Listening to Robert Esche make me ill.

[Cawz]

I have used only facts in that argument, look them up if you want, but i tell you there is not one point i stated that is not fact.

How about the fact that the same teams are basically guaranteed a playoff spot every year, while theres always some flash-in-the-pan team that makes it and fades back into obscurity.

How about the fact that the owners will always be corrupt. Always have been, always will be. You dont become a millionaire in the business world by being honest.

Tie the revenues to something concrete, the owners can make unreported money on the side, the players can make unreported sponshership money on the side and everyone can get back to business.

 

[jpsharkfan]

1) Forbes has access to numbers such as the reported paid attendances and tickets sold from each game as well as teams average per person expenditures in concessions. They also have access to the books of teams that are part of a publicly traded entity (ie when Molson's used to own the Canadiens, among others) or part of things like the Ontario Teachers Pension fund (ie the Maple Leafs). They can use any figures they need to make estimates for other teams. Now when these estimates are off by a small margin then i think you can take the view that Forbes overestimated the revenue but when they report that reported league revenues are off by more than 20% of their estimate there is some concern as to who is telling the truth, especially given the owners track record as seen in point #2.

The reality of the situation is that the NHLPA has to keep saying that the Owners are lying about the financial situation of the NHL. It is their one and only leg to stand on, their war cry. Without it they have no unity.

Anyone with any common sense can see that the players have been horribly overpaid for years. More power to them for that. Unfortunetly all good things must come to an end and instead of being thrilled with all the money they have earned and facing the financial reality of the game of hockey they keep saying more, more, more like greedy little children!

I lost all respect for the NHLPA when I read this (and realize the NHLPA has not denied this):Levitt: Yes. I've asked the leadership of the Players' Association that if they have questions about the report if they'd want to meet with me and talk about it. They wrote back and indicated that they did not think that that would be productive. And that surprised me.

So that says to me that they do not want to look into the validity of the report instead there attitude appears to be ignorance is bliss! It sounds like "ignorance is bliss" is the theme song for NHLPA and its members.

 

[Beakermania*]

How about the fact that the same teams are basically guaranteed a playoff spot every year, while theres always some flash-in-the-pan team that makes it and fades back into obscurity.

Are they guaranteed a playoff spot because they spend money, or because they spend it wisely.

Ottawa, Vancouver, and Tampa are almost guaranteed playoff spots despite the fact that they are among the lowest payroll teams in the league. The Rangers on the other hand have missed the playoffs for years while having a huge payroll. The Blues barely made the playoffs and they have a large payroll as well, and arent the Dallas Stars two years removed from missing the playoffs. What good was the Capitals money at the beginning of last season??


You can twist Detroit, New Jersey and Colorado all you want but i contend they built from within and got many of their good players when they were young and added the missing pieces to their teams later.

 

[Cawz]

1) it was an opening offer, that 5% was not written in stone, however no counter proposal was made by the owners
2) luxury tax implemented properly would curb salaries
3) one of the reasons that arbitration is inflationary is the fact that players can go after career seasons and choose not to go after sub-par seasons, therefore this part of the proposal should curb the inflationary tendencies of arbitration.

1) a bandaid solution is a bandaid solution. Its worthless.
2) didnt the PA say it would not accept any luxury tax that looked like a salary cap, like $ for $ over a theshhold?
3) Brewer from the Oilers went to arb after a crappy season and still got a raise from an already inflated salary. As mentioned above, arbitration is very player friendly.

The PA has to make the first step (no steps have been made yet by either side, no matter what anyone says). Like Pronger said yesterday, talking about the players who are speaking out. He said they have reaped the benefits of the work stoppage of 94, so they shouldnt be speaking out. Shouldnt the side that has been reaping the benifits make the first step, as opposed to the side that has lost 200 to 300 million or whatever?

 

[Beakermania*]

1) a bandaid solution is a bandaid solution. Its worthless.
2) didnt the PA say it would not accept any luxury tax that looked like a salary cap, like $ for $ over a theshhold?
3) Brewer from the Oilers went to arb after a crappy season and still got a raise from an already inflated salary. As mentioned above, arbitration is very player friendly.

The PA has to make the first step (no steps have been made yet by either side, no matter what anyone says). Like Pronger said yesterday, talking about the players who are speaking out. He said they have reaped the benefits of the work stoppage of 94, so they shouldnt be speaking out. Shouldnt the side that has been reaping the benifits make the first step, as opposed to the side that has lost 200 to 300 million or whatever?

no doubt that both sides need to move to get a deal done, seems like the players have moved off the status quo to me though, however for the owners its cap or nothing, so i think they need to explore other directions.

 

[Cawz]

Are they guaranteed a playoff spot because they spend money, or because they spend it wisely.

Ottawa, Vancouver, and Tampa are almost guaranteed playoff spots despite the fact that they are among the lowest payroll teams in the league. The Rangers on the other hand have missed the playoffs for years while having a huge payroll. The Blues barely made the playoffs and they have a large payroll as well, and arent the Dallas Stars two years removed from missing the playoffs. What good was the Capitals money at the beginning of last season??


You can twist Detroit, New Jersey and Colorado all you want but i contend they built from within and got many of their good players when they were young and added the missing pieces to their teams later.

Well, I'm not going to argue because there are enough threads about that. There are enough facts and examples to prove both sides. I'm more concerned about the financial health of the league as opposed to competitive balance.

Competitive balance will take care of its self. The league is in financial trouble and needs to be fixed. What the players proposed does not address that enough for the people risking the money. The owners have lots of money to lose if a new CBA doesnt work for them. The players will still make millions, no matter how bad of a CBA is for them. They are more concerned about losing face.

 

[Cawz]

no doubt that both sides need to move to get a deal done, seems like the players have moved off the status quo to me though, however for the owners its cap or nothing, so i think they need to explore other directions.

I dont think either have moved much from their initail offer (apparently the PA took a step back).

From this point now, I think the PA has to take the first step. They have been the ones "reaping the benfits", not losing the millions. But due to egos or not wanting to lose face, neither want to be the first to budge.

The seasons almost done, someone has to make a move.

 

[CarlRacki]

Are they guaranteed a playoff spot because they spend money, or because they spend it wisely.

Ottawa, Vancouver, and Tampa are almost guaranteed playoff spots despite the fact that they are among the lowest payroll teams in the league. The Rangers on the other hand have missed the playoffs for years while having a huge payroll. The Blues barely made the playoffs and they have a large payroll as well, and arent the Dallas Stars two years removed from missing the playoffs. What good was the Capitals money at the beginning of last season??
.

Actually, Vancouver and Ottawa were both in the upper half of payroll last season.
More importantly, what you fail to mention is that Ottawa is facing the prospect of having to eventually trade some of its best players because they cannot afford them, i.e. Alexei Yashin. The same is likely to occur in Tampa.
You're correct that smaller market teams can be competitive, but to do it they must draft exceptionally well with little or no margin for error and get lucky with lower-level free agents. If they aren't a complete success at either, they become the Florida Panthers or Pittsburgh Penguins.
On the other hand, while teams like Detroit and Colorado will be better if they draft well, they don't have to in order to have success because they'll just overpay for other teams better players.

 

[speeds]

3) Brewer from the Oilers went to arb after a crappy season and still got a raise from an already inflated salary. As mentioned above, arbitration is very player friendly

no, he didn't. Lowe folded like a lawn chair at the possibility of arbitration and gave Brewer and Meehan a raise.

 

[dawgbone]

so i think they need to explore other directions.

No they don't!

It's the owners money, and if they feel a salary cap is the only way to help the league and it's franchises, they damn well better hold tight for a salary cap.

As for the bullcrap about unreported revenues, I have this to say:

If it isn't directly related to the hockey game, or the fans of hockey, it shouldn't be counted as hockey revenue.

Chances are if the hockey team wasn't there, the arena wouldn't be there, and that car show that brought in $6 million wouldn't have happened. At the same time, if the hockey team was there, and the arena was there, and the car show didn't happen, that $6 million wouldn't have been there.

It's not hockey revenue. The players didn't do a damn thing to get that car show there. They just happened to have signed a contract to live in a city that was owned by a guy who owned the arena the car show was in.

It should be disgutingly obvious to the players that they don't earn the money they are making. They get routinely out-drawn in their biggest market by frigging spelling bees!

I'm sorry, but if your worthless butt can't provide enough entertainment that 13 year olds spelling words you will never use, you sure as hell shouldn't be making the money they do.

I'd be completely humiliated if I was an NHL player, and more people watched Jimmy Simpleton from West Virginia spell photosynthesis than they did me playing hockey.

That is what these players don't understand... most of the people in the cities they play in couldn't give a rat's butt about them. Most of them don't know they exist... yet these guys think they deserve the money they get?

If they truely cared about the future players, they would do their absolute best to make the NHL successful... and they are failing miserably at that!

 

[dawgbone]

no, he didn't. Lowe folded like a lawn chair at the possibility of arbitration and gave Brewer and Meehan a raise.

Which he would have gotten in arbitration anyways.

 

[speeds]

Which he would have gotten in arbitration anyways.

speculation.

Anyways, didn't really mean to editorialize there, just saying that Brewer never actually went to arb this past sumer, they came to an agreement before the hearing

 

[YellHockey*]

More importantly, what you fail to mention is that Ottawa is facing the prospect of having to eventually trade some of its best players because they cannot afford them, i.e. Alexei Yashin. The same is likely to occur in Tampa.

Only an ignorant person would believe that Ottawa traded Yashin because they could not afford him.

Who is Ottawa going to have to trade?

Alfredsson? Nope. Signed to a four year deal.

Anyone else close to being an UFA? Nope.

They do what teams that have a lot of talent players do, they trade off the supporting players when they start to cost more then their value. They trade the Bonks and McEacherns while keeping the really good players. Just like Colorado lost DeVries and Klemm and Parker.

 

[Cawz]

no, he didn't. Lowe folded like a lawn chair at the possibility of arbitration and gave Brewer and Meehan a raise.

Dammit, see what happens with no season. My hockey memory is fading.

 

[PecaFan]

Only an ignorant person would believe that Ottawa traded Yashin because they could not afford him.

Who is Ottawa going to have to trade?
Alfredsson? Nope. Signed to a four year deal.
Anyone else close to being an UFA? Nope.

Right. Why did they trade Yashin? Because he held out, and wouldn't play for them any more. And why did he hold out?

Because Ottawa *couldn't afford* to pay him what he wanted.

As for the future, Ottawa is due for an explosion in salaries as young guys come up for restricted free agency, eligibility for arbitration, holdouts etc. Maybe the new owner would have been able to cut those cheques, but that's unknown.

 

[YellHockey*]

Right. Why did they trade Yashin? Because he held out, and wouldn't play for them any more. And why did he hold out?

He held out because he was a greedy bugger. Or at least that's what the perception in Ottawa was. And he didn't just hold out. He reneged on a contract. He was signed but he didn't want to honour it. So he took a year off and only came back when he was forced to by an arbitrator's decision.

Then he came back and he decided that Shayne Corson was his new best friend during a playoff series.

Because Ottawa *couldn't afford* to pay him what he wanted.

No. They traded him because fans in Ottawa would have lynched management if they brought him back. Even after the debacle in game 7, Patrick Lalime would be more warmly welcomed back to Ottawa if he wasn't traded then Yashin would have been if he had not been traded.

As for the future, Ottawa is due for an explosion in salaries as young guys come up for restricted free agency, eligibility for arbitration, holdouts etc. Maybe the new owner would have been able to cut those cheques, but that's unknown.

That's an old record that's been playing for six years now. Most of the core players have all received arbitration and restricted free agency rights.

 

[dawgbone]

That's an old record that's been playing for six years now. Most of the core players have all received arbitration and restricted free agency rights.

Most of the core?

Would that include guys like Havlat and Spezza?

At some point, all the dumping off of lower end talent won't be enough. The Sens will only be able to afford Alfreddson, Chara, Redden, Phillips, Hossa, Havlat and Spezza for so long. Not only that, but when you give up on the guys like Bonk, you are giving up what every true cup contending team needs... depth.

If you honestly think that the 7 guys I just mentioned wouldn't have cost you $30+mil within the next 5 years, you haven't been paying attention to the salaries being tossed around the NHL the past 6 years.

Do you think Hossa is continually going to only command $3.5 mil while putting up 40 goals and averaging a point per game?

If Chara continues to be a continual Norris Candidate, don't you think he'll command the same money Pronger and them receive?

Yashin didn't hurt much, and neither did bonk... you've had enough star power to ease that out... I wonder what you will say when it's the Hossa's and that who are forced out the door.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Even in a salary cap situation, teams like Ottawa and Tampa Bay will have to make difficult decisions regarding their roster and payroll. However, in a salary cap system, EVERY other team will have to find room for one of Ottawa's rejects. With the current system, teams like Philadelphia and Detroit just pick up the spoils and THAT is one of the biggest problems with the current system (Amonte being the perfect example--if there was a cap in place, no way Philly picks him up for virtually nothing except salary). It's also why the luxury tax doesn't work, because it wouldn't prevent the Ilitch's, Snider's or even the Toronto ownership group (whoever they are ) from piling on.

Just like Major League Baseball. Sure, salaries are gradually coming down, but it's still the same teams that are buying the best players. When I see the Milwaukee Brewers sign Pedro Martinez, then I'll say that the luxury tax system works. And, with the way spending was getting out of hand in Major League Baseball, it could be argued that salaries had nowhere to go but down, regardless of what system was put in place.

 

[thinkwild]

Obviously, if all Ottawas core players progress as hoped, we are going to have serious payroll problems. However, we still have a possiblity of winning a cup before that happens. And if that happens everything changes.

Its not that Im saying wither that we dont need to do anything, the players are proposing things that will help us out here. But if we have 10 $5mil players and arent in the finals each year, its time for changes.

Its just not Rich teams that get to sign players we are dumping. WE could trade them before they reach UFA status to a team like Minnesota, or Columbus could pick them up on the UFA market too. Especially if they have developed contending teams and are flush with playoff money. WHile NYR and Wash are still rebuilding.

If players get the right to free agency, but they can can only choose to go to a team that has cap room, its hardly free agency. Some hope he would then take a paycut to play in Philly, which suggests to me its not that they dont want philly to get him, they dont want them to pay big for him. But it turns out its not really a big advantage as you would think on paper.

 

[thinkwild]

just a few points

The 5% rollback was on all contracts. For example Redden is signed for a few years, and each year of his contract would be lowered, and people using him as a comparable would be comparing to a lower number. This would be in conjuncti0on with a lower rookie cap, bonus caps, luxury taxes, revenue sharing. Each on its own isnt enough but all added together pretty soon you're starting to talk about real money. Especially if you bargain up their starting numbers.

The criticism of the Levitt report isnt so much to suggest that the league inst really losing money, but rather that this is an unrepresentative way of defining revenue if the players are going to be asked to link their salaries to revenue.

 

[Boondock Saint]

1) it was an opening offer, that 5% was not written in stone, however no counter proposal was made by the owners.

No, there wasn't. As a rollback in salaries does NOTHING to prevent salaries that are escalating out of control. It just delays the process a little. I repeat, a rollback in salaries does NOTHING to curb salaries that are spiralling out of control.

2) luxury tax implemented properly would curb salaries.

I agree that a properly implemented luxury tax would work wonders in curbing salaries. The owners offered one to the players in one of their six proposals, and the players just called it a cap and threw it back. The players version of a luxury was extremely soft and would have a minimal effect on some of the big-market NHL teams.

3) one of the reasons that arbitration is inflationary is the fact that players can go after career seasons and choose not to go after sub-par seasons, therefore this part of the proposal should curb the inflationary tendencies of arbitration.

One of the reasons our arbitration system is inflationary is not only because of the players' ability to decide when to enter the process, although I agree this is one of the reasons.

Hockey's arbitrary process allows players to present a number they feel is fair and management offers what they feel is fair and the arbitrator picks a number usually somewhere in the middle. This allows a player to bring forth unsubstantiated demands, as they know they won't get what they are asking, but the higher the asking price, they might get a potentially better deal.

What works better in some of the other major sports is a system where both parties present a number, and the arbitrator is forced to pick one of the two numbers as the most fair deal.

This will decrease the amount of absurd demands that players will make in their arbitration hearings, as there will be the threat of the arbitrator accepting management's number.

I agree with you that a luxury tax and some changes to the arbitrary process could vastly change the NHL's economic landscape, however the NHLPA hasn't offered NEARLY as good a deal as you have made it out to be.

The deal offered by the NHLPA has the potential framework for a deal that could work for both sides, but as soon as the NHL hardens the luxury tax, the NHLPA just screams, "SALARY CAP," and throws it back.

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

The players proposal is a joke!!!! And they keep coming back with the same old proposal over and over again. On the other hand the owners made six different proposal and the nhlpa didn't even take a good look a them. It seems to me that the nhlpa is negociating in bad faith. If the owners say black, the nhlpa say white. What the players want is status quo. If the nhlpa were negociating in good faith they would make a serious proposal that the owners could seek the teeth into something with meat on the bone.......

 

[Sanderson]

The league didn't reject the NHLPA proposal down right. They said they disagree with the numbers, but would give it a try, if the NHLPA would guarantee the success of their proposal.

Something the NHLPA wasn't willing to do.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

The players proposal is a joke!!!! And they keep coming back with the same old proposal over and over again. On the other hand the owners made six different proposal and the nhlpa didn't even take a good look a them. It seems to me that the nhlpa is negociating in bad faith. If the owners say black, the nhlpa say white. What the players want is status quo. If the nhlpa were negociating in good faith they would make a serious proposal that the owners could seek the teeth into something with meat on the bone.......

6 Proposals the all involve a hard salary cap. Something they know the players wont accept. Also, why hasn't the owners offered another proposal? Because they know what road they want to go down, declare an impase then make up the CBA themselves. The only thing standing in their way is the NLRB.

 

[Boondock Saint]

6 Proposals the all involve a hard salary cap. Something they know the players wont accept. Also, why hasn't the owners offered another proposal? Because they know what road they want to go down, declare an impase then make up the CBA themselves. The only thing standing in their way is the NLRB.

Wrong.

One of the proposals contained a luxury tax, which if made in any way effective, is thrown under the player's "salary cap" blanket....

Another contained a proposal where players would negotiate their contracts with the league, which contained no salary cap, however the player disagreed.

All 6 of the proposals DID NOT contain hard caps. However, the NHLPA calls any system that links revenues to expenses a hard cap and refuses to look at it.