Is there a Visionary out there? The deal is right there before your eyes. WAKE UP!!

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by eye, Jan 11, 2005.

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

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    All regular posters know that I have been pro owner. They lay out the investment and sign the paychecks and I believe they have the right to determine the system in which players should be remunerated for their services.

    Having said that there is a deal to be made and all it would take is for one person or a group of persons that actually care about the game and the fans to show some initiative and forget about posturing or trying to win this war outright. It will take a Visionary or a Marriage Counsellor type person that actually understands how to break down walls instead of making it bigger and stronger like Goodenow and Bettman have both been doing.

    The deal is right there before your eyes. Both sides know it but both sides are too proud and too stubborn to give in to one another. My source tells me that Bettman is going to call the season by late this week or early next week so get off your ASS and get this thing fixed ASAP. Admit it, it's going to be a floating figure that links revenue (which is easy to agree upon) to expenses. It's going to be a luxury tax semi-soft cap system that moves upward and downward depending on gross revenues in each given year. It's going to be a luxury tax system that kicks in a 100% or more at 54% of gross revenues. The deal is there for the making so it's time to put the FANS FIRST as well as all other employees that are counting on the NHL to resume play. GET ON WITH ALREADY. YOU CAN PUT TOGETHER THE MOST CREATIVE CBA IN PRO SPORTS - ONE THAT CAN BE THE ENVY OF ALL OTHER PRO ATHLETES AND PRO SPORTS FRANCHISE OWNERS :madfire: :madfire: :madfire: :madfire:
     
  2. roadrunner

    roadrunner Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    U Can'tTake Me Alive
    Home Page:
    That is what I've been hoping for for months now. I can see why they've waited this long though...I mean, they've only had, what....TEN *^!#!& :mad: YEARS to work on this agreement!
     
  3. That's what the owners are doing. They are setting the standard for which all the other leagues will aim. Baseball already hints that they are going to be seeking a hardcap come the expiration of the existing agreement. The NHL is the first league to get a crack at bringing salaries back to reality and getting the sporting world's head out of its collecting tail. Go get 'em Gary. Cancel the season and let the players stew.
     
  4. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:
    Hell must be freezing over, i agree with Eye.
     
  5. Hockey_Nut99

    Hockey_Nut99 Guest

    Baseball will go for a Cap for sure. The players are accusing the owners of collusion right now. I was listening to it on the radio about how the owners are trying to only sign 2 year deals or so. That way alot of players won't have long contracts going into a cap situation.
     
  6. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,914
    Likes Received:
    3,161
    Trophy Points:
    186

    That seems to be the plan in baseball for the coming 2006 CBA expiration too, which I linked elsewhere. Must have the same lawyers. Also raises the stakes in this hockey standoff as baseball is watching, if hockey can achieve a cap, baseball will be the only sport left without one and I would think that there would be some chance of getting something this next go round, even among the most gutless owners in sport.
     
  7. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    I'm in agreeance here, but isnt the frequency of posts by eye largely of the rally-type? Every time I find my inner hockey fan getting pumped up by the slants and bold font, but I gotta stop myself when I realize who's posting.
     
  8. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think this is probably the first time that I can totally agree with you on this. Both sides are wrong and have done their fair share to get into this mess, and neither side is right in how they want to deal with it. Pride is getting in the way on both sides. The agreement is right in the middle of what each side is talking about, yet neither is man enough to reach out and grab it. A hard luxury tax at the right % of revenue and a hard cap above that just to make sure a team can't do what the Yanks are doing. It is a good solution, it is a fair solution, it is right in the middle and it is what I have been talking about on these boards for a while now.

    Both sides have too much to lose, and the 3rd party which is the fans have the most to lose, if this thing drags on through the summer and into next year. Both sides have the oppurtunity to look at what works and what doesn't in the other leagues and corrent the inflationary mistakes in the last CBA. It needs to get done.
     
  9. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,942
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    Except the players have repeatedly said they won't accept any system that has linkage.

    No deal can be done until one of the two sides completely breaks down and gives in to the other.
     
  10. eye

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    If current NHL players ever want to resume play in the NHL it will be with some for of linkage to revenue. Sometimes to win the war you have to conceed certain battles and this is one of them. Current NHL players are losing way more fans and their respect than the owners are. Players are the ones that have to conceed one simple fact in order for talks to resume and for play to begin - Cost Certainty in some form. I think even the most loyal pro player supporters on this board admit that in order for talks to move forward the players have to give the owners the right to determine the way they run their business. Not the terms which are totally negotiable but the basic way the league and teams are operated. The players are wrong, are getting bad advice and they have no right to say they will not work under a fair cap system. It's totally the owners call. Just ask anyone that owns their own business if they have the right to determine the method that will be used to remunerate their employees. The tail does not wag the dog. The deal can be made now or years from now. It's up to the players.
     
  11. Nomad

    Nomad Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rather than the players conceding cost certainty, why don't the owners concede revenue sharing?
     
  12. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,017
    Likes Received:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    Or why not both?

    My biggest frustration has been the complete lack of negotiations between the two sides, for which I would hold both accountable. All we've had is a periodic wish list from each side.

    As I've said before, they need each other. Meanwhile that $2.3 billion pot is shrinking and is only going to get smaller.
     
  13. Nomad

    Nomad Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Chili - True. I am just trying to make the point to all the "The players really need to <insert concession here>" folks that perhaps the owners should spur things along by making a concession for once.
     
  14. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,017
    Likes Received:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    Nomad, in my opinion, the owners made a significant concession in saying that the NHL would continue to guarantee contracts. Beyond that though, status quo would have favoured the players considerably so I think's it's natural that they will need to concede changes which do not benefit them. And in the long run, the improved health of the league is a benefit to them.
     
  15. Nomad

    Nomad Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Chili (Same Chili I know and respect from other boards, I assume) - It could be said that any number of things from either side is a major concession, though. It could be said that not demanding a lowering of the UFA age on the part of the players is a concession. Likewise, the installation of two-way arbitration, the 24% rollback, any form of luxury tax (or really any system that differs from the current free-for-all), the restriction on rookie salaries and bonuses, or any other element to their proposal.
     
  16. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,017
    Likes Received:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    Yeah Nomad, it's me. :)

    Point taken on concessions, it is in the interpretation.

    Cba's are interesting...once they are signed, both sides try to find ways to get around their content. And because of the length of the last one, there was plenty of time to pick it apart. The players and their agents did a better job of using it to their advantage.

    I don't consider myself pro owner, I'd just like to see an agreement that levels the playing field and brings financial health to the league. To do that, I think they will need to make some dramatic changes to the last agreement.

    But to come to an agreement they will need to actually talk to each other which they don't seem to do much of at all.
     
  17. Nomad

    Nomad Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agreed. I am pretty open about being pro-player in this whole debacle, but I do not argue that both sides are to blame and that both sides need to meet in the middle somewhere. A lot of it comes down to what you view the middle as, and in what direction you want to see the league go.

    More than anything, I am driven by a desire to see the league go in a particular direction. I have no interest in on-ice parity and heavy player movement. I like dominant teams (odd, I know, coming from a Caps fan - but I am also a huge fan of Habs history) because more often than not I find that it is a result of good management and team-building more than aggressive spending. I look at Colorado, and yes their payrolls are high, but they very rarely delve into free agency, especially before the CBA-spurred acquisitions of Selanne and Kariya. I think teams like Colorado should be allowed to thrive and to reward their players for service. That's why I like a much more restrictive version of the NBA system (which I think is fundamentally flawed for having too many exceptions), which I think is somewhere between the two. It ties payrolls to revenues, but in a much looser way. And at the same time, it can be changed to actually promote building from within and maintaining a level of dedication to the players on the team, and to the team by the players.
     
  18. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,017
    Likes Received:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    Dominant teams aren't a big issue with me. The great Habs, Islanders, Oilers dynasties brought alot of great entertainment to the league.

    I would though like to see every team in a postion to be competitive and not see a few perpetually forced to sell off their best players because of an imbalance in riches of the different owners/teams. And I realize that a salary cap would not necessarily prevent that at all. But teams should be rewarded for good management decisions, not how much they have in the vault.

    I believe revenue sharing is a step in the right direction but is it enough? It takes years to build your team into a good one and it's sad when the market forces you to let guys go. I remember when Ron Francis became a free agent a few years back, the Pens could not even afford to make him an offer.
     
  19. Nomad

    Nomad Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with that sentiment. The aforementioned system would, I think, hinge on some advanced level of revenue sharing to allow for teams to try and build a competitive team without forcing all teams onto a relatively even competitive footing regardless of their situation (I think it is pointless to spend $35M on a team that is rebuilding).

    The revenue sharing concept also promotes the idea of promoting hockey outside your own viewing area. If revenue sharing becomes a reality, then all of a sudden it is in the best interest of New York and Detroit that Carolina and Florida make as much money as possible, so they don't have to give up as much money. And if those markets aren't feasible, then it behooves them to push for that team to be moved to a more marketable location (rather than seeing them remain where they are, working at a loss, so that they keep a salary cap down).
     
  20. eye

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    I think the owners and Bettman have already conceeded a certain amount of revenue sharing but why does that matter to you? As long as there is a salary floor to go along with the cap teams will have a fairly level playing field where drafting, player development, patience, vision and coaching are the difference makers between successful clubs and ones that struggle. The salary floor is a huge concession by the owners that gets little recognition by fans, players and the PA.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"