Geeze the NFL GMs still can be stupid with a cap

Status
Not open for further replies.

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
thinkwild said:
I dunno, I got from that article, that like hockey, buying UFA's in football is more often than not a fools gambit that costs money and doesnt help you win. In other words, its not the advantage its made about to be, nor worth shutting down the game to prevent.

but its also harms other teams. team A buys ufa and gets no better, team b loses ufa and gets worse, team c can't fill a hole and stays vulnerable.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
Jester said:
excellent strategic move for them... i have read smewhere , that even if the NHLPA does have a case -- and given current politics in america they better have a STRONG case -- that the process could take forever from their end. years. in the meantime the NHL could operate as it wants.

i could be wrong about this, but that is what has been said by some. if that is the case... they're flushing down half their careers in order to make an extra few hundred thousand per year.

wise choice.
going to the court's is not what i would like to see - but what is gary doing? - it had to be the agenda all along - break the union - bring in other player's - every other league has done it i guess - why can't the owner's just negotiate a fair deal? -
 

Scheme

Registered User
Feb 14, 2003
284
0
Vancouver
Visit site
mr gib said:
going to the court's is not what i would like to see - but what is gary doing? - it had to be the agenda all along - break the union - bring in other player's - every other league has done it i guess - why can't the owner's just negotiate a fair deal? -

At this point, any deal with linkage (and both ways, not the BS one-way linkage the players want) is a fair deal.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Scheme said:
At this point, any deal with linkage (and both ways, not the BS one-way linkage the players want) is a fair deal.

at any point linkage is a fair deal. the players simply don't trust the owners numbers one bit, and for reasons that defy logic don't think that there is a method that could make them trust the numbers. NFL has worked it out... why can't the NHL?

neverminding that to suggest the owners first option was for this to go to court is absolutely idiotic. that was their option prior to accepting a CBA that didn't have a low enough cap, or linkage obviously. however, if the union had been willing to go that distance with them, then obviously we would be watching hockey.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Jester said:
at any point linkage is a fair deal. the players simply don't trust the owners numbers one bit, and for reasons that defy logic don't think that there is a method that could make them trust the numbers. NFL has worked it out... why can't the NHL?

Linkage is clearly not a fair deal, because the players get no say in the revenues they are being linked to. There is no reason the players should trust the owners numbers one bit. Owners have clearly lied time after time and have a long list of criminal history even within the current ownership ranks. But whether or not they are untrustworthy, the system is not set up to incentivize them to do the best thing for the revenues the players are being linked to without control.

The NFL owners already had revenue sharing which makes players open to a cap, because the owners have incentive to police themselves in the players best interest. But the NFL is further different from the NHL because the NFL owners are not allowed to have the cross ownership models the NHL owners have where they can hide all the money.
 

CMUMike

Registered User
Feb 13, 2005
68
0
thinkwild said:
Linkage is clearly not a fair deal, because the players get no say in the revenues they are being linked to.
No say huh? Who has more say over the quality of the product than the players?
thinkwild said:
There is no reason the players should trust the owners numbers one bit. Owners have clearly lied time after time and have a long list of criminal history even within the current ownership ranks. But whether or not they are untrustworthy, the system is not set up to incentivize them to do the best thing for the revenues the players are being linked to without control.
You can criticize the owners for making poor decisions or even misleading the public through out this exercise, but criminal history? Which owner has served time?
ThinkWild said:
The NFL owners already had revenue sharing which makes players open to a cap, because the owners have incentive to police themselves in the players best interest. But the NFL is further different from the NHL because the NFL owners are not allowed to have the cross ownership models the NHL owners have where they can hide all the money.
NFL shares the following revenue streams
  1. National TV Contract
  2. League Sponsorship
  3. Gate Receipts
How would a similar system afford NHL owners the incentive to "hide the money"?

I don't understand why so many people on this board give NHL owners credit for being such crafty businessmen that they can hide all this money. Personally, I wouldn't rank investing in a hockey teams as being consistent with shrewd and smart business practices.
 

rekrul

Registered User
Mar 7, 2003
1,589
11
bittersville,ca
Visit site
misterjaggers said:
Did you seriously believe that a salary cap would guarantee good decision making by G.M.s? :lol


exactly, even in the NBA teams throw out stupid money all the time, sure the NHL will have less dollars thanks to the boneheads in charge, but who says in a cap system that UFA's will still not get paid? whats the differance reall from a superstar making $5.0 mil from $10.0 from a 31 year old stay at home Defender making $1.5Mil from $2.5. Owners and GMs will spend too much for marginal talent, but the NFL&NBA proves that small market teams can survive. Brett Farve stays in Green Bay,Think Iginla stays in Calgary with the NHLPA's perspective? The Pats show that building from within can make a dynasty. Teams like the Raiders and Skins prove that $$ can't dig themselves out of poor drafts, and yet players still get overcompensated come UFA time.

they still will be overpaid, they still will probably have a signing bonus/incentive type contracts just less.

what is the NHLPA fighting for again?
 

Vladi K

Registered User
Mar 23, 2002
1,819
0
Visit site
CMUMike said:
NFL shares the following revenue streams
  1. National TV Contract
  2. League Sponsorship
  3. Gate Receipts
How would a similar system afford NHL owners the incentive to "hide the money"?

Problem is, none of these three are the sources of major revenues for the NHL. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but only the gate receipts bring a significant amount of money... the rest of the NHL revenues comes from local TV deals and merchandise sales... these two can very easily be reported in a gazillion different ways...
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
thinkwild said:
Linkage is clearly not a fair deal, because the players get no say in the revenues they are being linked to. There is no reason the players should trust the owners numbers one bit. Owners have clearly lied time after time and have a long list of criminal history even within the current ownership ranks. But whether or not they are untrustworthy, the system is not set up to incentivize them to do the best thing for the revenues the players are being linked to without control.

The NFL owners already had revenue sharing which makes players open to a cap, because the owners have incentive to police themselves in the players best interest. But the NFL is further different from the NHL because the NFL owners are not allowed to have the cross ownership models the NHL owners have where they can hide all the money.

here's how it works.

first move by NHLPA: okay, we're going to take linkage of 60% cieling to 52% floor, or whatever it will be.

response by NHL: wooooohoooo! (obviously not, but they'd be pretty happy about this)

second move by NHLPA: we've given you your major piece... now all the small bits go to us.

once the NHLPA gave the NHL linkage they would have been in a strong position to negotiate the situation to as favorable a place as possible. they could have gotten involved in the specifics of what would have been going this way or that as "revenue." they could have hammered them on revenue sharing. they could have done a LOT of stuff after that point. they didn't do it.

if you are negotiating with someone that is saying as loud as possible, "WE MUST HAVE THIS!" give it to them, but make it cost 'em. the NHLPA's negotiations have been absolutely idiotic and have shown zero understanding for the negotiating position they were in, both it's strengths and weaknesses.

to suggest that there is no way that a system could have been formulated that would allow for the NHLPA to trust the numbers that the NHL was providing is absolutely idiotic.

1) clear guidelines for what constitutes revenue for all teams.

2) between the owners and players choose a group of accountants that will at the end of EVERY season go through the teams books and make an assessment of their revenue... which will then go into the equation for league revenue, and thus player salary levels.

3) HARSH penalties for any team that is found to go below the floor or to be hiding revenue from the system. I'm talking draft picks, fines and anything else you can think of that will hit the teams in the nuts for a long time.

4) play hockey.

if the NHLPA really thinks that group of accountants that are hand picked by themselves to fairly look through the books would be unable to catch stuff that the teams are doing they are kidding themselves. the system works, teams in the NFL have been busted for cheating the system on a few occasions.

the NHLPA has handled this so poorly it is sad.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Vladi K said:
Problem is, none of these three are the sources of major revenues for the NHL. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but only the gate receipts bring a significant amount of money... the rest of the NHL revenues comes from local TV deals and merchandise sales... these two can very easily be reported in a gazillion different ways...

doesn't matter what the specific sources of revenue are. revenue is some number X, players get Y, which is some % of X. do you think NFL players care in the slightest where the money is coming from? no. they just care that they get a nice chunk of it.

accountants can work out ways to assess and include all of this stuff in an organized manner and then dole out punishments for anyone circumventing it.
 

Seph

Registered User
Sep 5, 2002
18,949
1,666
Oregon
Visit site
me2 said:
but its also harms other teams. team A buys ufa and gets no better, team b loses ufa and gets worse, team c can't fill a hole and stays vulnerable.

But in a cap system this is not much different. There will still be team As who can buy UFAs. Team C, if they can't afford a player will still remain vulnerable and have to compete with other teams with more payroll flexibility, as well as teams who can simply afford more than them. And Team B may be forced to not re-sign a player they had the revenue to sign because they can't fit him under the cap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->