempt to make decisions based on the league wide implications of their actions, they are guilty of collusion. The problem is not the people within the system being flawed, though some certainly do make foolish decisions, but even if they were perfect the system itself is flawed.

If you prefer to have a league which featured 8-10 teams, all with the same relative market size and revenue streams, then the current CBA would probably be successful. However, if you want to maintain the league at anywhere near its current size, a radical change from the current CBA is necessary.

Sorry if your massive intellect failed to note this simple and obvious fact, but don't be angry at the general public for seeing something you have either overlooked or choose to ignore to satisfy an agenda.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

My only issues with a cap once again, are as follows:

1. No matter how you look at it, a salary cap more than anything is punishment for a team that has developed a large market. Philadelphia, Toronto, New York, Detroit, etc....shouldn't be penalized because they have the market to support a wealthy and competitive hockey team. They shouldn't be penalized because they have top notch corporate support either.

2. No matter how you look at it, a salary cap more than anything will ensure that poorly run franchises will turn a profit. Why should a bad owner who does nothing to improve his team be rewarded for that by drawing huge profits. To me as a fan, that's an insult that an owner who continues to make bad mistakes be allowed to draw profit. We often hear about owners being penalized for going over the cap, but what about owners being penalized for having a bad product? It's funny you don't hear how mismanaged organizations aren't being punished.

3. The players have agreed that they are willing to cover half the losses the owners are stating they are losing. Why should the players be responsible to cover the entire losses by the owners? Why is it that owners are never held responsible for the sky rocketing costs of sports? Why is it that when it comes to discussing how salaries are out of control, people are quick to point the finger at players, but no one is willing to point the finger at organizations like the New York Rangers for blowing things out of the water?

See, no matter how you look at it, a salary cap will keep irresponsible organizations irresponsible and with no reprecussions for their irresponsibility. Organizations who are responsible with money, drafting, trading and signing free agents are penalized for being responsible. I'm sorry, but as a Flyers fan, I don't feel the need for my team to keep organizations like Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, Washington, etc....all afloat because their owners at one time or another ran the organizations in the ground or did not draft and trade properly or responsibly.

 

[SENSible1*]

My only issues with a cap once again, are as follows:

1. No matter how you look at it, a salary cap more than anything is punishment for a team that has developed a large market. Philadelphia, Toronto, New York, Detroit, etc....shouldn't be penalized because they have the market to support a wealthy and competitive hockey team. They shouldn't be penalized because they have top notch corporate support either.

I'm not sure that you could convince the owners of those franchises that the windfall profits a cap would bring is a form of punishment. Now if the cap is coupled with meaningful revenue sharing, then I think you might have a case, but I'm betting the owners are taking a longer term view of it than any fan of those teams who just wants to see his team maintain its spending advantage.

2. No matter how you look at it, a salary cap more than anything will ensure that poorly run franchises will turn a profit. Why should a bad owner who does nothing to improve his team be rewarded for that by drawing huge profits. To me as a fan, that's an insult that an owner who continues to make bad mistakes be allowed to draw profit. We often hear about owners being penalized for going over the cap, but what about owners being penalized for having a bad product? It's funny you don't hear how mismanaged organizations aren't being punished.

It's really quite amazing how far from the truth you are here. A cap would reward the best run teams and punish the poorly run teams. With all teams having equal resources to spend on talent, those who did it the best would be rewared with wins and therefore fans in the stands.

3. The players have agreed that they are willing to cover half the losses the owners are stating they are losing. Why should the players be responsible to cover the entire losses by the owners? Why is it that owners are never held responsible for the sky rocketing costs of sports? Why is it that when it comes to discussing how salaries are out of control, people are quick to point the finger at players, but no one is willing to point the finger at organizations like the New York Rangers for blowing things out of the water?

Most cappers point their finger squarely at the Rangers and other big markets for pricing talent out of the range of many teams.

See, no matter how you look at it, a salary cap will keep irresponsible organizations irresponsible and with no reprecussions for their irresponsibility. Organizations who are responsible with money, drafting, trading and signing free agents are penalized for being responsible. I'm sorry, but as a Flyers fan, I don't feel the need for my team to keep organizations like Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, Washington, etc....all afloat because their owners at one time or another ran the organizations in the ground or did not draft and trade properly or responsibly.

The Rangers were the most irresponsible team around under the old CBA and continued to have one of the highest revenue streams. How could you fail to note the disconnect, even when citing them as an example?
At least cost certainty wouldn't allow them to screw things up for everyone else when they make another blunder of a signing.

The Flyers are a prime example of a team who has forced the rest of the league to pay for Clarke's mistakes and consistently tried to spend their way out of problems instead of properly running an organization.

I understand the reason you don't want to see the Flyers lose this competitive edge, but unfortunately for you, the Flyers vote will count the same as one of Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, Washington, etc... when push comes to shove.

 

[mudcrutch79]

My only issues with a cap once again, are as follows:

1. No matter how you look at it, a salary cap more than anything is punishment for a team that has developed a large market. Philadelphia, Toronto, New York, Detroit, etc....shouldn't be penalized because they have the market to support a wealthy and competitive hockey team. They shouldn't be penalized because they have top notch corporate support either.

I've explained in other threads why saying Toronto has top notch corporate support is laughable. It's a function of the Canadian economy, more than anything else. Canadian companies, by and large, tend to be headquartered in Toronto, even though they make their money all across the company. Why should Toronto get to benefit while other Canadian cities get screwed?

3. The players have agreed that they are willing to cover half the losses the owners are stating they are losing. Why should the players be responsible to cover the entire losses by the owners? Why is it that owners are never held responsible for the sky rocketing costs of sports? Why is it that when it comes to discussing how salaries are out of control, people are quick to point the finger at players, but no one is willing to point the finger at organizations like the New York Rangers for blowing things out of the water?

The players are allowed to collude by choosing who goes to arbitration and who doesn't. When one idiot owner makes a stupid deal, like Pronger or Kariya, it screws all of the other teams over. Do you think that the players are willing to do away with arbitration? You don't think that the Rangers get the finger pointed at them? Look at some of the threads when they sign people-they get a truckload of blame.

See, no matter how you look at it, a salary cap will keep irresponsible organizations irresponsible and with no reprecussions for their irresponsibility. Organizations who are responsible with money, drafting, trading and signing free agents are penalized for being responsible. I'm sorry, but as a Flyers fan, I don't feel the need for my team to keep organizations like Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, Washington, etc....all afloat because their owners at one time or another ran the organizations in the ground or did not draft and trade properly or responsibly.

This is a little rich coming from a fan of a team that traded 3 draft picks and a top prospect for 14 games of Adam Oates. That's hardly a trade that makes any sense at all. Of course it's a little easier to take when you realize that the prospects are irrelevant, because Bobby Clarke has a limitless budget. Me, I'm upset that CBC is spending $250 million over 5 years for the rights to televise NHL games in Canada, and Canadian teams have to share it with the American teams. If teams like the Rangers, Detroit and Philly aren't enough to attract a national deal in the US, why should Canadian money subsidize them?

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Are you a player, a player's parent/spouse or a Leafs fan? You are missing the point totally. The Leafs would have been next in line for Holik and Kaspairitis. it's what fans demanded. Owners and Bettman have acknowledged making mistakes in the past and want to move forward with a better system that is fair to all of their 30 partners in the game. Why continue to point fingers of blame for things in the past - It's getting us nowhere. Overwhelming public opinion is seldom wrong and the players and the NHLPA will have to concede in order for this to move forward. The owners would be destroyed if they caved now after gaining all the support that they have to date. The pubic want the players to return to a world of realitiy and to allow owners and the NHL to operate in a more fiscally responsible manner and they need a CBA that allows for that. Agnets/Lawyers will take advantage of anything less or any type of compromised proposals that the PA have considered to be reasonable. Goodenow has sold the players/agents a load of crap. I can't believe they have bought into it and after when they all claim they were ambushed and their pay and benefits are cut in half because there won't be enough fans or corporate sponsorship left - don't come crying on this board.

Why would you even ask if I were a player, player's parent/spouse, or a Leafs fan? What does it have to do with anything? (though I'm none of the above...just an average sports fan). Just because the fans demanded Holik that means the Leafs had to stop using its collective brain and bid on a player not worth the contract he was looking for. And the organization should say that they think he's not worth what he's asking for so the fans understand why they didn't go after him as hard. Fan pressure may be a factor in the way the Leafs do business but its not that way for the entire league.

This "overwhelming public opinion" doesn't seem to exist in every market. There's been plenty of commentaries that I've read & heard regarding the NHL lockout which make the point that the fans are just don't care enough that there isn't any hockey right now. In Canada, I bet that there is overwhelming public opinion for the owners but unfortunately there's also the rest of the league in the States where public opinion is luke warm for the most part.

You want to say that there's no need to point fingers anymore but the title of the thread says the players need to concede the point. You're asking the players to point to themselves as the problem and its not...its a combination of factors. And why would the owners be destroyed if they caved now (better yet, why is it that they would be "caving" if they start discussing plans other than a cap)?? They don't have as much support as you think they do. And these are still VERY rich people we're talking about that may run a deficit in the hockey operations but tend to run a surplus in operations that are semi-related to the hockey operations (the one piece of the Forbes report that I think is important).

The agents & lawyers will always find ways to take advantage of any system that is put into place. I think the owners will eventually realize that there will never be a hard cap and that's the only plan that doesn't have loopholes to exploit. So I think both sides need to start compromising. Without the players, the league is pointless...without the league, the players are pointless. This symbiotic relationship may already be beyond repair unless Bettman and Goodenow can get over themselves (will never happen) or both are fired.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

This is a little rich coming from a fan of a team that traded 3 draft picks and a top prospect for 14 games of Adam Oates. That's hardly a trade that makes any sense at all. Of course it's a little easier to take when you realize that the prospects are irrelevant, because Bobby Clarke has a limitless budget.

Actually, the Oates trade was made out of necessity. Simply put, both Roenick and Primeau went down with injury in the same game. The Flyers were in a bind and they needed a centerman. Oates was being shopped by the Capitals. Did the Flyers overpay? Yes they did. However, when you consider that the Blackhawks were in the bidding for Oates at the same time and they were willing to give up Calder and a 1st for him, the Flyers needed to do something. What you also fail to mention was that the Flyers could afford to give up the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks thanks to a deal with Phoenix in which they acquired draft picks for Daymond Langkow. So, the Flyers never really gave much away. And seeing as to how they had gotten Oates with 14 games left in the season, it wasn't as if they were adding on a salary of great wealth to the team. When the season ended, the Flyers ended up dealing for Handzus, and that made Oates expendible. Hitch said it best that he didn't think that a centerman of Oates' credentials was meant to play a third line role. That was why Oates left. Anyways, the point being made is that the Flyers made the trade out of necessity and used spare parts to make the trade. Now for the next question, what have those draft picks gone on to be? And more importantly, who did Philadelphia draft that year? Oh yeah that's right, they ended up with the fourth overall choice and drafted Joni Pitkanen. Asset management was what made the trade possible.

As for Bobby working with an unlimited budget. Once again, wrong. Ed Snider sets forth a budget for the team every year. The budget comes from TV and ticket sales and the Flyers do well with both. When you consider that they are in the top five with regards to revenue generation, you're right, they can afford more than most teams. But once again, that begs the question why should the Flyers be penalized for putting together a strong team because they generate a lot of money. And before you even go on about the Rangers, the difference between the Flyers and the Rangers is simply put, the Flyers know how to spend money wisely. While the Leclair contract might be something people point at, let the truth be told that John played well under market value for years and that if anything, this contract was a contract in which John was rewarded for loyalty and service.

As for the Rangers, you're right. I don't see why they should benefit with regards to having a bad team and continue to make money. That is something that I have a hard time comprehending. However, once again, when you consider that they do really well revenue generation wise, you can't fault them for that. I do think though that something needs to be done with an organization that has spent money foolishly and hasn't done a good job asset wise. I'm of the firm belief that you should never be rewarded a high draft pick because your team sucks. And maybe that might be one thing the NHL should look at if they're going to implement a cap. If your team isn't competitive or if you've improperly managed your team, then you don't have the right to benefit by getting a high draft choice. Maybe we'll eventually see all teams get on the same page and eventually we can have a competitive league. Until then, nothing will change.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The onwers take the risk .. /QUOTE]

Risk? You mean like putting body on the line every game? Ask Bryan Berard about risks. Ask Steve Yzerman about risk.

 

[BLONG7]

The onwers take the risk .. /QUOTE]

Risk? You mean like putting body on the line every game? Ask Bryan Berard about risks. Ask Steve Yzerman about risk.

The players have physical risk... and they always get paid!!! The owners have financial risk... and they usually lose money...

 

[gary69]

If you prefer to have a league which featured 8-10 teams, all with the same relative market size and revenue streams, then the current CBA would probably be successful.

It would be great if NHL could start over with high quality 8-10 teams league and then accept new teams to the league only if they can be expected to be very likely to produce revenues close to already existing teams in a few years.

Maybe they could be even be allowed a loan from the already existing teams, let's say for 5 years, to help them get through the growing period. But if they are not in line with the other teams in 10 years, then so long. Same goes for every team, old or new, if they can't produce close to compareable revenues, then obviously they are in the wrong league. That would be real financial risk for owners.

And a prerequisite for entering the league would be to agree not to complain about their own incompetence to produce revenues, sell their product to fans etc. and under no circumstances to demand money from other teams. So even if some owner wants to be in the league despite clearly not being of the league standard, they can't COMPLAIN, it is their choice.

But unfortunately until NHL actually starts anew, the fans and owners of those good enough 8-10 teams (or whatever number) have to listen the complaints of crap owners and crap fans from crap hockey markets, who are not willing to invest enough money to be on the level of this league. The willingness and ability of an owner and fans to have a top league team is reflected in the number of people who are willing to buy high priced tickets, not in the number of owners and fans who are willing to hire cheap labor and buy underpriced tickets i.e. fans who want to have high-standard hockey and entertainment but want other people and teams to pay it for them.

 

[AM]

Very Amusing

Given that you assume that people, other than yourself, are "generally stupid" and given that it only takes a few "stupid" GM's to cause a salary spiral such as we have seen in the past decade, it logically makes sense for the owners to make the system "idiot-proof" until they can find 30 people as intelligent as yourself.

Perhaps you should consider the fact that some of the "stupid" GM's were actually making smart business decisions, based on their individual market. As soon as they attempt to make decisions based on the league wide implications of their actions, they are guilty of collusion. The problem is not the people within the system being flawed, though some certainly do make foolish decisions, but even if they were perfect the system itself is flawed.

If you prefer to have a league which featured 8-10 teams, all with the same relative market size and revenue streams, then the current CBA would probably be successful. However, if you want to maintain the league at anywhere near its current size, a radical change from the current CBA is necessary.

Sorry if your massive intellect failed to note this simple and obvious fact, but don't be angry at the general public for seeing something you have either overlooked or choose to ignore to satisfy an agenda.

You should just copy and paste this to every thread.

Yes, I'm sick of all the player appologists on this forum.

 

[YellHockey*]

Given that you assume that people, other than yourself, are "generally stupid"

Wrong again, as always. I don't assume that people are stupid. I do believe that the public in general is pretty ignorant. If the public in general was smart I doubt that fast food would be on every street corner, pop culture wouldn't be controlled by media manipulation and the NHL wouldn't have widespread support for its lockout.

and given that it only takes a few "stupid" GM's to cause a salary spiral such as we have seen in the past decade, it logically makes sense for the owners to make the system "idiot-proof" until they can find 30 people as intelligent as yourself.

Why not come up with a solution that punishes dumb GM's that cause salary spirals instead of punishing the players and the fans?

Perhaps you should consider the fact that some of the "stupid" GM's were actually making smart business decisions, based on their individual market. As soon as they attempt to make decisions based on the league wide implications of their actions, they are guilty of collusion. The problem is not the people within the system being flawed, though some certainly do make foolish decisions, but even if they were perfect the system itself is flawed.

How is the system flawed? What needs to be fixed? And why?

If you prefer to have a league which featured 8-10 teams, all with the same relative market size and revenue streams, then the current CBA would probably be successful. However, if you want to maintain the league at anywhere near its current size, a radical change from the current CBA is necessary.

Why? The top markets don't have an advantage under the CBA of old.

Sorry if your massive intellect failed to note this simple and obvious fact, but don't be angry at the general public for seeing something you have either overlooked or choose to ignore to satisfy an agenda.

Just keep drinking the owner's koolaid. I'm sure it washes the blue pill down really well. Maybe one day you'll take the red pill though and it'll open your eyes.

 

[djhn579]

The onwers take the risk .. /QUOTE]

Risk? You mean like putting body on the line every game? Ask Bryan Berard about risks. Ask Steve Yzerman about risk.

The players have been playing hockey since they were very young without worrying too much about that risk. The players will play in pick up games without worrying about the risk (Ask Afinogenov about playing in pick up games and not wearing a helmet...). The players will play in other leagues for considerably less money without worrying about the risks. When the players are done with the NHL, they will continue to play in other leagues without worrying too much about the risk and without the pay. Obviously the physical risk is not that much of a problem for the players.


Now let's talk about losing a mil $ or two. I would be upset about losing $50, let alone a million... How about you?

 

[SENSible1*]

Wrong again, as always. I don't assume that people are stupid. I do believe that the public in general is pretty ignorant. If the public in general was smart I doubt that fast food would be on every street corner, pop culture wouldn't be controlled by media manipulation and the NHL wouldn't have widespread support for its lockout.

Posted just today by the one true intellect amoung us:

The public is, on a whole, pretty damn stupid.

The public is, on a whole, pretty damn stupid.

The public is, on a whole, pretty damn stupid.

Care to explain again how "I don't assume that people are stupid" in light of your own words just scant minutes prior?

Why not come up with a solution that punishes dumb GM's that cause salary spirals instead of punishing the players and the fans?

Smart GM's, making decisions that make perfect sense FOR THEIR MARKET, cause the salary spiral. If they attempt to make decision that make the most sense FOR THE ENTIRE LEAGUE, then the players charge them with collusion.

I know this is one of the BASIC FACTS that you would prefer to ignore, but don't be angry that the "damn stupid" public continues to point out this reality and support the owners because of it.

Why? The top markets don't have an advantage under the CBA of old.

Play devil's advocate on someone else's time. Their advantage is clear and well documented.

Just keep drinking the owner's koolaid. I'm sure it washes the blue pill down really well. Maybe one day you'll take the red pill though and it'll open your eyes.

I can fully respect the NHLPA, players and agents fighting to keep their disproportionate share of the pie. I can also fully respect fans of big market teams fighting to keep the advantage their wallets provide.

Both are motivated by common human greed and as long as they are honest enough to admit this fact, then more power to them and good luck. (they'll need it)

You however, are worthy of zero respect and should just do us all a favour by sparing us your condescending crap. It's painfully obvious that you either have an agenda/vested interest in supporting the NHLPA or just enjoy being argumentative.

We aren't too "damn stupid" to see through you, your act, or the falseness of your arguements, so give it a rest.

 

[YellHockey*]

Care to explain again how "I don't assume that people are stupid" in light of your own words just scant minutes prior?

I'm going to use a pretty simple analogy here. So simple that even someone as logically deprived as you can understand it.

If I were to say that Ottawa, on average, is a pretty cold place (which it is because it is one of the coldest capitals in the world) doesn't mean that I believe every day in Ottawa is going to be cold.

Smart GM's, making decisions that make perfect sense FOR THEIR MARKET, cause the salary spiral. If they attempt to make decision that make the most sense FOR THE ENTIRE LEAGUE, then the players charge them with collusion.

Smart GM's make decisions based upon their team, not their market. Based upon the team, the GM is given a budget. A budget is not collusion. The GM then pays the player the market rate. Paying the market rate is not collusion.

I know this is one of the BASIC FACTS that you would prefer to ignore, but don't be angry that the "damn stupid" public continues to point out this reality and support the owners because of it.

It's not a fact. It's a misguided opinion of a person who has to resort to snide comments instead of logic or reason.

No matter how many times you say stupid things, it isn't going to magically make them smart.

Play devil's advocate on someone else's time. Their advantage is clear and well documented.

Yes. The Rangers and Maple Leafs are the dominant teams in the NHL. Small markets like Calgary and Tampa Bay have no chance.

Mmmmmmmmmmm green koolaid tastes good.

I can fully respect the NHLPA, players and agents fighting to keep their disproportionate share of the pie. I can also fully respect fans of big market teams fighting to keep the advantage their wallets provide.

Disproportionate according to who? To you?

You however, are worthy of zero respect and should just do us all a favour by sparing us your condescending crap. It's painfully obvious that you either have an agenda/vested interest in supporting the NHLPA or just enjoy being argumentative.

I'm just passing out red pills.

I have no interest other then wanting to see my favourite team play hockey this year. Especially since they're one of the favourites to win the Cup if hockey ever returns. Oh wait, that can't be. They're one of the smallest markets in the NHL. Those teams can't have a hope in hell without a new CBA.

We aren't too "damn stupid" to see through you, your act, or the falseness of your arguements, so give it a rest.

I don't have an act and my arguments are true. Only the damn stupid would think otherwise.

 

[SENSible1*]

I'm going to use a pretty simple analogy here. So simple that even someone as logically deprived as you can understand it.

If I were to say that Ottawa, on average, is a pretty cold place (which it is because it is one of the coldest capitals in the world) doesn't mean that I believe every day in Ottawa is going to be cold.

Nice try on the escape route, too bad it had nothing to do with your quotes.

I never claimed that you said EVERYONE was stupid, just MOST of us poor ignorants, waiting for the wise one to dispense a "red pill".

Guess I'm not logically deprived enough to fall for that poor attempt at misdirection or perhaps your not nearly as clever as you believe.

Smart GM's make decisions based upon their team, not their market. Based upon the team, the GM is given a budget. A budget is not collusion. The GM then pays the player the market rate. Paying the market rate is not collusion.

The marketplace for players is set league wide.

The team's maximum budget is set locally based on the revenue generating ability of their individual market and/or the willingness of the owner to sustain losses over and above the revenue generated.

"Smart GM's" acting within their budget make decisions which inflate the market value of all "comparable" players.

When the league wide marketplace places a player beyond the budget of a team, a "smart GM" will be UNABLE TO PAY THE MARKET RATE no matter how smart he is. At that time he is forced to move the asset; usually disrupting team chemisty and leadership by replacing a proven NHL with younger assets he hopes can fill the void.

We are all aware of this trend and unfortunately, painfully aware that you will continue to be obtuse by ignoring/denying it.

It's not a fact. It's a misguided opinion of a person who has to resort to snide comments instead of logic or reason.

Laughable at best considering your conduct in this thread alone.

No matter how many times you say stupid things, it isn't going to magically make them smart.

If you would only adopt this as your personal mantra, your posts would be significantly improved.

Yes. The Rangers and Maple Leafs are the dominant teams in the NHL. Small markets like Calgary and Tampa Bay have no chance.

Mmmmmmmmmmm green koolaid tastes good.

How often have Tampa and Calgary;

a) made the playoffs in the past 10 years?

b) made it past the first round in the past 10 years?

Now answer the same questions for the Maple Leafs, Red Wings, Avalanche, Blues, Flyers and Rangers.

What flavour koolaid is Goodenow serving these days?

Disproportionate according to who? To you?

Funny, even your hero Bob has the boys are offering some wage rollbacks. Guess he hasn't had the pleasure of getting the red pill from you just yet.

I'm just passing out red pills.

I have no interest other then wanting to see my favourite team play hockey this year. Especially since they're one of the favourites to win the Cup if hockey ever returns. Oh wait, that can't be. They're one of the smallest markets in the NHL. Those teams can't have a hope in hell without a new CBA.

How quickly they forget!

I don't have an act and my arguments are true. Only the damn stupid would think otherwise.

You act is pathetic. Your arguments mainly consist of "white is black/black is white" to get a reaction, followed closely by a series of insults when someone calls you on your BS.

Frankly your not really worth the effort, but I'm bored these days, so you'll have to do until something better comes along.

 

[thinkwild]

How often have Tampa and Calgary;

a) made the playoffs in the past 10 years?

b) made it past the first round in the past 10 years?

Seeing what you;ve seen, how can you now attribute that lack of success to money? Doesnt it seem you were missing something? Calgary did sign Iginla. Calgary did have success. TB did sign all their players. Both teams did find free agents that worked and were in their budget. Neither team needed a bushel of the teams highest paid players. Both could keep their players a long time and develop a team as hard to knock off as Colorado, Detroit, and NJ of the last decade. And if either continues the playoff success, they will match all the bonus playoff revenue those teams had at their disposal to maintain their teams. And until another team young enough and properly developed to greatness comes along they will be the contenders.

In fact these teams have followed the same model that has worked for championship teams for decades now.

Afraid of striving for greatness? Dont you love watching the great matchups in the playoffs of the greatest teams, even if your team is several years of development away from getting their hopefully? Every team has the equality of opportunity now to develop that team.

 

[jpsharkfan]

Here is a link to a great article from The Hockey News. It addresses the exact subject of the thread title. Best of all it is not biased.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/en/headlines/detail.asp?id=26028&cat=954869803932