Frustration with NHLPA...

[Seachd]

it's very relevant, you blame the players for what the OWNERS did & you expect the players to fix what the owners did & you think it's the players screwing the fan for the non-negotiation of the CBA.

By the way it's not only ''some'' owner, it's a majority of owner who messed up & they won't fix the problem by putting a gun with water in it & saying : ''IT'S A HARD CAP or nothing ! ''.

You're not giving the players near enough credit for screwing this up. Do you honestly think that all the players would be content if the average salary was still under $1 million? That we'd all be holding hands and it would be raining jellybeans? The owners did their part of negociation by raising salaries over time. The players did their part by demanding the same. Yeah, the owners were probably overly generous.

That doesn't mean salaries should just keep escalating. The owners are still being generous by proposing a deal that will put the average salary at $1.3 million, just down from $1.8 million.

If I'm getting paid way too much for what I do in the first place, and my salary has tripled in the past few years, I'm not going to hold out for more unless I'm greedy. That's what the players are doing, and that's what they are.

And the players are doing the same thing, by saying it's a useless luxury tax or nothing.

 

[MS]

What matters is getting the league to a point where the owners can all be profitable.

That is impossible. Although I agree it's what the owners seem to want.

There are several NHL teams in poor hockey markets where they can't draw flies unless the team is a cup contender. There are several other teams that are losing money due to years of rotten management and losing hockey. Do these poorly-run organizations really deserve to be making a profit?

At any given point, 20-25 teams should be making a profit. The worst organizations in the league (Carolina, Florida, Anaheim, Washington, etc) should not in the state they're in right now and with the decision's they've made.

Obviously there should be some market correction. But that correction should not be to the level that every organization in the league makes money no matter how poorly they're run and how many games they lose.

 

[Russian Fan]

You're not giving the players near enough credit for screwing this up. Do you honestly think that all the players would be content if the average salary was still under $1 million? That we'd all be holding hands and it would be raining jellybeans? The owners did their part of negociation by raising salaries over time. The players did their part by demanding the same. Yeah, the owners were probably overly generous.

That doesn't mean salaries should just keep escalating. The owners are still being generous by proposing a deal that will put the average salary at $1.3 million, just down from $1.8 million.

If I'm getting paid way too much for what I do in the first place, and my salary has tripled in the past few years, I'm not going to hold out for more unless I'm greedy. That's what the players are doing, and that's what they are.

And the players are doing the same thing, by saying it's a useless luxury tax or nothing.

I don't know how old you are but in the 70's , 80's even if the early 90's that was exactly that. Owners not making any compromise, making tons of profit while a player had a hard time justifying a raise.

again what 1,3M$ et 1,8M$ means alone ? NOTHING !!

Players salaries goes up because the revenues goes up. The problems is that the owner hired GM's that didn't look at the financial part, they just looked at having a good team.

Players never said it's a luxury tax or nothing. They would like in their dream world, no tax & everything goes up like the owners with a cap of 31M$. Instead they propose the luxury tax that with this the market will go down a bit (MLB just show a 3% decrease on year 1 of the CBA) & the taxe will be spread to the small market team? how is that profitable for the players concretely ? don't tell me it's profitable because it's not a cap. The cap never existed.

The 5% paycut is also a paycut like it or not maybe you want to make it look like it's nothing because 5% of 1,000,000$ is 50,000$ so those players lose 50,000$ per 1 million but it's still a paycut that will give more than 100M$ less to the expense.

quick questions for you :

Do you believe the bank directors when they say they need to give the pink slip to people to make profit ?

Do you believe your boss when they tell you that if they give you a 2% raise it could make the company suffer ? Do you believe your boss when they give you more work hours for the same salary because they need to restructure the company to not make deficits ?

If so , then maybe I understand why you think the owners need you.

 

[Seachd]

I'm not sure there's much to respond to in your post. The NHLPA proposal was a joke 15 months ago, and it's even more of one now. If it was in any way good for the league, they would have accepted it.

 

[Russian Fan]

What matters is getting the league to a point where the owners can all be profitable.

Are you serious ? Where do you live ? Saturn ? Mars ?

Send me a company where I can put my money somewhere & making profits without caring of the management & how they intend to do it & I'll sign you a check right away.

I have a company years ago, I invest 10,000$ & nowhere it's says , you will make 10,000$ for sure. I had to work hard, I had to make decisions & not just easy decisions to make sure I'm gonna be successful.

If I make BAD DECISIONS, I DESERVE to lose money
If I make GOOD DECISIONS, I DESERVE to make money.

Now can you HONESTLY tell me that the 20-22 organisations that LOSS money in the NHL made ALL GOOD DECISIONS & they still lose money because of the CBA ?????

The owners hired mostly GM's that didn't care about the $$$$ they spend & those bad decision make the owners lose money & because of that the DESERVE to be where they are today & they have NO RIGHT whatsoever to dictate the next collective bargaining agreement like a dictator : ''It's OUR WAY or the HIGHWAY''.

There's 2 sides in this & the owners need to fix their problem in the context that they won't repair everything in 1 day.

 

[Russian Fan]

I'm not sure there's much to respond to in your post. The NHLPA proposal was a joke 15 months ago, and it's even more of one now. If it was in any way good for the league, they would have accepted it.

If I'm telling you, I'm willing to offer 1,05$ for you 1$ bill & in your mind you won't budge unless I offer 2$ for you dollar, will you accept even if you make 5 cents per dollar ?

Well that's the owner right now. They don't want to fix the problem piece by piece, they want to fix it with a new house, a new concept regardless of who lives in the house.

 

[habitual_hab]

There's one major problem with that. This isn't the real world. This is professional sports. It's different. And they know that coming in. The draft is one example. So normal jobs can't be used as a comparison.

Well, if that profit cap is set at zero, there would still be teams under it, including teams that sell out every game. Doesn't that suggest a bit of a problem?

Sorry, but the fundamentals of business do not change from industry to industry - the comparison is valid. And the draft is just one more concession from the players to the owners. Sidney Crosby should be able to put himself on the market just like anyone else.

And a luxury tax is a very workable system - if the powers that be put the bar lower than, say, what MLB has it at.

 

[Seachd]

If I'm telling you, I'm willing to offer 1,05$ for you 1$ bill & in your mind you won't budge unless I offer 2$ for you dollar, will you accept even if you make 5 cents per dollar?

But that's not what's happening. Yeah, the players are willing to give back a nickel for every dollar. But that doesn't mean the owners are making money. What good does a nickel back do when I'm losing a quarter? And when the players want a new contract, they'll demand their nickels back with another fifty cents, as history shows us. I don't see how that helps.

 

[habitual_hab]

You're not giving the players near enough credit for screwing this up. Do you honestly think that all the players would be content if the average salary was still under $1 million? That we'd all be holding hands and it would be raining jellybeans? The owners did their part of negociation by raising salaries over time. The players did their part by demanding the same. Yeah, the owners were probably overly generous.

That doesn't mean salaries should just keep escalating. The owners are still being generous by proposing a deal that will put the average salary at $1.3 million, just down from $1.8 million.

If I'm getting paid way too much for what I do in the first place, and my salary has tripled in the past few years, I'm not going to hold out for more unless I'm greedy. That's what the players are doing, and that's what they are.

And the players are doing the same thing, by saying it's a useless luxury tax or nothing.

How does the NHLPA control players' salaries when players' salaries are negotiated in good faith between owners' agents and players' agents on the premise of market value. The current CBA limits a players options of movements but it does not (rookie salary caps excluded), as far as I know, determine their salaries.

That being so, what's your point? That players are greedy because owners are willing to pay them ludicrous amounts? Twisted logic at best.

 

[Seachd]

That being so, what's your point? That players are greedy because owners are willing to pay them ludicrous amounts? Twisted logic at best.

No. They're greedy because now that their salaries have doubled or tripled in the last few years, they expect it to keep up like that.

Yeah, the owners paid them lots. Now they don't want to anymore, and the poor players don't like that.

It's like the parents that give their kid too much to eat. The parents notice there's a problem, so they cut him off, trying to put a stop to it. The kid bawls and throws hissy fits. The parents try to tell him that they made a mistake, and now they both have to try to get things back to normal. But the kid's crying so loud, he doesn't hear a word, and if he does, he doesn't care.

Why should players expect the owners to keep doubling their salaries if they don't want to?

 

[habitual_hab]

that doesn't mean the owners are making money.

The owners are losing money? The Levitt report states that the owners have lost something like $300 million dollars. But the Levitt report was commissioned by the owners and was only able to look at the books that the owners wanted him to look at.

If anyone truly believes the owners are losing as much as the Levitt report says it is then they're as stupid as Mike Danton.

 

[Seachd]

If anyone truly believes the owners are losing as much as the Levitt report says it is then they're as stupid as Mike Danton.

And the same can be said for people who think that they're bringing in so much hand over fist that there don't need to be changes. Naive.

 

[habitual_hab]

No. They're greedy because now that their salaries have doubled or tripled in the last few years, they expect it to keep up like that.

Yeah, the owners paid them lots. Now they don't want to anymore, and the poor players don't like that.

It's like the parents that give their kid too much to eat. The parents notice there's a problem, so they cut him off, trying to put a stop to it. The kid bawls and throws hissy fits. The parents try to tell him that they made a mistake, and now they both have to try to get things back to normal. But the kid's crying so loud, he doesn't hear a word, and if he does, he doesn't care.

Why should players expect the owners to keep doubling their salaries if they don't want to?

Please show me in the current CBA where it is that the CBA determines player salaries (other than the rookie salary cap). If the current CBA does not determine player salaries and, conversely, player salaries are determined by the open labour market then you are wrong, wrong, wrong and you have only the owners to blame.

 

[habitual_hab]

And the same can be said for people who think that they're bringing in so much hand over fist that there don't need to be changes. Naive.

Any reports that I have read state that the NHL is in trouble but not to the extent that the owners claim.

 

[Seachd]

Please show me in the current CBA where it is that the CBA determines player salaries (other than the rookie salary cap). If the current CBA does not determine player salaries and, conversely, player salaries are determined by the open labour market then you are wrong, wrong, wrong and you have only the owners to blame.

If market value = one owner, then that's true, because it only takes one team to sign a player. How did Holik get fair market value? Look at what 3rd liners make. It was much more than fair due to a GM getting carried away. And Holik laughs his way to the bank.

I don't have the owners to blame unless they continue as a whole on the same path. But it's obvious they don't want to anymore, the players shouldn't expect them to.

The whole $50 million dollar offer for the Ducks is speaking volumes right now.

 

[Seachd]

Any reports that I have read state that the NHL is in trouble but not to the extent that the owners claim.

But you just disagreed with me when I said the owners were losing money.

 

[Digger12]

Sidney Crosby should be able to put himself on the market just like anyone else.

What kind of sports league would it be if the top young players could simply go to the highest bidder once they turn 18?

I guess it'd be great if you wanted to shrink the NHL back to 6 teams again...

This is where sports differs from the 'real' world of business. If McDonald's put every other fast food chain out of business, it'd consider that a job well done.

If the NY Rangers put every other team in the NHL out of business (with the exception of 4 or 5 other teams), you'd have a joke league.

 

[Seachd]

And if the players want such a fair system, what do they have against performace-based pay? You can't get much fairer than that. Wait, I already know the answer to this one: If everything were based on performance, they'd be getting paid what they're worth. With the current system, they're getting paid more than they're worth, and they're happy milking every cent out of the owners at the expense of the league and the fans. And now that the owners want to stop it, the players can only pout.

 

[WrightOn]

Sorry, but the fundamentals of business do not change from industry to industry -

Yes they do. Fundamentals aren't at all the subject anyhow. Apples and oranges. This is way more in depth than your hot dog stand.

The other professional sports can't compare, and no business model is close. Hard one to argue with "I pay my people like this, why can't they!" or "This is what Michael Eisner would do!"

 

[justapantherfan]

Do you realize what you said is blame the player for a contract that a GM give to him & that GM was hired by an OWNER ???

I am not blaming players. I would take the money too, but if they had started it that way in start, we would be watching hockey now, not sitting here *****ing about who's fault it is. I am not sure that either the players or owners are at fault. Some of this blame needs to go to the agents who are more then likely telling thier clients lets see which one will pay us more and if we don't I will take you to another team and we will get it. I would play the game for half of what some of these players get. If I could get a 1 or 2 mil contract with perks to make me play the game. Oh boy where do I sign. Agents only see $$$$ and any true player would be happy to play and get paid so to speak.

 

[justapantherfan]

How is that relevant?

Okay, some of the owners messed up. How does that automatically turn the goal of the new CBA into screwing over the fans and driving the league into the ground?

Shouldn't they be trying to fix it?

That works also.

 

[justapantherfan]

The problem is if an owner doesn't go out on the market and spend, fans label them as cheap. Fans also tend to respond by NOT buying tickets to the games. Agents call these cheapskate owners out, even--or at least praise those that actually pay. An owner that doesn't spend is ALWAYS deemed cheap and unwilling to pay for a winner. Those are terms ALWAYS used by the NHLPA, player agents and players themselves. THEN, if they do spend they're labeled as dumb--eventually--when it's revealed just how badly the owner overpaid for said player. So, the owners really can't win, can they?

Look at the situation in L.A. If the Kings re-sign Palffy for more than market value, they appease their fans but they hurt the rest of the industry. If they let him walk away, fans will NOT be happy at all but at least the Kings will be doing the right thing, from a financial point of view at the very least. At the end of the day, the fans' perspective should be what counts most of all.

As far as a luxury tax goes, it's being proven in baseball that it DOES NOT work. Steinbrenner doesn't give a rat's behind about spending whatever it takes to keep a winning team on the field. The NHL's answer to Steinbrenner is Mike Ilitch. Do you think Ilitch would blink an eye about spending a little more if it meant adding more pieces to his puzzle? No chance. Luxury tax doesn't provide enough limits, which doesn't add to the strategic process of building a winning team. Furthermore, a luxury tax that doesn't come with a minimum would not force teams to spend at least a certain amount--which is also bad for business in the grand scheme of things.

Whether the solution is a cap on payrolls, or a cap on individual salaries, something is required to help the system out. Because fans demand competitive teams but the current revenue situation in the league is mediocre, at best. Not all owners know HOW to win, but they all WANT to win--even Boston.

The longer the players insist on no salary cap, the longer it's going to take. Putting more caps on the rookies is not going to cut it. In fact, I find it absurd that people have a problem with the bonus Rick Nash EARNED in 2003-04, but don't have a problem with the salary John LeClair stole this past season. The players want to get paid for time served, but THAT's what gets the market out of whack as much as anything else.

If the highest salaries belonged to the BEST players in the league, REGARDLESS of age and experience, the league would be thriving right now.

end of rant.

 

[justapantherfan]

Players salaries goes up because the revenues goes up. The problems is that the owner hired GM's that didn't look at the financial part, they just looked at having a good team.

So if a teams revenues goes down do the players salaries also?????

 

[Russian Fan]

So if a teams revenues goes down do the players salaries also?????

for sure !!

You think only the salaries did go up between 94 & 2004 ? Revenues did go up also that why it is what it is today.

 

[habitual_hab]

If market value = one owner, then that's true, because it only takes one team to sign a player. How did Holik get fair market value? Look at what 3rd liners make. It was much more than fair due to a GM getting carried away. And Holik laughs his way to the bank.

How did Holik get fair market value? Holik wanted a contract worth $9 million per season. The Rangers, Maple Leafs and Holik's former club the Devils got into a bidding war for his services.

Rather than reject Holik's salary demands, all three teams fell over each other trying to land him. The Leafs and Devils offered up $8 mil per season before the Rangers got him by agreeing to his demand for $9 mil per season.

Did Holik and his agent hold a gun to the collective heads of Glen Sather, Pat Quinn and Lou Lamoriello? No. Holik got what THREE teams deemed to be "fair market value".

So, how is the NHLPA is at fault for Holik's contract and the subsequent escalation of salaries?