Mike Gartner:"Players will bend but not break"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
eye said:
:shakehead :shakehead explain please

You really think the NY Rangers will be dropping their ticket prices if the salary cap ends up at $40 million?

They may drop a little bit but not due to a salary cap but to win fans back and by dropping I mean probably no more than 10%.

It is VERY ignorant to think that ticket prices will be based on a team's salary.

All of the numbers the NHL (and NHLPA) are using are based on current ticket prices (using current/projected attendence/revenue).
 

Nomad

Registered User
Jun 25, 2004
200
0
I doubt the players see the salary floor as a real concession, though - I don't either. It is merely an admission by the NHL that their original system never tied payroll to revenue, it merely tied maximum payroll to revenue and the numbers could never conceivably have matched the percentages that they claimed. Now they have introduced the range of it, so that their original position (about which they made that false claim) has some actual backing. But the original position was still problematic to the players.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
eye said:
You see if players don't conceed on the simple issue of cost linkage and allow this entire season to be cancelled then average fans like myself won't be back. Greedy players that live in a fantasyland will not get another penny of my hard earned money. I would pay to see replacement players next year or the year after but if current NHL players don't come back they won't get another penny from me and I think there are thousands more that feel the same way.

:joker:

Like I said, the NHL will lose some fans but there will still be plenty others that they can make money off of. The NHL truly feels new grass roots marketing campaigns, etc. will work to even expand them game and more than make-up for any lost fans.

And I don't care if I get flamed for this but... the players deserve to be paid high salaries. Are/were they out of control? Yes. Should a limit be placed on them? Yes. The way all these pro owners around here talk it's like these guys should all be paid $200,000 and then the rest is "for the love of the game". These are highly trained and highly skilled athletes who spend their whole lives preparing for the NHL.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Nomad said:
I doubt the players see the salary floor as a real concession, though - I don't either. It is merely an admission by the NHL that their original system never tied payroll to revenue, it merely tied maximum payroll to revenue and the numbers could never conceivably have matched the percentages that they claimed. Now they have introduced the range of it, so that their original position (about which they made that false claim) has some actual backing. But the original position was still problematic to the players.

That was not a concession? Wow. And we wonder why this is going no where fast. This is the perfect example of the players not being grounded in reality and expecting all the traffic can bare, and then some.

So by guaranteeing that X% of payroll would go to salaries, that was not a good thing and was not a concession on the part of the owners? You're just kidding, right? After seeing how corporate America (and Canada for that matter) insures they make their profit numbers through the layoff of budgetted employees the player have the balls to take that less than thoughtful stance??? That is fantasy land and it explains why the players are in the corner they are in.

:shakehead
 

Nomad

Registered User
Jun 25, 2004
200
0
The reason I say it is not a concession is that the league's stance for the past few years has been that there needs to a control in place that states that salaries will be maintained at a fixed percentage of revenues. When they released their proposals at the beginning of the year, they were all forms of caps that set that mark as 54%, but it was not a way of maintaining salaries at that level, it was a way of guaranteeing salaries stay below that level, which was a step back from everything that they always said. This was a way of actually living up to their word on what their proposals would mean.

If I tell you I am going to pay you 10% of my profits, and then when you go to sign a contract with me, you see that the contract says up to 10%, but does not guarantee that figure, if I go back and correct it, I am not making a concession. I am living up to my word that I tried to renege on.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Nomad said:
The reason I say it is not a concession is that the league's stance for the past few years has been that there needs to a control in place that states that salaries will be maintained at a fixed percentage of revenues. When they released their proposals at the beginning of the year, they were all forms of caps that set that mark as 54%, but it was not a way of maintaining salaries at that level, it was a way of guaranteeing salaries stay below that level, which was a step back from everything that they always said. This was a way of actually living up to their word on what their proposals would mean.

If I tell you I am going to pay you 10% of my profits, and then when you go to sign a contract with me, you see that the contract says up to 10%, but does not guarantee that figure, if I go back and correct it, I am not making a concession. I am living up to my word that I tried to renege on.

Okay, I see your point. In other words the league was actually proving to the players that they would do put in place a system that would support their desires, all around. I see why you don't view that as a concession.
 

Nomad

Registered User
Jun 25, 2004
200
0
Thanks, and I apologize because I did a poor job of explaining it at first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->