Glimmer of Hope

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by fifty_in39, Nov 4, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. fifty_in39

    fifty_in39 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    66
    http://www.startribune.com/stories/1330/5067600.html

    Asked what he'd think of a system that provides players a percentage of revenue while still allowing for guaranteed contracts, Walz said: "If they threw something like that at us, we'd have to look at that".
     
  2. ceber

    ceber Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Wyoming, MN
    I find the quotes about players being told that non-guaranteed contracts are part of the NHL's plan a lot more interesting than anything else in that article. I wonder what the truth is.
     
  3. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,012
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    Bettman's position on guaranteed contracts (from Oct 27th):

     
  4. vanlady

    vanlady Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The players are simply drawing the same conclussion I did from Bettman and Daly's early comments. Both Daly and Bettman have said,repeatedly, that the NFL system is the best cap system to control player costs, which is a joke since both capped leagues have had salary increases of 57% and 48% whereas the NHL has only been 35% in the same time frame. By the way the NBA admitts that a cap system without non guarenteed contracts doesn't work, why do you think that they are trying to scale back contract lenghnth by more than half in the new CBA, because they too want non guarenteed contracts in the long run.

    What kills me about this whole arguement is the fact that the NLRB has stated in it's ruling against MLB that hard caps are illegal in the US. As a matter of fact 4 of the 6 proposals from the NHL have already been ruled as illegal so why put them on the table in the first place?
     
  5. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,012
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    If the players are drawing conclusions on items that haven't even been discussed then what does that say about them?

    Maybe they should actually have some talks with the NHL and ask questions before drawing conclusions.
     
  6. vanlady

    vanlady Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have an extremely hard time beleiving Bettman would settle for guarenteed contracts when the NBA has come out publically and said that they don't work in a capped system. What Bettman is not going to get the whole package on a lockout, I don't think so. This is propoganda again and trust me for anyone paying attention, enough of the NHL propoganda has already been shot down.
     
  7. copperandblue

    copperandblue Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    10,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    It's one thing for us to draw our own conclusions since we don't have any say in the proceeding to start with.

    However the players have a responsibility to educate themselves on what exactly is going on.

    If in fact the NHLPA brain trust is misleading the rank and file members then what does that say about this whole "negotiating in good faith" BS...


    This argument doesn't hold water. The NFL salaries have increased as league revenues increased.

    If the NHL tied salaries to revenues then the same thing would apply to them. However, if anyone actually believes that the NHL can expect the same growth that the NFL has experienced then they will be disappointed I am sure....

    Link?
     
  8. bernsy74

    bernsy74 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes the salaries have increased but it's all tied to the revenue. If the NFL was loosing money, the cap wouldn't have increased.

    See the link:

    http://www.startribune.com/stories/1330/5067600.html
     
  9. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,012
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    Did you read the quotes above?

    "(a) you can have a salary cap or a cost-certain system or a partnership with guaranteed contracts and (b) we have never discussed the issue with them.
    "


    That is clear to me.

    And let's look at the word propaganda...

    2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

    In the case of guaranteed contracts, who is spreading propaganda?
     
  10. vanlady

    vanlady Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually check again, if the cap was tied directly to revenue the cap should only be 77 million this year, but that would have left 13 teams over the cap. The NFL increase the cap to 80.5 million to bring those 13 teams under the cap.
     
  11. Taranis_24

    Taranis_24 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    Home Page:
    Vanlady - This to my knowledge has never been expressed either by the NHL, the NHLPA or the media. Not saying you are making this up, but provide a link or proof of this.
     
  12. mazmin

    mazmin Go! Jets! Go!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,590
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Occupation:
    Personal Trainer / FM
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    At first, I thought this thread said Gilmour of hope.

    Man, I miss hockey. :cry:
     
  13. dawgbone

    dawgbone Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2002
    Messages:
    21,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The NBA isn't fighting for non-guaranteed contracts... they are fighting for a reduction in the max. term for a long term deal. There is a difference.

    The problem is, these long term deals see guys get hurt, and still sitting around and cashing in, and hurting the teams cap for several years.

    Shorter long term deals will also allow teams more freedom of movement (guys in the last year of a big deal are prime candidates, i.e. Rahim). They come off the books at the end of every season.

    You are right... in a cap system you need 1 of 2 things... non-guaranteed contracts, or shorter long term deals. The NHL hasn't had a crazy amount of long term deals... so I don't think that will be an issue.
     
  14. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Which in reality just increases the % of revenue for the players. Damn the nasty effects of that dastardly cap!

    What I find interesting is that vanlady and the NHLPA are willing to reject a reasonable link between revenue and salaries based on their belief that the NHL is lying when it goes on record as stating that contracts will remain guaranteed.

    In the PA's case, they are willing to lie to their members in order to get them to not consider the NHL offer.

    All in an effort to maintain the "market value" system that the PA is constantly harping on about. Of course what the NHLPA, vanlady, Bicycle Repairman and Tom B won't acknowlege is that a true "market value" would mean that no contract was guaranteed and that NHL teams could reduce salaries by dumping non-performers.
     
    Last edited by moderator : Nov 4, 2004
  15. FlyersFan10*

    FlyersFan10* Guest

    Alright, enough is enough. It's time to go before an arbitrator. It's funny that neither collective bargaining party wants to go before one though. Makes you wonder. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that an arbitrator will make things fair and even? Are they afraid that a deal might include the best of both worlds? To me, it seems very apparent that an arbitrator will cut through the BS and get things straightened out.....and god knows that both sides have spread an awful lot of BS throughout all this public campaign.
     
  16. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    Alright vanlady let's hear it just for argument sake. You're Goodenow and I'm Betteman what are you proposing?????
     
  17. Beukeboom Fan

    Beukeboom Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,115
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Home Page:
    The owners don't want to go to arbitration because that results in a compromise solution. They feel (at least from what they say in public) that the only way for the league to be successful in the long-term is to tie player salaries to revenues. The players are diametrically opposed to anything that resembles a salary cap.

    I don't think an arbitrator would be sucessful in this type of negotiation. We're not talking about 2 parties that agree on the basic issue involved. It's not like the owners are looking for a 20% paycut, and the players are offering 5%, so the arbitrator could comprimise in the middle somewhere. The owners and the NHLPA disagree on the most fundemental level of what is required for the future of the league.
     
  18. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Probably because the owners can afford to wait for however long it takes for the players to accept a cap. What if the owners are willing to wait 5-10 years? Are the players ready to let go of their salaries for that long?
     
  19. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,585
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    Guaranteed contracts can and do work in salary cap situations. Sports in various parts of the world can and do use such systems quite successfully.
     
  20. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    Who cares if the players are? Do you think the fans are willing to wait 5-10 years?
     
  21. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,585
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    Both of which are fairly common sense. Unless teams are stupid enough to have Yashin like contracts they should be fine. Throw in insurance and a few clauses for injured players and its not a real problem. Guaranteed contracts + cap can work.
     
  22. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    What can the "fans" do about it? At a lower price, I bet they would. In the USA, they could even do a "re-launch" and try to build momentum on that. The longer it takes and the less fans, just means the less wages will be paid out.

    As long as there isn't any competition in NA, the owners can afford to wait and wait and wait...
     
  23. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    It won't come down to that (5-10 years...) The owners will eventually declare an impasse. If it is rejected, they just close down the league. They then go about creating a new hockey league. I'm willing to bet they could do this in under 5 years. Hell, they don't even need to create a new hockey league, they can just buy the rights to the WHA...
     
  24. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    Forget about the league altogether. They'll move on.

    And forget trying to hook the kids. You don't think missing a decades worth of children will hurt the NHL long term?

    HNIC would go from an institution to a memory.

    And the smaller the values for the franchises.

    Few people would come. It'll be long forgotten. A re-launch wouldn't mean crap because no one would know who the players were or even care.

    No they can't. The longer they wait the more of their customers move on to other things.
     
  25. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Our opinions differ. There will always be a market for hockey, regardless if it's now or in 5 years. In 5 years, if it's a relaunch, maybe they can only do so with a $15M salary cap, maybe $10M. The salaries would have to adjust to the demand. That's why the players have more to lose by sitting; they get the bulk of the income, so the more it shrinks, the less they get. The owners aren't making money, so whether they lose $1M in a $30M operation or $1M in a $60M operation doesn't change anything to them.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"