honest ... if VAN can do it, why cant others ?

[hockeytown9321]

this is impossible to say, but I think they would.

remember if Vancouver has to operate under a cap, so do other teams around the league... this would in itself reduce the $$ that players could ask for.

If the Canucks, for example, couldn't afford to re-sign Bertuzzi under the cap, then most teams wouldn't be able to either... again this is under a lot of assumptions, where a team like Nashville wouldn't be able to hit that $45mill cap in anyways (throwing a cap number, but in any cap system it's unlikely that every team is able to hit the cap)... and teams that can, might already be hardpressed to get their own players under their cap.

in the end, in a cap system, it's more likely that Bertuzzi isn't making over $7mill a season, thus making it possible for the canucks to still re-sign all their players under their cap.

well, I'm not having this discussion again, but I think its pretty fair to say there will be alot of teams with more cap room than your team every year, and it doesn't take much to get someone to leave. If Vancouver offers Bertuzzi $4 million, there's a pretty good chance someone has the cap room to offer him $6 million. And since salaries will be so mcuh lower, there will be alot more teams in the market for high profile FA's. If you need this idea expanded on any more, just check some of my old posts.

 

[loudi94]

They'd get laughed out of court. Vancouver has done nothing that the NHLPA could possibly complain about. They have used the CBA to hold down player salaries before the player reached the age of free agency and dabbled very selectively in the free agent market.

The team used the same model every successful franchise used to become a big revenue team. They rebuilt the team from the ground up. They did a good job. They deserve their rewards. They can do it, but "Boo-hoo, Buffalo can't". They can do it, but "boo-hoo" Washington, Boston or Chicago can't?

What happened to "Boo-hoo, poor Vancouver will never be able to compete"?

Tom

What I mean is that if every team practices fiscal reponsibility, then the union will cry foul and sue. Proving there was no collusion is difficult. As far as whether they will win or not, there is a precedent against MLB.

 

[me2]

My point is just what I said. Brian Burke deserves alot of credit for keeping the star players salaries under control and making the Canucks financially stable. He was one of the few smart GMs who used the CBA the way it was supposed to be used and Ive always had alot of respect for the way he did business. I mean Naslund at $5.5 million is just insane, in a good way. If every team in the league had a GM who handled player contracts the way Burke did then the current collective agreement might have had a chance of working. Too bad there is only one Brian Burke. Personally Im against a cap, but Im also against the old system. Im crossing my fingers that the two parties will be able to meet in the middle on some kind of soft cap or luxury tax system.

Problem here is Naslund. He should be making $8m+. Its only because he's a non-greedy person Burke was able to get him so cheap. That's a fluke not the norm in the NHL, for every Naslund there as 5 Yashins. A team can not bank on getting players to sign for less.

Bertuzzi's contract is actually much higher than it looks. The shifted $1-1.5/y for the life on the contract into a defacto signing bonus by upping his existing contract.

Lets have a closer look

they run about as tight a ship as they can

they have made no significant UFA signings, and their salary continues to blow out.

They have a hole on the 2nd line RW that you could drive a truck through. Can't afford to properly plug it.

It needs an upgrade on defense #3-#4 position.

Cloutier is still the goalie.

This wonderful team can't make it past the 1st round and when it does it gets rolled in the 2nd round. It won't be fixing the problems either.

================================

The other problem is how do yo find 30 Brian Burkes to run every franchise? You can't. The NHL has to be based so an average GM can succeed. The NHLPA has to allow GMs to rollback salaries in the next CBA and I see nothing to suggest that want that. The player initiated 5% rollback is designed to be a one off.

 

[Winger98]

What I mean is that if every team practices fiscal reponsibility, then the union will cry foul and sue. Proving there was no collusion is difficult. As far as whether they will win or not, there is a precedent against MLB.

I think MLB got caught red handed, though. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I keep thinking the MLBPA got hold of a memo or something that the teams were passing around and that's what got baseball nailed to the wall.

If there's no paper trail or anything, I would think collusion would be difficult to prove and something the league wouldn't have a hard time defending itself against in court.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

What I mean is that if every team practices fiscal reponsibility, then the union will cry foul and sue. Proving there was no collusion is difficult. As far as whether they will win or not, there is a precedent against MLB.

Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the labour law or the CBA that prevents teams practicing fiscal responsibility. In fact, that is a defense against as collusion charge. In baseball, the owners agreed they would not sign each other's free agents. It was easy to prove. Tim Raines became a free agent when he was at the top of his game, and nobody offered him a job. Dozens of free agents hit the market and nobody got offered a job.

Tom

 

[loudi94]

Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the labour law or the CBA that prevents teams practicing fiscal responsibility. In fact, that is a defense against as collusion charge. In baseball, the owners agreed they would not sign each other's free agents. It was easy to prove. Tim Raines became a free agent when he was at the top of his game, and nobody offered him a job. Dozens of free agents hit the market and nobody got offered a job.

Tom

Right and under the current system if a player like maybe Joe Sakic or Peter Forsberg or Jarome Iginla became UFA's and if no team decided to offer them more than 4 million, there would be a few eyebrows raised. Sure each team may have acted independently in setting their limits, but there would be legal problems, especially when teams with a history of overspending decide to back off.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Naslund is now 31 and Bertuzzi turns 30 this season, just coming up on their UFA years. I wonder how much longer the Canucks could have kept them under the old and now defunt collective agreement. Brian Burke deserves alot of credit for keeping their salaries under control during their RFA years.

Naslund took less because he liked the city. Bertuzzi was a bum for many years before breaking out and signing for 7 million.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

This wonderful team can't make it past the 1st round and when it does it gets rolled in the 2nd round. It won't be fixing the problems either.

What crap, all of it. Naslund and Bertuzzi did have contracts that underpaid them renegotiated, a tradeoff that got the Canucks both players over four years at favourable terms. One result is that it helped or will help all teams in arbitration hearings. I don't care whether you think the Canucks are good or not or what you think they should do to improve. That is beside the point.

The point is that the team made $25 million dollars last season without winning a playoff round. The point is that the team can afford a payroll of at least $50 million and that's being prudent. If they do start winning in the playoffs, they can afford a payroll that is much higher than $50 million.

The point is that Burke got to this stage without opening the wallet for free agents. He did it by dumping his salaries and stars for prospects ("Oh, boohoo," said Canuck fans who think like you. "The league is unfair because the fans - who aren't showing up at the rink - have to suffer while all the stars are traded. The Canucks can't afford them! They will never be able to compete with big spenders like Colorado and Detroit.").

The point is that they are competing with Colorado on the ice, and under the old CBA they could clearly afford to be elite. They can clearly spend with anyone. They made all that money because they are a big revenue team which means they can be a big payroll team. That's the point.

They illustrate perfectly the point I (and others) have made about competitive balance in the NHL. We want the rewards to go to the teams that draft and develop players well (check for the Canucks), make astute trades (check) and make prudent free agent signings (check). Doing that converted the Vancouver Canucks, a small market Canadian team struggling to survive into a big revenue contender.

The fans suffered to see this team built and now they are paying very large dollars to see them win. Jeepers. Time for a salary cap. The NHL is unfair. Vancouver can afford a $60 million payroll. If they actually win a Cup, I bet they could get enough money from the fans to spend $70 million if they want! Man, is that unfair.

The questions you have to answer are these:

How can you say the league is unfair under the old CBA if the Vancouver Canucks can become a financial powerhouse? If the pundits were wrong about Vancouver, what other markets are they wrong about? If Vancouver can do it, why can't Buffalo?

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Right and under the current system if a player like maybe Joe Sakic or Peter Forsberg or Jarome Iginla became UFA's and if no team decided to offer them more than 4 million, there would be a few eyebrows raised. Sure each team may have acted independently in setting their limits, but there would be legal problems, especially when teams with a history of overspending decide to back off.

Not an eyebrow would be raised. Nobody screamed collusion when the Rangers and Capitals backed off. All individual teams would have to do is explain why Joe Sakic wasn't worth $4 million to them. As long as free agents are being signed it is very hard to make a collusion case.

Plenty of eyebrows would be raised if nobody offered Jarome Iginla, UFA, anything. If dozens of like players hit the free agent market at the same time and none of them got any offer, the case is a slam dunk. That's what happened in baseball.

Tom

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

so where are all the nay sayers ?

how come VAN can make a profit of 45m in two years and other similar sized markets cant even contain their losses ?

dr

 

[Optimist*]

You have it backwards. Just like the players. The owners, are just that, owners.
Its the golden rule. The one who has the gold rules. They had an unbalanced agreement and now its gonna change. Its doesnt matter why Vancouver was able to make money. I could give you reasons why, but it doesnt matter. The players are up against a brick wall because there asking for something they will never get. The owners want to make money, just like the players do. Nothing unfair with that.
The system doesnt work, the league as a whole lost 1.8bb. The players will lose and if they dont negotiate in time, they'll lose the season as well. Remember the owners are used to losing money, time is on their side. They will wait forever, because their investments are worthless right now. They have no choice. You can bluff all you want, but when the other guy has a Royal Flush, the longer you stay in the pot, the more you lose. Take that to the bank.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The players will lose and if they dont negotiate in time, they'll lose the season as well. Remember the owners are used to losing money, time is on their side. They will wait forever, because their investments are worthless right now. They have no choice. You can bluff all you want, but when the other guy has a Royal Flush, the longer you stay in the pot, the more you lose. Take that to the bank.

well, i think the players have already lost. they have already agreed to a luxury tax, they ahve already agreed to changes in rookie contracts, they have already agreed to negotiate changes to arbitration and qualifying offers.

they have already put a few hundred million dollars of concessions on the table. they ARE negotiating and they HAVE given up alot. the owners have given up NOTHING and are NOT negotiating.

the owners dont just want to win (because they already have), they want to blow it up.

dr

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Its doesnt matter why Vancouver was able to make money. I could give you reasons why, but it doesnt matter.

It does matter. It is easy to explain. The fans are throwing money at the team. They are selling every ticket. Pay per view, broadcast revenues and sponsorships are way up. They are a big revenue, big payroll team rolling in the cash. In Vancouver! You did not answer the question.

I want an apologist for the owners, a small market fan who thinks the NHL is unfair to explain Vancouver. I want a fan who believes a salary cap is necessary to allow everyone to compete and make money to explain Vancouver.

Hands up everyone who can remember when Toronto was the only Canadian team that could compete? The only Canadian team sure to survive?

Remember the owners are used to losing money, time is on their side. They will wait forever, because their investments are worthless right now.

Worthless? McCaw just sold the Vancouver Canucks. He turned $60 million into $250 million over the life of the old CBA. Man, that NHL hockey sure is a lousy business when you do it right, isn't it?

Tom

 

[codswallop]

so where are all the nay sayers ?

how come VAN can make a profit of 45m in two years and other similar sized markets cant even contain their losses ?

dr

Probably because this looks like bait, like you're looking for a fight. Then both sides proceed to re-hash the same old arguments and we end up back in the same place we started. Not really an attractive prospect.

I can think of many reasons why, but I won't go there. I'll just let your imagination run wild as to what I could be refering to.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Probably because this looks like bait, like you're looking for a fight. Then both sides proceed to re-hash the same old arguments and we end up back in the same place we started. Not really an attractive prospect.

I can think of many reasons why, but I won't go there. I'll just let your imagination run wild as to what I could be refering to.

its not bait. this is a message board to discuss these issues. the pro owner side uses some irrational, becareful what you wish for thinking and here is a GM of a team that a cap is supposed to "save" claiming 45million in profits over 2 years.

how come CGY cant do that, for one example ? There is more money in the corridor between CGY and EDM than just about anywhere in North America, so whats stopping either of those markets from making money WITHOUT killing the league ? its not like the owners havent already won the battle.

dr

 

[codswallop]

its not bait. this is a message board to discuss these issues. the pro owner side uses some irrational, becareful what you wish for thinking and here is a GM of a team that a cap is supposed to "save" claiming 45million in profits over 2 years.

how come CGY cant do that, for one example ? There is more money in the corridor between CGY and EDM than just about anywhere in North America, so whats stopping either of those markets from making money WITHOUT killing the league ? its not like the owners havent already won the battle.

dr

We're just re-packageing the same discussions. Having the same arguments. It gets old, quick. Something new would be nice, but I gave up on that a couple months ago.

You see it from one perspective, I might see it from another. The problem is that there seems to be a brick wall between the two with many who post here, they're not open to ideas and thoughts other than their own. So the same thing happens every time; regardless if a certain point is factual and/or logical, that doesn't get through to the ones looking at this with a narrow-minded, singular perspective. In essense, it's not real communication, just the same banter as it was before. It becomes insanity after a while; doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

It shouldn't matter to us if one side is right or wrong, or if won side wins or loses. If the end result is that each team is given the opportunity to be competitive as well as financially healthy, we shouldn't give a damn how that comes about. And you might not see it (or want to see it), but way too many people discuss from a right-wrong, win-lose premise. They keep on that narrow road, not willing to try and think about it another way. Thus, the discussions turn confrontational andend up going nowhere. And I use the word discussion very liberally. Only a handful keep an open mind to all the possibilities, reading and learning as much as they can to get each side of each story. But not nearly enough to keep these "discussions" going forward.

That doesn't happen every single time, just most times. A pity, really.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

We're just re-packageing the same discussions. Having the same arguments. It gets old, quick. Something new would be nice, but I gave up on that a couple months ago.

You see it from one perspective, I might see it from another. The problem is that there seems to be a brick wall between the two with many who post here, they're not open to ideas and thoughts other than their own. So the same thing happens every time; regardless if a certain point is factual and/or logical, that doesn't get through to the ones looking at this with a narrow-minded, singular perspective. In essense, it's not real communication, just the same banter as it was before. It becomes insanity after a while; doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

It shouldn't matter to us if one side is right or wrong, or if won side wins or loses. If the end result is that each team is given the opportunity to be competitive as well as financially healthy, we shouldn't give a damn how that comes about. And you might not see it (or want to see it), but way too many people discuss from a right-wrong, win-lose premise. They keep on that narrow road, not willing to try and think about it another way. Thus, the discussions turn confrontational andend up going nowhere. And I use the word discussion very liberally. Only a handful keep an open mind to all the possibilities, reading and learning as much as they can to get each side of each story. But not nearly enough to keep these "discussions" going forward.

That doesn't happen every single time, just most times. A pity, really.

good point ... lets close down the message board.

anyhow, sarcasm off.... this is new, this thread was started from an article published in the last two days.

we are trying to determine why VAN can be successful, yet other similar market teams can not.

if you dont wish to take part, then excersize your right to not click the thread i guess.

dr

 

[codswallop]

good point ... lets close down the message board.

anyhow, sarcasm off.... this is new, this thread was started from an article published in the last two days.

we are trying to determine why VAN can be successful, yet other similar market teams can not.

if you dont wish to take part, then excersize your right to not click the thread i guess.

dr

I understand why you started the thread, no problems there. Simply commenting on where the discussion was heading (not the central issue of this thread but material to it nonetheless).

Not sure you took the meaning of my last comment, for whatever reasons you may have. But that's cool; as I always say, to each his own.

Just taking a more creative role in participating with this discussion.

 

[degroat*]

I fail to see how evidence that the Canucks make money when they're winning but lose their asses when they're losing supports the players' argument.

It's nice to see that if all the stars are aligned correctly that a team will make money for a couple years. MAYBE that'll make up for the years of losses the team endured during the years leading up to the couple years they actually made money.

In the end here, it's clear you're missing the point with these entire CBA negotiations. Owners should be able to AT THE VERY LEAST break even with a losing team. The players make their salary regardless of whether they score 50 goals or score 2 goals or have a torn ACL. Why shouldn't the owners have the same luxury?

 

[Optimist*]

The owners have asked for exactly the bare minimum of what they need. They can't negotiate. There is no reason to do anything less then total health, so that the game thrives from here. Anything else is a waste of time. If something is dying, you cant negotiate so that its a little less dead.

 

[iagreewithidiots]

so where are all the nay sayers ?

how come VAN can make a profit of 45m in two years and other similar sized markets cant even contain their losses ?

It is possible for similar sized markets to do what Vancouver is doing.

Lets not pretend its easy to do though.

Good management has as much to do with luck as it does with skill. Where is Vancouver if Bertuzzi and Naslund dont live up to potential? Probably still in the crapper.

So your whole argument comes down to this, i know youll disagree but trust me this is what you are saying. If a small market team does almost everything right (and has a little luck). Then they can increase payroll, be competitive, and make a little money.

They just better not make a mistake cause right down the rebuilding road they go.

To answer your question. If Vancouver can do it why cant everyone else? The answer is simply that Vancouver is the exception not the rule.

 

[ceber]

"In the previous four years the team lost millions of dollars."

Depending on the number of millions, is that how it should work? I don't care one way or the other, as long as teams survive and can ice a competetive and exciting team. Seems like there should be more stability though.

Also, 45 million in profit over the last two years... where do those numbers come from? They certainly aren't Levitt numbers, or even Forbes' numbers (which apparently include non-hockey revenue). If 45 million is true, it's a huge swing from everything else that's been reported. No wonder nobody trusts the owners.

Why not use Minnesota as an example? Unlike Vancouver, they've supposedly never lost money. According to the Forbes report, they had the largest (by far) operating income of over 20 million in '03. Why can't everyone do that? They sell out their pre-season games, have a salary of under 30 million, exist in a smaller NHL market than Vancouver. If they can make it work, why can't everyone? Don't all you fans of other teams want to see your team run the way the Wild are run? (Somehow I think you don't. )

 

[littleHossa]

It's interesting that the article is saying the Canucks made $ 45 million over the last two years and $ 25 millions last year, yet when Burke was interviewed along with other GMs and sporswriters a year ago about the health of Canadian franchise(it was related to the 2 bankrupcies) he said that they needed to get to the 2nd round to break even. Somewhere there has been a gaffe.

The Canucks aren't the way that every team should be run anyway, when Naslund was saying that they needed only a 1 or 2 more pieces to become a contender, and when Naslund obviously is going to negociate a contract extention in the NHL if the GM shows his commitment to bringing a Cup to Vancouver, Brian Burke goes on about how it's stupid to take additional players at the deadline etc. and does practically nothing. That job to try to ink Naslund to a new contract will now be Nonis's job, and his tenure as a GM will be decided on how the fans respond to him in a year or two.

 

[degroat*]

Why not use Minnesota as an example? Unlike Vancouver, they've supposedly never lost money. According to the Forbes report, they had the largest (by far) operating income of over 20 million in '03. Why can't everyone do that? They sell out their pre-season games, have a salary of under 30 million, exist in a smaller NHL market than Vancouver. If they can make it work, why can't everyone? Don't all you fans of other teams want to see your team run the way the Wild are run? (Somehow I think you don't. )

If every team in the league could sell out every game with a boring, crappy team, the league wouldn't be in the trouble it is in now.

 

[ceber]

If every team in the league could sell out every game [edit], the league wouldn't be in the trouble it is in now.

Which, to me, puts pretty much any example of one team doing well under the current CBA in proper perspective.

Do other sports require sellouts and playoff runs for their teams to be financially stable? As a general rule, should sellouts and playoffs runs be required for a team to be financially stable? Should the league be able to support a team that doesn't make the playoffs for 5 years and doesn't have a big string of sellouts?