Goodbye Alberta????

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by FLYLine27*, Nov 30, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    Did you know Bettman can see into the future now? He saids The Flames and Oilers WILL NOT survive in the league if the they cant come to a good CBA. Funny Huh???

    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=106456&hubName=nhl

    BTW I found this part to be the best:

    Another POOR attempt by Gary to try to gain more support to the owners while once again he is doing NOTHING to solve the CBA but sit on his arse. If i didnt know Bettman or the NHL i swear I would think this guy is running for president with all the campaigning he does.
     
  2. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    141,337
    Likes Received:
    2,762
    Trophy Points:
    232
    He also said fans of small market teams, like Calgary, can't have any hope of getting into the playoffs, let alone winning the Stanley Cup.


    "Most franchises are doing better than they were, but franchises like this franchise and Calgary don't have a future if we don't fix this the right way," he said.



    "Bettman, who met with the 38-member Edmonton Oilers Investors Group before visiting Calgary on Wednesday, said it isn't any fun for the fans of small-market teams that don't believe their teams have a chance at making the playoffs, let alone have a shot at winning the Stanley Cup.

    In fact, Calgary came within one game of winning the Cup last season, losing to Tampa Bay in the final. Edmonton missed the playoffs but Forbes magazine said the Oilers ranked seventh in the league last season with operating income of $3.3 million US."


    :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
     
  3. Carl Spackler

    Carl Spackler Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow, the Oilers made 3.3 million in one year after continuous years of mad spending cuts and salary dumps...What an investment! Of course, the Oilers have been an economic powerhouse for years now...Everyone knows that running the team in Alberta is practically a licence to print money.

    The teams should be able to expect a profit running their team every year. Why is it that the NHLPA thinks that the owners should be subsidizing their ridiculous salaries by running either at sustenance level or below? Name me many other industries where a good number of the employees make more salary in one year that the company does in profit. Would you be willing to risk losing money every year to ensure your employees make more than you do?

    The league is not a charity and the owners are not there solely to provide a healthy income for the players. The problem is a system that continually jacks the values of players far above what they should be and then forces most of the teams to meet the continual raises or ice a non-competitive product. And bringing up the Flames miracle run last year just proves the point-it was the exception that proves the rule. How competitive were they for the decade before they rode a hot goalie and momentum to the final?
     
  4. joepeps

    joepeps Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,932
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    Hum...

    actually Calgary did win the cup becasue the scored in game 6 to win... :dunno:
     
  5. kerrly

    kerrly Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Location:
    Regina
    Couldn't agree more. The fact is that the Oilers and Flames will be hard pressed to survive if this CBA is not resolved with a cap. They made a profit because the owners are not willing to spend foolishly and they plain and simply can not afford to lose tons of cash.

    And about the NHLPA dishing more propoganda about the Flames coming one game away from winning the stanley cup, that is one year of success, and they make it sound like a small market team has as good of a chance at being successful as high market teams. Sure every once in a while, a team can put together a somewhat fluky combination of players with minimum salaries and have them peek at the right time to stay small market, but its only to short after that, the players demand raises and are either traded away or let go. Simple fact is, that small market teams cannot remain competitive for very long and remain small market.

    This ultimately is about, who's trying to provide a more stable system for the league to operate under to provide long term success and keep the league healthy. Thats exactly what the Gary Bettman is trying to do. What the NHLPA is providing will provide none of this, A luxury tax will only spread out the losses evenly among the league. A 5% rollback on all salaries sure will save a little money right away, but when contracts come up for negotiation again, we're right back to wear we started. I like the idea of the rookie contracts being reformed, thats heading in the right direction, but in no way shape or form is even close to the answer to the leagues problems.

    Its about the health of the game, not about the owners trying to fill their pockets. Although I'm sure they wouldn't mind a little return on their investment rather than their pockets being emptied year after year.
     
  6. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    And what did the FLAMES prove to you...?? That you DONT need to spend foolishly to win a cup (came very close).
     
  7. Epsilon

    Epsilon #basta

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    74,842
    Likes Received:
    37,457
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    South Cackalacky
    NO THEY SHOULDN'T. They should expecct to be able to make a profit if they run their team successfully, market their product well to their fans, and maximize their revenue potential. If they run their team like the Rangers, they should be punished for it by losing money.

    I'm really amazed at how successful the NHL has been in getting fans to drink their kool-aid. Not only do fans believe that successful, grown businessmen need a babysitter to prevent them from making foolish financial decisions, but also believe that the NHL should be allowed to operate in such a way that they make a guaranteed profit, which no other business entity is entitled to. Can you imagine if AOL said "our internet access is no longer fixed cost, instead our customers will be billed in such a way that we are guaranteed to make a profit every year"?
     
  8. Freudian slips

    Freudian slips Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    grad school student
    Location:
    dogville
    Home Page:
    Its not only about having a chance to win a Cup, which there are many examples of small markets making impressive runs and beating big spending teams, its about teams being able to consistently keep the players they have without losing them to wealthier clubs...


    Under the current economic system there's no way Tampa could afford to keep their star players all together because they just do not have the revenues...teams like Philly, Toronto and others can keep their core together because of their financial advantages...

    All we Oiler fans want, and other small market fans, is to keep the players we've accumulated without simply passing them off continuoulsy because they get too expensive to keep...
     
  9. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,686
    Likes Received:
    581
    Trophy Points:
    225
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    You play that season a million more times, and how many times do the Flames reach the final?
     
  10. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    You cant ask questions like. Thats just stupid. What about The Canes making it to the finals...The Devils over and over? Do they spend? Nope.
     
  11. MrMackey

    MrMackey Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    cgy
    Home Page:
    If you were to name all of the consistent Cup contenders over the last ten years, the Flames would not show up on that list (neither would the Lightning, Hurricanes or Anaheim).

    I think its obvious to everyone except the NHLPA apologists what is meant when they say 'you can't ice a contender on a small-market budget'.

    To me, only Ottawa has been able to be successful with a tight budget, and their formula is very hard to replicate... but if other teams had restricted spending, OTT might've been able to fill some of the holes they've had for the past 5 years and would certainly be more competitive against spenders like NJ, Toronto and Philly.
     
  12. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY

    The ducks YES...that was a one time thing.....but if you are telling me that you dont think the Flames could make the finals, or Tampa or the Devils then your wrong. They all have great teams and can make it there again.
     
  13. Bring Back Bucky

    Bring Back Bucky Registered User

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Occupation:
    Hamster Trainer
    Location:
    Delicieux!
    Nice points, but subtract the Heritage Classic from the Oilers books and then review the bottom line...
     
  14. dw2927

    dw2927 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Paavola, Mich.
    It is obviously clear that the current situation pits a "free market" system against some degree of regulation (the extent of which is the main point of the labor dispute)

    My opinion has always been that although NHL hockey is clearly a full fledged buisiness as much as say, making steel, it simply can't be treated the same way.

    The goals of a hockey league and traditional industry are different. If the world has only say 3 major producers of steel, because all of the others have been inefficient, we accept that as part of the free market economy. The problem is that the NHL, by its definition, is a market with a set amount of firms. 30 or maybe 24 by the time we see the next NHL puck drop. The league and its members consent to this, rely on this and it forms a essential part of the stability of the league. Because the NHL is in essence a cartel, the 30 members of the league need each other to survive.

    If the truest free market theories are followed, the league would arguably be left with only a handful of the most "efficient" teams.
     
  15. Epsilon

    Epsilon #basta

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    74,842
    Likes Received:
    37,457
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    South Cackalacky
    And you will not get this under a cap system either, where player movement has been shown (in the NFL) to be faster than under any other model.
     
  16. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Isn't that parity? Isn't that what everyone wants?
     
  17. MrMackey

    MrMackey Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    cgy
    Home Page:
    The Devils are top 10 in spending every single year. Actually, so are the Ducks.

    Tampa has not been a contender until this year, and will not be able to afford all of Lecavalier, Richards, St. Louis, Khabibulin, Sydor, Modin, Boyle and Prospal once their contracts are up unless there is revenue sharing AND a restriction on spending.

    Calgary, IMHO, is not good enough to be considered a perennial contender with their current internal budgetary restraints (Sutter called it 'his own cap'). Iginla made 21% of the team payroll last year. However, if you think that Calgary will contend for years to come, then all the power to you. We won't be able to convince each other, I'm sure.
     
  18. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's right. Its a business. If you can't generate enough revenue to survive, tough. Life aint fair.
     
  19. MrMackey

    MrMackey Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    cgy
    Home Page:
    No that's not parity.
     
  20. MrMackey

    MrMackey Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    cgy
    Home Page:
    Actually, that's not true either. The league is a non-profit organization that governs the teams.

    The teams are businesses that are dependant on the other businesses' economic health. If 75% of the teams can't generate enough revenue to survive, then the league will collapse.
     
  21. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Teams are run as businesses. The owners want a cap for business reasons. If 75% of the teams fail and the league folds, tough. Sports are like water. They will find their level and do well. There is no law that says there has to be 30 teams. If pro hockey can only survive as a 10 or 15 team league, there's nothing wrong with that. It should be embraced by those who love it, and the ones who don't don't need it forced upon them.
     
  22. X0ssbar

    X0ssbar Guest

    If a player can't survive off of an average salary of 1.3 million a year, tough - life ain't fair....
     
  23. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How isn't that parity? If everybody's equal, then it all comes down to chance. Every team would have a 1/30 chance to win every year. Calgary happened to put it togehter(sort of) last year, they have a 3% chance to do it again.
     
  24. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No argument from me. Trust me, my argument against a cap has nothing to do with how much the players make. I couldn't care less. I just don't think a cap is the best solution for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it does not address the league's real problem of lack of revenue.
     
  25. MrMackey

    MrMackey Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    cgy
    Home Page:
    Actually they didn't win it all, so its a 7% chance to make it to the finals again.... but I thought it was pretty clear by Seachd's statement that it would be less of a chance.

    Parity would mean that each year teams have a 53% chance at making the playoffs (8 of 15), and from there a 12.5% chance at making the finals... where the winner would be given 50/50 odds.

    What Seachd's suggesting (the way I read it), is that low payroll teams like the Flames have a less than 50% chance at making the playoffs (maybe 2 of the 8 spots - 13%), and from there maybe a 10% chance at the finals, and once there, a major underdog against the higher payroll team.

    In essence, he's saying: if you play that season a million times over again, it is less likely than normal, even odds that the outcome would be the same.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"