NHL may be prepared to eat its young

[HSHS]

So the point was that the PA got what they offered .. I didn't say it would be any different .. You made those assumptions on your own..

Misinformed/assumed... yes either would be correct. And when I mess up I admit it.

 

[kdb209]

Excellent example of lawyer doubletalk on your part ..

In REAL life do you know of any REALISTIC example where salaried employees would give back money if their employer was not happy with their effort at years end.. NOPE ..

Actually I know of quite a few cases where engineering contract workers have had explicit terms for penalties for schedule and quality issues - deliver work too late, not to spec, or with excessive bugs and your contract payment was reduced.

 

[Mess]

Actually I know of quite a few cases where engineering contract workers have had explicit terms for penalties for schedule and quality issues - deliver work too late, not to spec, or with excessive bugs and your contract payment was reduced.

Yes but is was all pre-determined and agreed upon as part of the agreement wasn't it.. Some people do that, or feel the are allowed to, and unless its in the contract then the supplier does ahve the right to take to buyer to court for breach of contract for not paying .. Just no one bothers unless the $$ is significant enough to make the ends justify the means ..

I did also say salaried employees and not private contractors/consultants providing a service ..So your example is quite a stretch to keep within the lines ..

A hockey player doesn't promise 40 goals or the Stanley cup in his contract to give the team a reason to disute the subjective term underperformed. If a team outside of a work stoppage refused to pay a contract you know what the results would be ..

 

[Pepper]

Messenger, what are you credentials anyway? What's your education/career background?

 

[BLONG7]

Over on the Russian board they are talking about a 1.5 million dollar (US) offer for Ovechkin to play for Metallurg, and a 2 mil offer from AK Bars. Apparently there are several other teams also willing to pay over the proposed rookie minimum as well. He may be better off in the long run to go tot he NHL, but they are sure making it tempting for him to stay in Russia.

So let him stay in Russia...you can't win the Stanley Cup in Russia, and for most that is what it's all about...

 

[Hoss]

So let him stay in Russia...you can't win the Stanley Cup in Russia, and for most that is what it's all about...

How many Russian kids dream about winning a Stanley Cup? Euro's and Ruskies are here for the cash.

 

[Strangelove]

I have also said many times that I am pro-fan in this dispute

It seems to me that "pro-fan" is a misnomer here.

What you are is pro-Leaf IMESHO (ever so).

as pro-fan who wants to see the players I pay and my team not ripped a part

See what I mean bud?

higher cap and better players is better for FANS ..

You mean: better for LEAF fans.....

I think their should be a Hard Cap for parity purposes

No you don't.

You don't want parity.

Your own words attest to this as we shall see.....

the CBA is going to force the team to get rid of some of the better players that I pay to see in order to do it. We need to do that so the other team has a better chance to win each game on the ice .. As I fan that is the reason I go to a game to hope the other team wins ..right .. good one ..

See?

You hate the idea of parity.

I am not a player nor an owner so I have no vested interest in who wins and who losses ..

You want the players to "win" in the sense that you realize that your Leaf ticket price is going to remain the same regardless of who wins, but if the players "win" your Leaves get to keep bringing in great-yet-overpaid UFAs. This gives your precious Leaves a better chance to win the Cup, which is all you *really* care about IMESHO.

So yes, you are neither 'pro-player' nor 'pro-owner'. But you most certainly are NOT 'pro-fan'.

You are pro-Leaf.



IMESHO.

 

[Morbo]

It seems to me that "pro-fan" is a misnomer here.

What you are is pro-Leaf IMESHO (ever so).




See what I mean bud?




You mean: better for LEAF fans.....




No you don't.

You don't want parity.

Your own words attest to this as we shall see.....





See?

You hate the idea of parity.





You want the players to "win" in the sense that you realize that your Leaf ticket price is going to remain the same regardless of who wins, but if the players "win" your Leaves get to keep bringing in great-yet-overpaid UFAs. This gives your precious Leaves a better chance to win the Cup, which is all you *really* care about IMESHO.

So yes, you are neither 'pro-player' nor 'pro-owner'. But you most certainly are NOT 'pro-fan'.

You are pro-Leaf.



IMESHO.

You act as though this were some great revelation.

 

[Pepper]

You act as though this were some great revelation.

He might have fooled some people here who don't know Messenger's act.

 

[Strangelove]

You act as though this were some great revelation.

My goal was to convince Messemger of the truth, not you my good man.


However, it's good to see that others concur with my diagnosis.


So I thank you for your input.....

 

[Strangelove]

He might have fooled some people here who don't know Messenger's act.

You mean....... Messenger knows he's not "pro-fan"???

 

[Mess]

So yes, you are neither 'pro-player' nor 'pro-owner'. But you most certainly are NOT 'pro-fan'.

You are pro-Leaf..

You know many Diehard fans in any sport that wish your opponents do well ..

You think many Chicago Bears fans care how the Green Bay Packers as dong, or NY Yankees fans care to see Boston red Sox beating them ?? Come on ..

I would call you a hypocite if you go see a game because you have supported parity on the ice and go away happy because the other team beat yours as a result.

Your whole post is based on making the best into the weakest and critisizing me for not wanting that to happen.

If Bettman wants parity on the ice then why not parity at the ticket booth to go see the game for everyone ?? Why should big market fans pay more to see the same thing that other fans can for much much less but both are icing the same on ice product for parity?.

I would rather the league find ways to top up the bottom or get rid of them so that all teams can compete as if this was the Olympics or World Championships quality teams .. Why don't they address the parity issue there and say the strong hockey nations can only bring a few good players so that Italy and Japan have a fair chance at a medal as well ..

That most certainly is PRO-FAN to want to watch the best players play the game ..

What would any Fan prefer first his team to win and second to enjoy and feel he is getting value for his money on the ice,

Do you thing anyone would not rather see Sakic setting up Forsberg for a highlight reel goal for the sake of entertainment or Dan Hinote bang in a loose puck in the crease for a 1 foot goal .. and the reason I have to watch that is because of Bettman and the NHL over expanding into non hockey markets that can't compete on equal financial terms.

 

[Strangelove]

Your whole post is based on making the best into the weakest and critisizing me for not wanting that to happen.

*goes back and checks*


Ummmmmm........ no.


My post was about pointing out that you are not "pro-fan".


You want your Leaves to be able to buy some of the best players in the game, and if that means superhigh cap with other teams folding, so be it.


That's not "pro-fan", that's pro-Leaffan.

If Bettman wants parity on the ice then why not parity at the ticket booth to go see the game for everyone ?? Why should big market fans pay more to see the same thing that other fans can for much much less but both are icing the same on ice product for parity?.

"big market fans"


Are you now admitting that you are pro-big-market-fan only?


And that other fans can go to H-E-double-L ?


You think that the big-market teams deserve the best teams. That makes you 'anti-fan' (generally speaking).


Now you are admitting outright that you are against parity, yet you said in your previous post: "I think their should be a Hard Cap for parity purposes".


Curiouser and curiouser.......

 

[HockeyCritter]

And this is exactly the problem with the old salary structure in the NHL. Paying someone for past performance. Hull was not worth the money he got his last year in Detroit.

No one knows when a guy's career might end, so paying a top-rated rookie or 1-year veteran (I'll admit a rookie is completely unproven) because a team believes he'll be an awesome contributor is the same as paying Hull a lot of money because a team believes he will be an awesome contributor. The risk is what the buyer is willing to bet on...and since it is his money, shouldn't he be allowed to place his bets according to his own perceptions and needs?

For the same money, would you take Hull or Nash?

But that's life, the more experience you have the more you are rewarded for it. As someone with 14 years experience in my profession, I expect to be paid more than someone who has onlytwo years experience.

 

[GSC2k2*]

To summarize Toe's post, for those in the cheap seats.

Massager = hypocrite, without the courage of his convictions.

 

[Marconius]

You know many Diehard fans in any sport that wish your opponents do well ..

You think many Chicago Bears fans care how the Green Bay Packers as dong, or NY Yankees fans care to see Boston red Sox beating them ?? Come on ..

I would call you a hypocite if you go see a game because you have supported parity on the ice and go away happy because the other team beat yours as a result.

Your whole post is based on making the best into the weakest and critisizing me for not wanting that to happen.

If Bettman wants parity on the ice then why not parity at the ticket booth to go see the game for everyone ?? Why should big market fans pay more to see the same thing that other fans can for much much less but both are icing the same on ice product for parity?.

I would rather the league find ways to top up the bottom or get rid of them so that all teams can compete as if this was the Olympics or World Championships quality teams .. Why don't they address the parity issue there and say the strong hockey nations can only bring a few good players so that Italy and Japan have a fair chance at a medal as well ..

That most certainly is PRO-FAN to want to watch the best players play the game ..

What would any Fan prefer first his team to win and second to enjoy and feel he is getting value for his money on the ice,

Do you thing anyone would not rather see Sakic setting up Forsberg for a highlight reel goal for the sake of entertainment or Dan Hinote bang in a loose puck in the crease for a 1 foot goal .. and the reason I have to watch that is because of Bettman and the NHL over expanding into non hockey markets that can't compete on equal financial terms.

If I was pro-fan and as an Oilers diehard, theres no question I want the Oilers to kill Calgary at any opportunity. What I don't want is a lopsided league which allows Edmonton to pluck Iginla away from Calgary and beat them that way.

It seems to me that an individual who is pro-fan wants his team to succeed, while on equal footing with all other teams. I don't understand how can it be fun if you know your team can just go out and purchase whoever they want, seriously handicapping half the teams in the league. Isn't that winning in the boardroom instead of on the ice?

 

[Sp5618]

But that's life, the more experience you have the more you are rewarded for it. As someone with 14 years experience in my profession, I expect to be paid more than someone who has onlytwo years experience.

I have to disagree. That is the real life situation for most people, professional or unionized. It does not apply to pro sports. We never were pooled and ranked where ALL the employers chose one of us, one by one, based on our ranking and potential. If real life did apply, there would no frenzy over the upcoming draft with one Sid Crosby in it....

Furthermore, under normal circumstances, our careers will last 30+ years or more. We don't really face career-ending injuries each time we step into the office [normally ].

A 38-year old Iginla would not be as valuable to me as a 28-year old Iginla. Clearly he would have 10 more years of overall experience, but I would know that he also has 10 more years of wear-and-tear on him too. And he would be up against 27, 28, & 29-year old Crosbies and Ovechkins, for example...

 

[Mess]

It seems to me that an individual who is pro-fan wants his team to succeed, while on equal footing with all other teams. I don't understand how can it be fun if you know your team can just go out and purchase whoever they want, seriously handicapping half the teams in the league. Isn't that winning in the boardroom instead of on the ice?

That is exactly why I support the Idea of a Cap for parity ..

We all know should my leafs have one the CUP in he old CBA there would have been endless you bought the cup accusations from Leaf haters .. The NYR always have to live that done ..

To me it would be more rewarding to win it under the same rules for all teams ..

The problem I have is the Bettman is making the Cap more then it is intended for .. and tying it to League Revenue .. That doesn't make any sense saying he needs 54% linkage and then as a result my Leafs for example have to only use 30% of their revenue for the teams yet the fans have to play 3 and 4 times at the gate to see equal teams on the ice ..

Why does it cost $25 bucks to see a game in Pittsburgh and $200 in Toronto if both teams have similar payrolls ?? and the only difference is the arena they play the game in ?? That's not parity ??

The league should have drawn a line in the sand and picked a number, not it tied to profit levels of the weakest teams but just to equal the playing surface .. Pick a number that would have put 20 of the 30 teams within $10 mil max.

Its not the fault of the big market teams that the smaller ones don't have money .. That is Bettmans job since he expanded into markets he should also have made profit sharing which isn't a CBA issue according to Brian Burke a part of expansion .. He should be finding ways to bring the Bottom UP towards the top not the other way around .. No good businessman tears down his strongest franchise for the sake of the weak ones ..

 

[Jarqui]

That is exactly why I support the Idea of a Cap for parity ..

We all know should my leafs have one the CUP in he old CBA there would have been endless you bought the cup acquitations from Leaf haters .. The NYR always have to live that done ..

To me it would be more rewarding to win it under the same rules for all teams ..

The proplem I have is the Bettman is making the Cap more then it is intended for .. and tying it to League Revenue .. That doesn't make any sense saying he needs 54% linkage and then as a result my Leafs for example have to only use 30% of their revenue for the teams yet the fans have to play 3 and 4 times at the gate to see equal teams on the ice ..

Why does it cost $25 bucks to see a game in Pittsburgh and $200 in Toronto if both teams have similar payrolls ?? and the only difference is the areana they play the game in ?? Thats not parity ??

The league should have drawn a line in the sand and picked a rumber, not it tied to profit levels of the weakest teams but just to equal the playing surface .. Pick a number that would have put 20 of the 30 teams within $10 mil max.

Its not the fault of the big market teams that the smaller ones don't have money .. That is Bettmans job since he expanded into markets he should also have made profit sharing which isn't a CBA issue according to Brian Burke a part of expansion .. He should be finding ways to bring the Bottom UP towards the top not the other way around .. No good businessman tears down his strongest franchise for the sake of the weak ones ..

I think you make a fair point but I also think there are some offsetting things that go along with it.

In a "perfect" world, all teams would have the same amount of money to spend, with the same revenue and the same ticket prices. The "playing field" in that scenario is level. But the reality is, the hockey world isn't perfect and the "playing field" isn’t level..

If one went to extremes to overcome the unlevel playing field and said "all the revenue goes into a pot that we'll divide evenly 30 ways", I can sympathize with the NHL franchises who have been around for 87 or so years who had a lot more to do with building the business screaming "foul" at such an arrangement. I think you would also probably sympathize with the older franchises taking that position as many fans would.

I see this CBA as a stepping stone toward improving the leveling of the playing field. There was no way they could get it all in one step. Coming out of negotiations, some inequities will remain. Hopefully, the smaller market teams can improve their market share by icing a more competitive product. Time will tell.

As for the fans, Leafs fans during the Ballard years established a pattern of being willing to spend silly amounts of money to see a lousy home hockey team for decades. So the fans do have input on deciding the ticket price. If the Leafs suddenly cut back to Sun Belt ticket prices, they couldn't get many more in their building than they are now and the players salaries would have to take another hit. So for this new CBA, ticket prices will continue to have some inequities caused and governed by the laws of supply and demand. That may not be totally fair for Leafs fans but it won't change until Leafs fans stop buying tickets. I don't see a $36 mil cap changing that demand. And we cannot blame that all on the CBA as the fans are the ones making the final decision as to whether they are prepared to pay four times the amount someone in the south pays to see a game.

The positive is that going forward from this CBA, the NHL should have a few bucks to market the sport and the small market teams should have a better quality product to market. From that, hopfully the game can grow and prosper until the next CBA where more leveling can take place.

 

[Strangelove]

The problem I have is the Bettman is making the Cap more then it is intended for .. and tying it to League Revenue ..

Ummmmm.... demonize Bettman all you like, but he's only one part of one side negotiating a CBA....

my Leafs for example have to only use 30% of their revenue for the teams yet the fans have to play 3 and 4 times at the gate to see equal teams on the ice .. Why does it cost $25 bucks to see a game in Pittsburgh and $200 in Toronto if both teams have similar payrolls ?? and the only difference is the arena they play the game in ?? That's not parity ??

I thought you were an accountant??



The Leaves (or any sports team) will charge whatever the market can bear. You pay " $200 in Toronto" because you agree that's a fair price to pay to cheer your Leaves. That's very fundamental supply & demand.....

In your last few posts, you have been..... complaining...... that payroll-parity will not equate to ticket-price-parity. The other side of this coin you keep flipping is "If I must pay more in Toronto, I demand a relatively higher team payroll".

Don't you get it, that's the exact mentality that started this big lockout mess in the first place!

IMESHO you need to come to grips with this reality: You are going to pay relatively more money for your Leaf tix than fans in a lot of other cities regardless of how much payroll parity is established.

There's no point whining about it.....


But at least your Leaves can spend any excess dough on the very best coaches, trainers, doctors, scouts, minor-leaguers, security, office-staff, etc.....

Its not the fault of the big market teams that the smaller ones don't have money ..

Yes it is.

The big market teams drove up salaries to a point where the "smaller ones" ran outta dough.

That is Bettmans job since he expanded into markets he should also have made profit sharing which isn't a CBA issue according to Brian Burke a part of expansion ..

The big-market teams wanted expansion. Expansion was well under way pre-Bettman. Then they hired Bettman and handed him a mandate: Continue this expansion.

 

[GSC2k2*]

The hilarious part (wel, among them, since you will generally find a half dozen or so gutbusters in the average Massager post) is that this guy lives in KELOWNA!!! I seriously doubt he has ever contributed a plug nickel to players' salaries.

 

[arnie]

Why does it cost $25 bucks to see a game in Pittsburgh and $200 in Toronto if both teams have similar payrolls ?? and the only difference is the arena they play the game in ?? That's not parity ??

This is ridiculous. First, you are comparing the most expensive ticket in Toronto with the cheapest ticket in Pittsburgh, so your whole argument is based on BS. Second, the only difference isn't the arena. The big difference is the market. The Leafs can charge what they want because 1) most of the Leaf season tickets are bought by corporations who don't care what the price is and get a tax write-off anyway and 2) the demand for tickets is much greater because metro Toronto is 3 times bigger than metro Pittsburgh and obviously because hockey is a much bigger deal in Canada than it is in Pittsburgh.

 

[Gee Wally]

I'm about to get cranky here.

You all are to discuss the points and counter points being made.
Not each other. No more personal shots.

Consider this a one and only warning.

 

[Sp5618]

Why does it cost $25 bucks to see a game in Pittsburgh and $200 in Toronto if both teams have similar payrolls ?? and the only difference is the arena they play the game in ?? That's not parity ??

This is ridiculous. First, you are comparing the most expensive ticket in Toronto with the cheapest ticket in Pittsburgh, so your whole argument is based on BS. Second, the only difference isn't the arena. The big difference is the market. The Leafs can charge what they want because 1) most of the Leaf season tickets are bought by corporations who don't care what the price is and get a tax write-off anyway and 2) the demand for tickets is much greater because metro Toronto is 3 times bigger than metro Pittsburgh and obviously because hockey is a much bigger deal in Canada than it is in Pittsburgh.

And if the gap is that great between what a market in Toronto provides vs. Pittsburgh, these two teams have no business being in the same league....you don't need a CPA or an MBA to figure that out. Without NFL-style revenue sharing (read big TV contract), all other economic models that keep these teams in "one" league will fail...

 

[arnie]

And if the gap is that great between what a market in Toronto provides vs. Pittsburgh, these two teams have no business being in the same league....you don't need a CPA or an MBA to figure that out. Without NFL-style revenue sharing (read big TV contract), all other economic models that keep these teams in "one" league will fail...

Aha! You've identified the problem. Except for one thing. If this is true, then at least 10 teams don't belong in the NHL. Of course, you can't make comparisonsbased solely on the Toronto market. They are an exception, the real powerhouse of the NHL money-wise. No one else even comes close. Perhaps it is Toronto, not Pittsburgh that is the anomaly and should get kicked out.