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

[GabbyDugan]

Glen Sather, great GM is one of hockey's biggest myths. He hasn't made the playoffs in more than a decade. His record developing young players the last 15 years has surely been the worst record of any GM ever in a 15 year period.


Tom

I'll agree that Sather did a poor job in both player drafting and player development in Edmonton in the last several years of his time in Edmonton (and he was as lucky as brilliant during the first part, too. Gretzky got on Nelson Skalbania's jet in Indianapolis and landed in Edmonton instead of Winnipeg - that was the lucky stroke of a lifetime. Barry Fraser was a great scout for a few years (found Jari Kurri when no one was looking in Finland), but Sather let Fraser run player development from Mexico for more than a decade, too. Certainly Sather managed the young assets he had very well, and you have to be very good to make the most of good fortune in hockey.

It's not quite true about Sather not making the playoffs in a decade, as he was General Manager of the Edmonton Oilers teams that made the playoffs (after a four year absence) in 97,98, 99 and 2000, when he was replaced by Kevin Lowe...

 

[Big Cat Davo]

All about the stakes

The problem, I think, is that the stakes are too high. I do not want to see medicority rewarded with on ice success. If a GM makes bad moves and his team loses then fine. It happens. But if Naslund does not becaome what he is now, and Bertuzzi does not emerge, and Canucks lose their franchise would you still be preaching the same line? It is one thing to say of Naslund and Bert don't develope that the Canucks suck for 3 more years untill their next batch of prospects has the chance to become impact players, breaking even or taken minor losses. But in today's market it seems like an unsuccessful rebuild will cost a city, and more importanly, the fans, its franchise. And that is what has become unacceptable. Both Calgary and Edmonton were on the verge of losing their teams. If Iggy ended up another Val Bure and Mikka Kiprosoff turned out to actually be the third stringer the Sharks had him pegged as where does that leave the Flames? A 8th straight year outside of the playoffs, with losses mounting. When it still costs 22 million to field a team as bad as the Penguins were last year, it that not a problem?

Dave

 

[oilswell]

If Vancouver can do it, why can't Buffalo?

Great point. They should expand to Saskatoon. All they'd need to do is hire Burke. Don't the NHL hire any professional businessmen?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Great point. They should expand to Saskatoon. All they'd need to do is hire Burke. Don't the NHL hire any professional businessmen?

your point is well taken. if the market can not support the team, no amount of front office talent will save it.

so, is the problem with teams like CRL, ANA and NSH, the front office, the market or both ?

really, if its the market, then no CBA will help.

dr

 

[I in the Eye]

I agree. This is the only way in Edmonton, New York and Vancouver. In my opinion it can happen in all 30 markets. Pittsburgh and the Islanders need a new rink. If a team does all three things right (draft and develop players, make astute trades and make prudent free agent choices) they become elite and they can afford to become elite.

I think that all 30 teams have the potential to become successful under the old system... IF they follow the natural 'cycle to success'... Start young and cheap, steady growth by keeping the young core together and augmenting it through astute trades and 'sensible' free agent choices (i.e. not the high priced stud players), and when the team finally becomes elite (or close to elite), THEN acquire the stud, high priced free agent(s)/players to put you over the edge for a serious cup run...

IMO, this is the natural life cycle of an NHL franchise... then the cycle repeats itself - with various degrees of success based on the GM's and team's implementation of the strategy...

When teams try to 'skip steps' in the life cycle (i.e. cut corners), IMO, not only does the team suffer (through interupting the natural evolution of the team and disrupting team salary structure) but the rest of the league suffers as well - by driving up costs in the market...

IMO, this is what the strategy must be for ALL franchises - to ensure a healthy, viable league... If the GM's and teams don't have the sense to do it themselves, then IMO, the league has to try and force teams to use this strategy... Otherwise, as we've seen, costs spiral out of control...

This is exactly the way it should be. The teams that do it right should reap the rewards. If a team doesn't do it right (for whatever reason) they shouldn't.

Look at what you are saying:

1) There is one way to build a good hockey team.

Yes, I am saying this

2) The handful of teams with the best management succeed because they adopt the best strategy and execute it perfectly. These teams are the ones that year in, year out, contend.

Yes, I am saying this... But not 'execute it perfectly'... They execute it 'as perfect as it needs to be to achieve success'... I allow margin for error, but as a whole, because of the great strategy (which isn't a secret) - the errors do not significantly **** up everything the GM and team has done to date... The GM and team is able to adapt without having to 'start from scratch'...

3) This is unfair. We have to make the system idiot proof so that teams with idiots managing also have a chance to win.

No, I am not saying this... What I am saying is that we have to make the system idiot-proof so that all the teams basically follow this 'cycle to success'... For example, the teams starting the cycle (i.e. young, cheap team) have no business being in the market for free agents (unless it is a young, cheap free agent)... This just disrupts the 'cycle to success' (i.e. IMO, the team actually takes a step back by not developing properly - it takes away playing time from the young, growing players, etc.)... By being in the market, in addition to disrupting the normal growth of the team, it also drives up the cost of free agents for the teams that are further along in the cycle - and should be in the market for free agents... The same with trades... For teams starting the cycle have NO BUSINESS being in the market for very good to great, older, established players (let alone, stars)... They are basically in the market for good to great, young players with potential... By being in the market for older, established players, the teams in the beginning of the cycle drive the market up for the teams that are at that point (in the cycle) ready to acquire the pieces to finish the puzzle...

The teams in the middle of the cycle (i.e. mediocre to pretty good team - with a core that grew together and on the right path to being a 'great to elite' team) have no business being in the market for super stud, high priced free agents... They should be in the market for good to very good (to great) FA's that help 'fill in the gaps'... Same with trades... The team in the middle of the cycle should be looking to acquire the reasonably-priced 'good to very good' (to great) players to help the team make it to the next level of the cycle... By being in the market for the 'super stud' high priced players, they are trying to skip steps - a bandaid solution... while raising the price of these players for the teams who should be in the market for them...

The teams at the end of the cycle (i.e. elite teams - with a core that grew together and have had success together) have the business for being in the market for super stud, high priced free agents (and super stud, expensive players through trades)... They are looking and ready for that player to put them 'over the top' (or perhaps to replace an existing 'core' player)...

For example, IMO, Anaheim has no business being in the market for Scott Niedermeyer (given where they are in the 'cycle to success')... To acquire him, IMO, is a bandaid solution that will NOT bring Anaheim long-term team success (i.e. that makes them elite and reap the rewards for being elite)... If Anaheim is in the market for him (and Scott doesn't sign with Anaheim), it just raises the asking price for those who should be in the market for him (i.e. Vancouver, Colorodo, Detroit, etc.)...

IMO, we have to make the system idiot-proof so that GM's don't cut corners... The formula for success is the same for every team (regardless of the money they have to spend)... GM's and teams looking to cut corners by acquiring (or trying to acquire) players they shouldn't (given where they are in the 'cycle to success') just inflates the market - unnecessarily and foolishly...

No way, IMO, should NY have been in the market for Jagr (even though they could afford him)... IMO, no way should Fedorov be in Anaheim... Those superstar players should be reserved for the 'elite team' market - those that are ready to make a serious push for the stanley cup, and are geared for long playoff success...

Cutting corners DOES NOT work, and it just inflates the market... The GM's and teams don't seem to understand this... Therefore, IMO, the NHL has to control each team's budget... Limit the budget to limit the options teams can employ to try and reach success (as there is really only one option anyways - the cycle - it's no secret)... Elite teams will generate much more money, and thus, will be able to afford 'cap penalties'... Teams in the beginning of the 'cycle' wont (therefore, only in the market for young players who are cheap, with potential)... Teams in the middle of the 'cycle' will think long and hard before deciding what players to be in the market for (i.e. they will focus on and be in the market for 'reasonably-priced players who are good/very good and established - to help them become successful, and elite)...

To summarize, at a basic level, the NHL teams (market) fall in the following categories (sub-markets):

- beginning of 'success cycle' (poor result teams)
- middle of 'success cycle' (middle result teams)
- end of 'success cycle' (elite teams)

The beginning of success cycle teams should mainly be in the market for young, cheap players with potential... so that the young 'core' grows together and helps the team reach the middle of the success cycle... while still being cost conscious...

The middle of success cycle teams should mainly be in the market for good to very good (to great), reasonably-priced established players (to augment the team core that grew up together)... to help them reach the elite level - while still being cost conscious...

The end of success cycle teams (elite teams) should mainly be in the market for superstar players (to replace certain 'core' players who have retired/left as free agents/have been traded... or to augment the team core with a 'special' players to help them reach the cup) - while still being cost conscious...

I support some sort of cap system that does not severely punish teams from signing/keeping their own players (i.e. players that have been 'home grown'), but makes teams think long and hard before acquiring other players 'on the market/on other teams'... I support a cap system that hinders (not eliminates, however) the beginning of success cycle teams (and middle of success cycle teams) from being in the market for 'superstars' - or expensive players that they really have no business acquiring or being in the market for (using the 'cycle to success' as the framework)...

By hindering what teams can spend, IMO, teams will less likely attempt to cut corners with high-priced bandaid solutions- which does NO ONE any good...

This 'cycle to success' is NOT A SECRET - everyone knows about it - some teams just choose to ignore it as it requires a lot of work, time, and patience... Even if all the teams followed this model, all the teams won't have success... The astute GM's (and teams) will only find long-term success...

The poor GM's (and teams) won't (poor trades, draft picks, personnel decisions, etc.)... Even if following the 'cycle to success' exactly, some (the majority) of teams will not move to elite levels...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The problem, I think, is that the stakes are too high. I do not want to see medicority rewarded with on ice success. If a GM makes bad moves and his team loses then fine. It happens. But if Naslund does not becaome what he is now, and Bertuzzi does not emerge, and Canucks lose their franchise would you still be preaching the same line?

Sure. I was preaching the line before they emerged. I was preaching it for all the smaller Canadian cities.

I've preached it ever since Pat Quinn laid it out as a blueprint when he and Brian Burke took over the team in 1987. I've watched basically the same management team follow the same blueprint twice and the result has been the two best versions of the Canucks ever. The first time the team fell short. The jury is still out on this one.

The idea that the Canucks would ever move is ridiculous. Teams don't move because they fail on a rebuild. Teams usually move for a new rink or the promise of a rink. They are much more likely to move an excellent team than a poor one.

If the Oilers moved it would be like moving Hartford to Carolina. Nothing really happens on the revenue side. But moving Quebec out of a bandbox rink into the Pepsi Centre in a place where hockey had already failed turned hundreds of millions of dollars for the league. Teams follow revenues.

Costs are irrelevant to the relocation issue. They are the same everywhere.

It is one thing to say of Naslund and Bert don't develope that the Canucks suck for 3 more years untill their next batch of prospects has the chance to become impact players, breaking even or taken minor losses.

I realize this. The Canucks spent a lot of the past decade competing directly against Colorado and Detroit, too. It was easy to see that to compete Vancouver had to get a lot better and it would take time because Colorado also had to come back to them. It would have been very easy to fall short. They still might. If they stop winning, revenues will rapidly fall. They have to go deep in the playoffs consistently to hold on to an elite team. All teams are trying to get that good and only a few can succeed.

We've got a changing of the guard happening - Detroit, Dallas, St. Louis and Colorado - are clearly in decline as once great cores crumble. Vancouver is a candidate to replace one of those teams, but they are not the only good young team in the West. Calgary, Nashville, and San Jose are damned good too.

I'll take my lumps as a fan if bad stuff and bad decisions by the Canucks puts the Canucks on the outside. If the Predators or the Sharks do better and leave Vancouver in the dust on the race to the top, fair ball. That happens. We can't all win that race. I've been a Canuck fan from the beginning. I'm used to taking lumps. Check the record. It's part of being a fan.

But in today's market it seems like an unsuccessful rebuild will cost a city, and more importanly, the fans, its franchise. And that is what has become unacceptable. Both Calgary and Edmonton were on the verge of losing their teams.

Where were these teams going to go where they would do better? A team that missed the playoffs for several straight years would not do better in Kansas City or Portland. They would still be lousy and they wouldn't have the established fan base. If Edmonton builds another great team, I'd worry a lot more about them than I would when they are lousy. Then, they'd be worth a lot more in a bigger place.

They'd be worth more under any CBA. If the team is worth more elsewhere, it's going to move. What difference does a CBA make? The costs will be the same no matter where the team is located. It is the revenue side that gets the boost on a relocation.

Tom

 

[Licentia]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=98932

"The Canucks have made a profit of $45 million the past two years..." said Nonis."

"Nonis said if the NHL season were to begin today the Canucks would have a payroll of around $49 million US"



So if Vancouver can do it, why cant other teams ?

DR

Calgary "Just Barely" made a profit. By your logic they should have made $50+ million.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Calgary "Just Barely" made a profit. By your logic they should have made $50+ million.

where did i say that ?

dr

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

your point is well taken. if the market can not support the team, no amount of front office talent will save it.

so, is the problem with teams like CRL, ANA and NSH, the front office, the market or both ?

really, if its the market, then no CBA will help.

dr

This is an important point but your conclusion is incorrect.

Yes, the CBA can help. It can hinder. Or it can have not much effect. It definitly is an important factor that can determine the health of the weakest markets.

Want a 6-team league? Sign a CBA that is within the means of the six best markets.

Want a 24 team league? Sign a CBA that is within the means of the 24 best markets.

Want a 30-team league? Same thing.

Really, it's all about the weakest link, and how far the NHLPA and the owners are willing to go in a CBA.

The truth is, a CBA can fix so many things that we could, in theory, have a 40-team league.

Yes. Really. The NHL could easily achieve that. But obviously they would need to control costs so that the weakest link out of those 40 teams can support a NHL franchise.

This is precisely what this CBA is about as much for the union and for the players. The NHL claims it wants viability for its weakest link in the context of a competitive league.

It is very tricky and why I continually maintain that competitive leagues deserve a special status compared to other types of businesses.

The NHL can go several directions depending on what the CBA looks like.

1-It can sign a CBA that forces them to downsize because some of the weakest link can't live with it.

2-It can sign a CBA that should force them to downsize but maintain 30 teams, several of which will never gain much respectability. (this is the current scenario, and the one most likely to result from the next CBA as well because the owners are little girls)

3-It can sign a CBA where every 30 team is on equal field and healthy.

4-It can screw the players bad enough that they have enough room to support even weaker market than the weakest it currently has.

Theoretically, if costs were ridiculously low, the NHL would be viable in Quebec, Winnipeg, Hartford, Halifax. Name it. It's really just numbers that you play around. It's just expenses and revenues.

If the elite players who reach free agency like Forsberg, Lemieux, Sakic, and Lidstrom topped at 200k per year, how many markets do you think the NHL could sustain?

The answer would probably be most impressive. The scenario is of course ludicrous but the point is, you find the magical numbers for the weakest link and yes, you solve the problem.

Because the money saved by the weakest link can be used to increase marketing in very agressive ways and put the price of tickets at very affordable prices.

A CBA is key for the weak market. Hockey culture can be developed in markets where interest is not optimal right now. But if the weakest markets can't be part of the NHL as equals, I see no point for them being there.

I'd rather see the NHL bend over to the players again but at least have the courage to cut down teams if they do so.

 

[Licentia]

Good stuff DR

Why is that ? GOOD MANAGEMENT !!

- Tough dealing contract with players
- Getting more revenues with pay per view games & strong marketing

They are getting reward for taking their responsabilities instead of waiting to getting reward for doing the same mistakes over & over.

Detroit can have good management spending $10 million on one player and still be profitable. Calgary can't do that. They have to pay much less and go to the Stanley Cup final to make a small profit.

Give it up guys. Small markets cannot CONSISTENTLY compete at the same level as a large market team. Bettman said that large market teams have been 3 times more likely to make the playoffs than small market teams.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Detroit can have good management spending $10 million on one player and still be profitable. Calgary can't do that. They have to pay much less and go to the Stanley Cup final to make a small profit.

Give it up guys. Small markets cannot CONSISTENTLY compete at the same level as a large market team. Bettman said that large market teams have been 3 times more likely to make the playoffs than small market teams.

why cant CGY compete at the level of DET ?

is it possible that DET is able to pay so much in salary because they have had a decade of playoff success and have generated the income neccesary to keep a payroll like that ?

lets say CGY for the next 10 years has the same success as DET just enjoyed in the last 10. Why would they not have a similar ability to generate those types of revenues ?

dont say that CGY doesnt have the money, Alberta and Calgary in general is one of the wealthiest area's of North America, both in terms of per capita income and corporate support. YOu might have heard of "oil" ? Well, Calgary is an oil town. CGY has more head offices than Vancouver and Montreal and only trails Toronto in that regard.

dr

 

[Canadian Time]

Yes, the CBA can help. It can hinder. Or it can have not much effect. It definitly is an important factor that can determine the health of the weakest markets.

From what we've heard recently, the weakest markets, the ones that lost the bulk of the money last year were the Rangers, Caps, Blues, Islanders, Panthers and Hurricanes.

Are we concerned about the health of the first 3 or 4 of those teams? Is that what this lock-out is about?

Interesting quote from Nonis about the Canucks making $20 million in 2002-03. Didn't the respected Forbes state that the Canucks only made $700,000 that year? Wonder what Levitt said about the Canucks? It's easy to see where the mistrust comes from.

 

[Licentia]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=98932

"The Canucks have made a profit of $45 million the past two years..." said Nonis."

"Nonis said if the NHL season were to begin today the Canucks would have a payroll of around $49 million US"



So if Vancouver can do it, why cant other teams ?

DR

If Vancouver made a $45 million dollar profit in the last 2 years, then Detroit (if they had the same salary as Vancouver) would probably make a profit of $80+ million. Calgary with the same payroll probably wouldn't have made a profit at all. They only made a profit last season because of their playoff run. If they even make the playoffs this year (if the owners give in and accept the players offer and we had a season) I would be very suprised.

Give it up guys! Detroit's best profit will always be more than Vancouver's best profit. Vancouver's best profit will always be more than Calgary's best profit. etc.

 

[Licentia]

Under any new system the Canucks have to choose between Naslund or Morrison and Cloutier. Dan and Brendan are the two guys who wanted long term deals. Ther Canucks refused because they are the guys to go in a cap situation.
Tom

That's the system that Calgary and Edmonton play under now. Instead of just the small market teams suffering the way you describe, let's let all 30 teams experience that. Then it's not money that makes the difference, it's the skills of the people in management that makes the difference.

 

[Canadian Time]

Give it up guys! Detroit's best profit will always be more than Vancouver's best profit. Vancouver's best profit will always be more than Calgary's best profit. etc.

I think you are underestimating the Calgary market. The Flames had I believe the lowest ticket prices in the league last year. There's a reason for that, they had missed the playoffs for 7 years, that's all they could charge.

Once the Flames made the playoffs, low and behold 3,000 extra seats became available in the Saddledome, they opened up previously closed off sections. The fans there gladly scooped them all up.

If the Flames had another good season, you would see the ticket prices rise sharply. If they had another, the prices for tickets would rise again and I bet it would be tough to get one. If the team showed that it was good, the Flames could double the present price and Flames fans would gladly pay. Calgary is a good hockey market that could generate Canuck revenues easily if they stayed up there in the standings, which it looks like they could very well.

The Flames have been really, really poorly run for more then a decade. The Flames management has been using the small market schtick to cover up for their incompetence. Give that city a winner and it could rival all but the very largest hockey markets in revenue.

 

[Licentia]

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.

Sounds great. Let Vancouver lose Bertuzzi then, if he cares more about money than being on a winning team, because if anyone could have room to sign him under a cap, it wouldn't be a winning team. Calgary and Edmonton have to play under a system like you describe now. Let's let all 30 teams play under that system. That's called fairness, and then it's about the skill of the management and scouts, not money.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

[W]hen the team finally becomes elite (or close to elite), THEN acquire the stud, high priced free agent(s)/players to put you over the edge for a serious cup run...

Our positions are not that far apart. I don't believe in making this move. I really don't think Ottawa improved their chances by getting Bondra or Smolinski or Greg deVries. Once you get that good, it is very hard to get better. The move backfired on the Blues. I'd rather play the game the same way. If I'm not good enough I want to find another great kid.

If I am good enough I will spend to stay that good but I'm not hunting for a final piece. I'm trying to figure out how to get hot at the right time.

Close to elite is not good enough. Fans of every mediocre team always think their team is close to elite. Teams do not improve in inches. They take leaps - usually two of them. The first is to mediocre, the second to elite. Both those leaps have to be the result of internal improvement. Both tend to be surprises.

A close to elite team can easily fool you. I agree with your points about teams trying to find a shortcut. They fail and drive up the price of free agents for a team that should be buying. I think that is - or has been - a cause of inflation. (I say has been because I don't think anyone believes in the Washington strategy any more.) But the inflation this caused did not hurt the bottom feeders or the other mediocre teams. It was inflation for teams that could afford to go after the same guys.

The fact that some teams were behaving foolishly actually helped the teams trying to rebuild. The Panthers helped the Canucks by taking Bure off their hands and send Jovo back. The Islanders were clearly foolish to give the Canucks Bertuzzi and McCabe for Linden. The Devils made a good deal strategically speaking for Mogilny. They did not have a job for Morrison and they were losing him on waivers the following year. If you reverse those three trades - pretend the Canucks did not make them - the team still sucks. These decisions also hurt the elite teams, the teams the Canucks have to catch, by driving up their costs.

It is a zero sum game. If another team wants to screw it up, it always helps the Canucks. This really isn't about the next CBA. It is about the proper building strategy under the old CBA. It is exactly what we should want. Every team should want to do it properly. The ones who try shortcuts - winning with a wallet - eliminate themselves from contention and lose a ton of money. That's perfect.

If we want the same rules to apply under the new CBA, it is easy to find a formula the owners would love. Extend the existing CBA in every respect save one:

1) Designate hockey revenues and define the percentage the players get.

2) Hold back 20% of every player's salary until the end of the season.

3) Audit the books and settle up. Money collected that is over the player's designated share is divided equally among all the teams.

Since I don't care what whether the owners get their cost certainty, and I don't care what player salaries are, I would support that. The owners would also sign it in a second. The players wouldn't, of course, but that's neither here nor there.

Would you? Why or why not?

Tom

 

[Licentia]

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

The best profit that Detroit or New York can make is far better than the best profit Vancouver could ever make. The best profit Vancouver could ever make is better than the best profit Edmonton and Calgary could ever make. End of story, give it up guys.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If we want the same rules to apply under the new CBA, it is easy to find a formula the owners would love. Extend the existing CBA in every respect save one:

1) Designate hockey revenues (DHR) and define the percentage the players get.

2) Hold back 20% of every player's salary until the end of the season.

3) Audit the books and settle up. Money collected that is over the player's designated share is divided equally among all the teams.

Since I don't care what whether the owners get their cost certainty, and I don't care what player salaries are, I would support that. The owners would also sign it in a second. The players wouldn't, of course, but that's neither here nor there.

Would you? Why or why not?

Tom

what if the players share is UNDER the designated % of DHR ?

dr

 

[Licentia]

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

Sorry i'm late. :lol

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The best profit that Detroit or New York can make is far better than the best profit Vancouver could ever make. The best profit Vancouver could ever make is better than the best profit Edmonton and Calgary could ever make. End of story, give it up guys.

well, if giving up because you are making unsubstantiated claims is your goal... forget it, im not giving up simply because you have a claim that is wrong.

dr

 

[Licentia]

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.

Yeah, this arguing drives me nuts. Passes the time at work though.

 

[Licentia]

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.

Every thread - whether directly mentioning the CBA/Lockout or just something narrowly related to the CBA/Lockout - turns into this battle.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The best profit that Detroit or New York can make is far better than the best profit Vancouver could ever make. The best profit Vancouver could ever make is better than the best profit Edmonton and Calgary could ever make. End of story, give it up guys.

So what? I don't believe it is true, but so what? That just means the Rangers could be sold for more. They have to make higher profits. That doesn't show up on the ice. The Canucks can afford a great team.

They are spending $50 million and making a fat profit. If they win in the playoffs they can afford $60 million. If they win a Cup, $70 million. End of story.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

what if the players share is UNDER the designated % of DHR ?

dr

Tough nougies for the players, I guess. That's what the owners are hoping for. It is a way of giving the owners exactly what they are looking for without hurting the smaller markets. It would also place a drag on salaries because big revenue teams who lay out a big contract will be holding back more and if they spend more they are also revenue sharing. But I don't care how the money is split. If the players get screwed under this system, they still get lots.

I want hockey and I want great teams and I want everybody to have the same chance - more or less - to be great. I don't want a crazy apples capping system. I don't want mediocrity across the league. As long as I get that, I don't care enough whether the billionaires or millionaires win. I'd rather the owners lose on this issue just for misleading and manipulating fans about it, but that's not a good enough reason not to have hockey.

Tom