Here is what I don`t get ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
JWI19 said:
Do you really think Rangers fans are gonna stop buy tickets if they let Holik go? Do you think Islander fans would be pissed if they were able to unload Yashins salary? We fans aren't stupid, we know who is overpaid and who isn't. Whats gonna piss people off is if the owners get their way and the NHL turns into the NFL where as home grow fan favorite players are cut just because of their cap number. Not because of talent level but because of their dollar figure. I love the NFL, but it's hard as hell to follow who's on what team because of the number of players changing teams every year.

But many small to mid-market teams already face the challenge of watching established stars walk because of money.
 

imyourhuckleberry

Nyaaa..What's Up Doc
Sep 1, 2003
2,074
2
I think it's silly that the players can't accept a cap in order to make the game more viable. This goes to show that each player is just looking out for themselves and care nothing for the true supporters of the game, the fans.

When you really get down to it, this is just a bunch of rich men slap fighting for more money, that many don't deserve. Players have gotten richer in the last 10 years and production has decreased. Fans arn't happy to watch a 10 million dollar player loaf around the ice while they have to work hard to buy tickets for their family of four, you have to mortgage the house to see a game these days!

I'll be happy watching AHL for a year, let the players sit and wait or go to some other country.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
JWI19 said:
But it's mainly because of bad investments, overvalued certain players, miscalculated revenue, etc.

It's a competitive sport. This is another myth perpetrated where you should supposedly know how to calculate your revenues when in reality, 14 out of those 16 teams won't get playoffs revenue at all and subsequently, half the remaining teams will be kicked out each round.

It's a fact of life, players of equal value will not make the playoffs while others will make it. It's not just about investments. Someone has to go down in hockey. There are winners and losers every year.

This is why I call bull**** every time people try to compare this with any other type of business. It's not. The product of the NHL is about cutting each others' throat on-ice, something the pro-players refuse to EVER address. But somehow the players have succeeded in brainwashing that same small minority of fans into thinking the 30 teams are supposed to accept a free market where they should cut each others' throat *off-ice* and not worry about disparities.

It should be the other way around.

In the given format of a competitive league, a cap is an acceptable possibility to me in great part because of this.

PS: I'm also tired of this overvalueing crap. Players sit down with their cockroach agent and overvalue themselves too. Then they don't own to their end of the bargain but it's the owners' fault only.

Yeah, right.

Owners just don't distribute cash to players for fun. Just like a CBA, a player's contract is negociated by both sides. That is the hard, cold reality.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
Vlad The Impaler said:
It's a competitive sport. This is another myth perpetrated where you should supposedly know how to calculate your revenues when in reality, 14 out of those 16 teams won't get playoffs revenue at all and subsequently, half the remaining teams will be kicked out each round.

Why in the hell are owners even counting playoff revenues as part of their budget? Like everyone know on 16 teams are gonna receive said revenue. It's bad business practice.


Vlad The Impaler said:
PS: I'm also tired of this overvalueing crap. Players sit down with their cockroach agent and overvalue themselves too. Then they don't own to their end of the bargain but it's the owners' fault only.


That i do agree with. The owners have to live up to their contract so should the players. There has to be a way to cut a player without a huge penalty. I think a 50% penalty is fair. And if he signed another contract for less than said 50% the team that cut him should have to pick up the balance of his deal.

Example:
Player X makes 6 million a year. Team A cuts him, so they are forced to pay him 3 million a year for the remainder of his deal. Team B signs said player for 2 million a year. Team A would have to pay the player that extra 1 million. Makes sense???
 

Legolas

Registered User
Apr 11, 2004
770
0
Toronto, Canada
Quite simply, the NHLPA obviously doesn't want to agree to a salary cap because they'll always potentially make way more money without one. While there are other leagues with salary caps, I'm sure their player associations would love to get rid of them as well.

The only problem I have with "cost certainty" and a salary cap is the level where it is set. If a $31 million cap or any cap for that matter ensures that all NHL teams make money, but that money isn't reinvested in the team either into its players or facilities or whatever and goes straight to the owners' pockets, why would any player want to agree to that? If you're paid $1.3 million a year, but your owner is making a $25 million profit off of you and your teammates, are you going to consider yourself overpaid? Probably not. Are you going to think you're entitled to a bigger cut of that revenue? Obviously. If the owners came up with a proposal that included a requirement that certain percentages of profit were reinvested into the clubs, then the players would look extremely bad to turn it down, but I doubt that will happen, and more importantly, I don't think either side actually cares how they look publically, because there's no indication that public perception will force a deal. Both sides know there will be consequences of pissing off their fans, but neither thinks it's so serious that there's any urgency to cut a deal now.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
JWI19 said:
Why in the hell are owners even counting playoff revenues as part of their budget? Like everyone know on 16 teams are gonna receive said revenue. It's bad business practice.

Only if you're not pretty sure you're going to make it most years. The problem is that those who know drive the prices up in the market for everybody else.

And if you do not sign or re-sign a player you like because you are afraid to miss the playoffs, you may actually increase your chance of missing the playoffs.

In theory, what you say makes sense, in practice, it's actually a pretty wild market where your options aren't all that great unless you're one of the very comfortable teams financially.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Vlad The Impaler said:
Only if you're not pretty sure you're going to make it most years. The problem is that those who know drive the prices up in the market for everybody else.

And if you do not sign or re-sign a player you like because you are afraid to miss the playoffs, you may actually increase your chance of missing the playoffs.

In theory, what you say makes sense, in practice, it's actually a pretty wild market where your options aren't all that great unless you're one of the very comfortable teams financially.

I think it is very easy to forecast hockey revenues. A business can select any date to end a fiscal year. If they do not set it near the end of the regular season, revenues are uncertain. If you set it so that the playoffs begin the fiscal year, it is easy to know pretty much the entire year's revenue. From there the player budget is set.

Vancouver began this fiscal year with the revenues from 8 playoff games - call it $15 million - in the bank. Edmonton begins their year with zero. The playoffs are he biggest source of revenue disparity. Teams compete for that $150 million in profits. The teams that win it can afford to pay more on players the following year. Teams that don't, can't.

Tom
 

HckyFght*

Guest
Fans hurrumph, fold their arms and say, "The owners got themselves into this with their profligate spending." But, as usual, it's not that simple. Owners actually did the players a favor in the '90's indulging their ridiculous salary demands and using expansion money and the promise of a network TV windfall to fund the operation. But expansion is over and the networks took a pass. So now, it's time for a league-wide adjustment.

The Mario Lemieux situation with the Pittsburgh Penguins illustrates my point perfectly. His salary demands were outrageous. But the Penguins were between a rock and a hard place. $60 million over 5 years? Don't pay it, and lose nearly all your season ticket holders and most of the value of your local media. In other words, pay it and go bankrupt, or don't pay it and go bankrupt. So, they sign a garunteed deal as per union rules, Mario, then pleads illness and can't play, and season ticket holders flee anyway. Next thing Mario knows, he owns the team!

The NHL AND the players gambled and lost regarding big media revenues and now it's simply time to pay up. The guys who write the checks know this all to well. It's time for the guys cashing the checks to figure it out.

-HckyFght!
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
HckyFght said:
Mario, then pleads illness and can't play, and season ticket holders flee anyway. Next thing Mario knows, he owns the team!

You forgot the next, hilarious part. He then suggests salaries in the NHL are a problem.

Well, duh. He's a living proof of that.
 

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
Question...

I was reading a comment a few pages back from Vlad about how the owners bent over and moaned like whales at the last impass and that they would do the same...

How many of those owners in 1994(?) are still around? I don't know? A bunch of these new guys joined with a promise of a new system...

It would be interesting to see who are the remaining owners from last time...team by team...

:help:
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
ti-vite said:
I was reading a comment a few pages back from Vlad about how the owners bent over and moaned like whales at the last impass and that they would do the same...

How many of those owners in 1994(?) are still around? I don't know? A bunch of these new guys joined with a promise of a new system...

It would be interesting to see who are the remaining owners from last time...team by team...

:help:

I think I remember someone mentioning ~16 new owners and 4 new teams since the last lockout. I'm not positive though...
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
ti-vite said:
I was reading a comment a few pages back from Vlad about how the owners bent over and moaned like whales at the last impass and that they would do the same...

How many of those owners in 1994(?) are still around? I don't know? A bunch of these new guys joined with a promise of a new system...

Hmmm... I didn't think much about that. Good point!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->