Owners considering a new league...

Status
Not open for further replies.

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
Russian Fan said:
Easier to say than to prove. Petrolium companies agreed together to put the same price on Oil in the cities , it's so obvious that it's collusion but nothing to do about it.

Same with the NHL, NHLPA can claim all they want that there is a collusion , it will be very hard to prove it. In fact there's probably a collusion today regarding UFA - Superstars & no one says anything about it ? because it's hard to prove.

Ya, it perhaps would be difficult to prove...

Just to be clear, I see the Petrolium company collusion example different from the NHL collusion example...

Petrolium companies are all separate businesses that are in the oil industry... If collusion exists, this is cross-industry price fixing...

In contrast, the team franchises all belong to the same business (the NHL)... I personally don't have a problem with the team franchises fixing salaries (as they all belong to the same business - in fact, this is both common and legal in the franchising business - and IMO, I think that the franchisee - the NHL - should probably be determining the NHL salaries based on the salaries in the overall free market 'professional hockey industry')... But I do have a problem with the NHL doing it secretly - if they agreed with the NHLPA a completely different arrangement... IMO, that's collusion and illegal... In this case, the NHL is not obligating their legal contract... In this case, the NHL is being deceptive in getting around their legal contract through a 'secret' agreement amongst the franchises - and that's illegal...
 

Prince Mercury

Registered User
Apr 7, 2004
761
0
Fort McMurray
Puckhead said:
How true is that! This is pathetic, and why if you are the reporter, would you bother with such a vague article. I mean we could have come up with a much better story ourselves.

The role of a journalist is to fufill the public's right to know. I'm sure we've all said "they should start a new league" but the fact any remarks that it were being considered would be false, as this was the breaking of this news.

Let's remember this wasn't the front page of the Citizen or anything.

Vincent_TheGreat said:
no hockey fan should have to deal with this crap.

Exactly. Hockey was great before the NHL came along. Let's also not forget that 85 years ago, the NHL was a league with teams in Toronto, Québec, Montreal, Ottawa and Hamilton. Since then Ottawa lost its team (only to get it back some sixty years later), Québec lost its team only to have the moved franchise win the Stanley Cup the very same year and Hamilton is supposedly to small to support a franchise (despite being a larger city than many existing markets) and too close to Toronto (see New York City with its three teams, Los Angeles with its two, etc.)

In 1942 the league was condensed to the "original six" in an attempt to reign in the game, something that has been unthinkable in the NHL since at least 1994. In the history of the NHL, four Canadian teams have been relocated to the States (Ottawa, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Québec, correct me if I am wrong) while only one American team has moved to Canada (Atlanta). The NHL was created to Canadians could watch professional Canadian players play Canada's sport, and the ridiculous state in which it stands (fans lose out, people who have never played hockey in their life get rich) is a travesty. Boo!

If a new league means no Bettman it sounds like a good idea to me. Don't think it'll happen though.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
djhn579 said:
Just one problem with that. There are a lot of players with money. Some of them have done quite well over the years. But they can't compete with the money the owners have at hand. The poorest owner is worth several hundred mil, the richest player is under a hundred mil. They may be able to get some backing, but they would have a hard time with the start up expenses.

What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

If the players are on board with their own league, what startup expenses do they have? Arena leases can easily be covered by the PA's warchest. They can hire all the front office staff that the owners laid off.

Even player pay will be an issue. Will the players league be able to pay as much as the owners league? Probably not. And as much as the players say they are united, most of the players making less than $1M per year will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Europeans? They will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Rookies? They will go to the league that will pay them the most. You will be left with the die hard NHLPA supporters in the players league, and their numbers will slowly dwindle as they see they can still make more money in the owners league.

But as far as the players are concerned this new owners league is just like the NHL bringing in replacement players. It won't draw worth a damn without real NHL players. And if the fans aren't there, the money won't be there either.

Meanwhile the players' league will be packing in the fans if they play in smaller venues or have cheap tickets for large venues like Skydome. They may not make as much as the old NHL teams did but they'll make more then the owners league will with scrubs and scabs playing.

The owners will also have to worry about paying off the loans they incurred while paying for their franchises and building their arenas. The players won't have to worry about that because their franchises were free.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
BlackRedGold said:
What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

If the players are on board with their own league, what startup expenses do they have? Arena leases can easily be covered by the PA's warchest. They can hire all the front office staff that the owners laid off.

You do have lease arena, pay lawyers, buy uniforms, contract for travel expenses (planes, hotels, buses, etc...). Then you need to have staff in place to operate the arena (ushers, ticket takers, announcers, etc...). Then you also need team staffs (coaches, trainers, scouts, doctors, etc...). And let's not forget that you must have inssurance covearge. Most of this will need to be in place before you play a single game.

If the numbers are accurate that the league had $2B in revenue, and player costs were 75% of that. That means that the day to day operation of the team costs ~$500M, so maybe you need ~$250M just to get started. I'm not a business major, but I do know that there is a lot that has to be done before you start up something like this.


BlackRedGold said:
But as far as the players are concerned this new owners league is just like the NHL bringing in replacement players. It won't draw worth a damn without real NHL players. And if the fans aren't there, the money won't be there either.

Meanwhile the players' league will be packing in the fans if they play in smaller venues or have cheap tickets for large venues like Skydome. They may not make as much as the old NHL teams did but they'll make more then the owners league will with scrubs and scabs playing.

The owners will also have to worry about paying off the loans they incurred while paying for their franchises and building their arenas. The players won't have to worry about that because their franchises were free.

You sound as if you know all of the players personnally...

That is a very simple view of how things will work. Human nature will take the players where the best money is. That is why many Europeans come to the NHL to play in the first place, rather than being stars in their own countries.

And don't forget that there will be in an economic war between the two leagues. The owners will drive up the prices on anything they can to drive the players league out of business. And since many of the owners are experienced businessmen with billions of dollars in net worth, my money is on them.
 

degroat*

Guest
BlackRedGold said:
What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

What startup costs? Do you know anything about business? Here's a list of the things that would have to be paid for before ever playing a game:

Lease for arena
Office Space
GM Salary
President Salary
Coaches
Marketing personnel or outsourcing
Customer Service Personnel
Scouts
Sales Personnel
Lawyers
Training of arena personnel
Marketing
Untilities
Uniforms
Web Development
Player signing bonuses
Computers, Printers, Copiers, Routers, etc.
Office Supplies

And that's just scratching the surface.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
Stich said:
What startup costs? Do you know anything about business? Here's a list of the things that would have to be paid for before ever playing a game:

Lease for arena

Negigible compared to what the players make. Its the only real major expense they'd have.

Office Space

Already part of the PA

GM Salary

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

President Salary

They already have a President and he's getting paid regardless.


Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Marketing personnel or outsourcing

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Customer Service Personnel

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.


Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Sales Personnel

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.


Already have lots of those working for the PA.

Training of arena personnel

Not the responsibility of the league.

Marketing

Already have this at the PA.

Untilities

Are you just making up words now?


Minor cost.

Web Development

Already done for the PA.

Player signing bonuses

Not needed because the players will have an equity stake.

Computers, Printers, Copiers, Routers, etc.

PA has already purchased this equipment and even if they didn't it's a minimal expense.

Office Supplies

Oh! They can't afford to start a multimillion dollar league because they can't afford paper and pens? Give me a break!

The PA, unlike the WHA, already has the infrastructure in place to form a new league. All they need to do is sign some leases, negotiate some broadcast deals and they'd be pretty much ready to go. They can even hire all those front office employees the NHL turfed during the summer to help them out.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
djhn579 said:
You do have lease arena, pay lawyers, buy uniforms, contract for travel expenses (planes, hotels, buses, etc...). Then you need to have staff in place to operate the arena (ushers, ticket takers, announcers, etc...). Then you also need team staffs (coaches, trainers, scouts, doctors, etc...). And let's not forget that you must have inssurance covearge. Most of this will need to be in place before you play a single game.

Leasing arenas is the only tough part. The PA has plenty of lawyers already working for it. Travel expenses are not a big deal for a billion dollar business. The arenas already have employees in place. There are plenty of team staff available to work. The PA already deals with insurance for players.


That is a very simple view of how things will work. Human nature will take the players where the best money is. That is why many Europeans come to the NHL to play in the first place, rather than being stars in their own countries.

Many Europeans comes to the NHL not just for the money but to prove themselves against the best in the world. World class athletes are more about the competition then the money.

And don't forget that there will be in an economic war between the two leagues. The owners will drive up the prices on anything they can to drive the players league out of business. And since many of the owners are experienced businessmen with billions of dollars in net worth, my money is on them.

If the owners will just drive up the prices, why wouldn't they just negotiate with the players instead of getting into a bidding war with a competing league?

And those experienced businessmen with billions of dollars can't seem to be able to make money in hockey. Why would you put your money on them if they've proven they can't successfully run a hockey team? Unless they aren't really doing as badly at running a hockey team as they claim.
 

kold

Registered User
Mar 31, 2004
156
0
Edmonton
BlackRedGold said:
Leasing arenas is the only tough part. The PA has plenty of lawyers already working for it. Travel expenses are not a big deal for a billion dollar business. The arenas already have employees in place. There are plenty of team staff available to work. The PA already deals with insurance for players.




Many Europeans comes to the NHL not just for the money but to prove themselves against the best in the world. World class athletes are more about the competition then the money.



If the owners will just drive up the prices, why wouldn't they just negotiate with the players instead of getting into a bidding war with a competing league?

And those experienced businessmen with billions of dollars can't seem to be able to make money in hockey. Why would you put your money on them if they've proven they can't successfully run a hockey team? Unless they aren't really doing as badly at running a hockey team as they claim.

In most cases, the owners dont care about losing a few million dollars per year on their hockey team, even allowing it to happen, because they make many more millions (and billions) from their other business ventures.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Puckhead said:
players who aren't willing to concede some salary

huh ? players take pay cuts all the time. they are more than willing to concede "some" salary, they just will not agree to do it in a cap enviroment.

get the facts straight.

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
ciggyboy said:
NHL players are to ****** greedy and want on par money that the other leagues players get,in which their is.

liar liar pants on fire.

the players dont care what they are paid, they simply dont want to be paid under a cap.

dr
 

Spankatola Jamnuts*

Guest
They don't want to be paid under a cap because it limits how much they can be paid. Of course they care what they're paid.
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
DementedReality said:
liar liar pants on fire.

the players dont care what they are paid, they simply dont want to be paid under a cap.

dr

i find this to be oxymoronish....and yes i knwo that aint a word, but if they didn't care what they were paid then they wouldn't care if it was within a cap or not, plain and simple the players must care what they get paid or they woudln't be so against a cap being put in place.. while the players may not care if they get 4 mil or 8 mil...they DO care what they get paid

and you answer to this will most likely be somewhere around the area of "it's a players right to get paid for what he brings in'' and you'll also argue that it's the owners fault if they pay the player more than they really wanted to keep that certain player, but that's a catch 22, said player said he wants a larger salary than what he's been offered, note: said player is a premier player in the league, should the owners cave and give him x million more than what they wanted they stand a chance of losing money becuase they went outside their budget... if they don't re'sign him and he becomes UFA they lose him for nothing, OR they make a trade such as the Weight to STL deal, yet they stand a chance at losing money as well.. w/ said player off team there's the possibility that you won't make it as far in the playoffs, if you even get there, however w/ said player on the team you'd be pretty much a lock for a playoff spot

all the above counts for possible lost revenue, not to mention letting a premier player go, who in most cases would be a fan fav... could dicourage fans and alienate them, also counting in lost revenue... it's cause and effect when you sign anyone to any contract, if the potential effect is great enough to make an owner pay the extra and go over budget a little, then obviously he'd be a fool to not sign and have a negative effect be blanketed over his team, i think i've rambled on enough for right now
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Chock Full Of Booger said:
They don't want to be paid under a cap because it limits how much they can be paid. Of course they care what they're paid.

many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

a) if someone is willing to pay them the 2m, then why should they agree to a system that limits that.

b) if no one is willing to pay them 2m, then they will have to take a paycut, right ?

pretty simple and no cap is needed.

dr
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
DementedReality said:
many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

a) if someone is willing to pay them the 2m, then why should they agree to a system that limits that.

b) if no one is willing to pay them 2m, then they will have to take a paycut, right ?

pretty simple and no cap is needed.

dr
Who has been taking paycuts aside from marginal players or players who are getting old and have maxed out their value like Brett Hull? Most of the avg players have been getting marginal increases in a sport where they make more on avg than football players and many of the team are above Bettman's 31 million dollar number already just trying to keep most of last year's teams. The same owners who claim to lose money yet keep spending created this market simply do not want to be the first one to sign a huge name to a big contract and get all the negative attention at this time.

If there is no hard cap, as soon as it's settled they will be spending as
freely as ever, which is what all the big market names available are counting on as well as the NHLPA.

And nothing will have changed. Status quo.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
BlackRedGold said:
What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

If the players are on board with their own league, what startup expenses do they have? Arena leases can easily be covered by the PA's warchest. They can hire all the front office staff that the owners laid off.

I personally can't provide you a list of all the costs - as I don't have intimate knowledge of the professional hockey industry...

But I do know that 9 out of 10 new businesses fail within 5 years... and the number one reason is inadequate cash flow (i.e. not enough money coming in to cover the expenses going out)... I do know that the probability of a player's league to last longer than 5 years is 10%... If it is a new business that has the experience, resources, and contacts already in the industry through owning and growing an old business in the same industry - the probability of success goes up greatly -thus, why my money would be on a new owner's league...

Whatever you project the start up costs to be (your best - most realistic estimate based on careful study and analysis)... add 25% on top - that is at least what it will cost...

The players know how to play hockey (and get the most out of a CBA) - as a group, not how to run successful companies... If the players were going to go this route (start their own league), IMHO they would need financial and business backing from investors and business leaders to control the show - for even a fighting chance for success - business astute people who have spent their lives successfully running and growing entertainment (or sports entertainment) businesses... and, IMO, it would be a challenge in it's own right for the players to convince these business astute people to invest in a business where 75% of the revenue generated goes to the employees - in a business that has a foundation that basically shut down the NHL (a 100 year old brand) - as I assume that the players would want to at least make as much as they would currently in the NHL - and maintain the status quo - to even entertain starting a new league... Oh, and the main competitor is the former NHL guys... Good luck players :thumbu:

It's not easy starting up and successfully growing a new business in any industry... I imagine it is the same in the 'professional hockey industry'...

Part of me wants to see the players start their own league - as it would make a very interesting case study in 'The Idiots Guide to Biting the Hand that Feeds You' book one day...
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
NYIsles1 said:
If there is no hard cap, as soon as it's settled they will be spending as
freely as ever,

.

im confused ... if the players dont agree to a hard cap, the owners will in turn spend foolishly ?

how can they cry poor, but then turn around and spend like drunken sailors. the fact is, they will spend BECAUSE of 2 reasons

1) they can afford to
and / or
2) the choose to

what a messed up argument you are making.

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
I in the Eye said:
The players know how to play hockey (and get the most out of a CBA) - as a group, not how to run successful companies... ...

i agree and this is why the players reject the "partners" concept. they dont want to be partners. they want to be paid. the owners know business, and if the owners are freely choosing to pay them x dollars, then they know best.

its so simple its driving me mad. IF YOU DONT WANT TO PAY A PLAYER 3.5m THEN DONT ! but dont cry if he leaves becuase someone else CHOOSES to pay it to him.

dr
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
DementedReality said:
many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

IMO, the players just want to operate in a system where they make the most money possible (what they can get away with)... and the owners now finally want to operate in a system where they pay the least money possible (what they can get away with)... This is how it is supposed to work to keep an equilibrium - to keep things in check! If the players want as much as they can and the owners keep giving it to them - eventually, there is not going to be any more to give - i.e. bankrupcy...

With the way things are now, there is nothing to suggest that the escalating salary problem would correct itself in a 'free market economy' (i.e. as a group, the owners do not have the sense or discipline or whatever to control themselves!!) - therefore, the players want to maintain the status quo... The players love a system that allows out of control owners to act out of control...

I don't blame the players for their 'no cap' stance... I don't blame the owners for their 'cap' stance... IMO, it's the nature of the beast - such is business... The players want to stay in a system that has kept paying them more year after year - and the owners now want the salaries to stop increasing - and even better - decrease...

But I do side with the owners (even though I think the salary escalating problem is their fault)... IMHO, the players are getting too good of a deal - IMO, the NHL allowed the NHLPA to become too powerful - and I believe that it's killing NHL hockey...

I believe that the players should be multi-millionares (for what they do - and the large amounts of money that they help generate, IMO, they deserve it)- but not get paid so much that it ends up exploding the NHL - a league I grew up watching, with a team I've supported since a little kid...

I believe that the owners are guilty for the escalating salaries problem (IMO, it's not the players fault for getting as much as they can)... I don't have enough faith in the owners to turn the ship around on their own... It would be great if they could - but nothing proves to me that they would - IMO, the owners spending NEEDS to be controlled...

and thus, I support a cap - and support a lengthy lockout if necessary to get it...

IMO, salaries should be determined - 'at the top' - i.e. the NHL office... The NHL is the one who should be keeping an eye and hand on revenues and expenses... as any franchisee would...

Imagine a McDonalds (most obvious franchisee) business model that allowed the individual franchises to determine employee salaries... Imagine a business model that allowed the individual franchises to set how much they will charge for a big mac... Eventually the 'free market' between the franchises takes over - and the control the francisee has lessons and lessons to the point where it becomes the least powerful in the relationship... Not only does Macdonald's now compete with Burger King, Wendy's, etc... MacDonald's now competes with itself! The franchises start to think and operate like their franchise is what matters most of all - NOT the overall McDonalds... MacDonald's basically put a noose around its neck and hung themselves...

Like the NHL has done... and for really no good reason other than not thinking about the long term consequences...
 
Last edited:

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
DementedReality said:
i agree and this is why the players reject the "partners" concept. they dont want to be partners. they want to be paid. the owners know business, and if the owners are freely choosing to pay them x dollars, then they know best.

its so simple its driving me mad. IF YOU DONT WANT TO PAY A PLAYER 3.5m THEN DONT ! but dont cry if he leaves becuase someone else CHOOSES to pay it to him.

dr

you try telling this to the owners, they'll look you right in the eye and say you're wrong, if i don't pay him this much, my competitor will and then i'll be screwed, a player's value is driven up by supply and demand, if enough teams want you and you've put up 80 + points for the last 3 or 4 seasons then you're behind the wheel, and some idiot owner WILL pay 10 mil just because they think you'll keep doin it, but that isn't always the case and when said player falls on his face and only puts up 40 - 50 points that season, player y, who's a FA the next year will look and say i put up so many points two years ago, 70 points this year... i should be paid equal to him... so on and so forth and this is how the nhl has the HUGE out of control salaries, while yes i'll admit players thus far have taken less, many have done so JUST so they can get paid, but i'll agree, if the same cba is signed, salaries once again will be skyrocketing out of control, you have players who care about their teams and players who care about the $$$$, and unfortunately nowadays there's more who only care about the latter than the former,

IMO the cap wouldn't be just for the owners to control spending, but moreso for the players who make way too much to begin with, and as we've seen and heard, EVEN NHL PLAYERS say they make too much, yes not all of them say it, but all that have mentioned it have freely admitted that players today make too much
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
garry1221 said:
you try telling this to the owners, they'll look you right in the eye and say you're wrong, if i don't pay him this much, my competitor will and then i'll be screwed, a player's value is driven up by supply and demand, if enough teams want you and you've put up 80 + points for the last 3 or 4 seasons then you're behind the wheel, and some idiot owner WILL pay

and you think the players should agree to a system where one party WANTS to pay you x million but isnt allowed to ?

if someone wants to pay it, then whats wrong with that ? if no one wants to pay it, the market will correct. if the money is still being paid, then thats ok.

why should OTT be forced to break up their team when their owner and fans are willing to pay to keep the players ?

dr
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
I in the Eye said:
IMO, the players just want to operate in a system where they make the most money possible (what they can get away with)... and the owners now finally want to operate in a system where they pay the least money possible (what they can get away with)... This is how it is supposed to work to keep an equilibrium - to keep things in check! If the players want as much as they can and the owners keep giving it to them - eventually, there is not going to be any more to give - i.e. bankrupcy...

With the way things are now, there is nothing to suggest that the escalating salary problem would correct itself in a 'free market economy' (i.e. as a group, the owners do not have the sense or discipline or whatever to control themselves!!) - therefore, the players want to maintain the status quo... The players love a system that allows out of control owners to act out of control...

I don't blame the players for their 'no cap' stance... I don't blame the owners for their 'cap' stance... IMO, it's the nature of the beast - such is business... The players want to stay in a system that has kept paying them more year after year - and the owners now want the salaries to stop increasing - and even better - decrease...

But I do side with the owners (even though I think the salary escalating problem is their fault)... IMHO, the players are getting too good of a deal - IMO, the NHL allowed the NHLPA to become too powerful - and I believe that it's killing NHL hockey...

I believe that the players should be multi-millionares (for what they do - and the large amounts of money that they help generate, IMO, they deserve it)- but not get paid so much that it ends up exploding the NHL - a league I grew up watching, with a team I've supported since a little kid...

I believe that the owners are guilty for the escalating salaries problem (IMO, it's not the players fault for getting as much as they can)... I don't have enough faith in the owners to turn the ship around on their own... It would be great if they could - but nothing proves to me that they would - IMO, the owners spending NEEDS to be controlled...

and thus, I support a cap - and support a lengthy lockout if necessary to get it...

IMO, salaries should be determined - 'at the top' - i.e. the NHL office... The NHL is the one who should be keeping an eye and hand on revenues and expenses... as any franchisee would...

Imagine a McDonalds (most obvious franchisee) business model that allowed the individual franchises to determine employee salaries... Imagine a business model that allowed the individual franchises to set how much they will charge for a big mac... Eventually the 'free market' between the franchises takes over - and the control the francisee has lessons and lessons to the point where it becomes the least powerful in the relationship... Not only does Macdonald's now compete with Burger King, Wendy's, etc... MacDonald's now competes with itself! The franchises start to think and operate like their franchise is what matters most of all - NOT the overall McDonalds... MacDonald's basically put a noose around its neck and hung themselves...

Like the NHL has done... and for really no good reason other than not thinking about the long term consequences...

hit the nail on the head, something needs to be put in place where teams work as a whole, yeah even in a franchise there's competition, but as you said, pay is the same across the board, it's what NEEDS to be done, whether by salary cap or some kinda base salary system that works mostly on bonuses
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
DementedReality said:
and you think the players should agree to a system where one party WANTS to pay you x million but isnt allowed to ?

if someone wants to pay it, then whats wrong with that ? if no one wants to pay it, the market will correct. if the money is still being paid, then thats ok.

why should OTT be forced to break up their team when their owner and fans are willing to pay to keep the players ?

dr

not saying any team should have to be forced to break up because of a cap, i'd hope there'd be some kind of a)franchise player exemption one or two players at most, or b) exemption for longevity w/ the club
 

ErnestoGuevara

Registered User
Jan 22, 2004
369
0
Ottawa, Canada
djhn579 said:
Just one problem with that. There are a lot of players with money. Some of them have done quite well over the years. But they can't compete with the money the owners have at hand. The poorest owner is worth several hundred mil, the richest player is under a hundred mil. They may be able to get some backing, but they would have a hard time with the start up expenses.

Even player pay will be an issue. Will the players league be able to pay as much as the owners league? Probably not. And as much as the players say they are united, most of the players making less than $1M per year will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Europeans? They will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Rookies? They will go to the league that will pay them the most. You will be left with the die hard NHLPA supporters in the players league, and their numbers will slowly dwindle as they see they can still make more money in the owners league.

Not every player is Trevor Linden, I'm sure some of them actualy agree with a cap but won't go against what the union is saying. If the owners do form a new league and buy the team names from the NHL we might see some of these players sign with the new league....Brett Hull for example was considering the WHA but in the end signed with Phoenix, in the new league, Phoenix would have the same owner and same budget so they could probably sign Hull at the same salary, it would take one player and I bet you the rest of the core of the team would follow. Another example is Daniel Alfredsson who has been a Senator all of his career and took less than he would get on the open market to stay with the team, there's nothing that say he'll sign with the new leagues Senators and then influence the rest of the team to do so....then the players form a new union.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
garry1221 said:
hit the nail on the head, something needs to be put in place where teams work as a whole, yeah even in a franchise there's competition, but as you said, pay is the same across the board, it's what NEEDS to be done, whether by salary cap or some kinda base salary system that works mostly on bonuses

Ya, but only if the goal is to have a healthy, successful business :D

My proposal is that all teams have the same base salary budget - whatever it is - i.e. $45,000,000... That is a fixed cost for every team - a 'cap'... Teams can spend less if they want...

When certain player performance milestones are met, the individual player makes a % of revenue generated. I.e. if Naslund hits 40 goals - he receives x% of the Canucks revenue generated for the season (where the NHL determines what the percentage is - through CBA negotiations with the NHLPA)... These performance milestones are variable costs - and they could make players mega-rich (if Cooke, for example, got 40 goals next season he would make several million more than his 'base salary' - i.e. he is compensated fairly for his achievement... while NOT altering his contract and base salary for the following year - assuming he's signed a two year contract)... The higher the performance and the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, and because it is a variable cost, what is paid out is directly tied to how much is coming in - It's not 'out-of-owner-pocket'... and if Naslund does not reach 40 goals - he is not paid like a 40 goal player would (i.e. his 'compensation' accurately depicts his achievement - his salary depicts what he has done for the Canucks in the past, and has the potential to accomplish - and his variable cost depicts what he has actually done)...

When certain team performance milestones are met, all players make a % of revenue generated. i.e. If the Canucks make the playoffs, the players get y% of revenue... if the Canucks get a 100 point season, the players get z% of revenue... etc. The more success a team has, the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, the more money the owners make... everyone is happy...

Teams that make large profits (generate a lot of revenue) will still be in higher demand (as far as which teams the players want to play for) - as the potential is there for the players to make more (because of the variable 'compensation' costs - and higher revenues)... yet, there is cost certainty amongst the league at the same time...

With a system like this, an added benefit is that players will want to stay with (or go to) successful teams (i.e. successful teams will generate more revenue as they go farther in the playoffs, etc. - thus the players get compensated more because of the variable 'compensation')...

For example, Ottawa will NOT have a large threat of having to dismantle their team (an argument that I've read a few times here)...

IMO, this is salary cost certainty - a lower fixed cost that is certain and the same for all teams - and certain player and team milestone variable costs (% of generated revenue for the season - where the %s are the same for all teams)...

Good players will not want to stay with poorly run (or break even) teams as x% of 0 = 0... Therefore, good teams that generate large amounts of revenue are rewarded...

I don't see how a system like this would be bad for the owners, OR the players... In exchange for a lower fixed salary cost - I would negotiate a higher variable cost...

If the team is making money, this implies that the team is being successful, which implies that the players are doing a good job - therefore large amounts of money made all around...

If the team is not making money, this implies that the team is not being successful, which implies that the players are not doing a good job - therefore there is not a large amount of money all around... No one is happy or making a lot...

A system like this, IMO, is absolutely fair for both the players and the owners...

Tom? Demented Reality? Anyone? Tell me how this proposal, which incorporates a salary cap is NOT good for the players - as well as the NHL... Please point out what I am missing...
 
Last edited:

Puckhead

Registered User
Jun 13, 2004
703
0
Behind you!!!
DementedReality said:
huh ? players take pay cuts all the time. they are more than willing to concede "some" salary, they just will not agree to do it in a cap enviroment.

get the facts straight.

dr

Players take pay cuts all the time? I think yoiu should get your facts straight! If they always take pay cuts, explain to all of us why they bother with arbitration, and why they bother to hold out? When it is a proven FACT that by holding out the salary they lose is never made up anyway. Not to mention the FACT that they rarely have a decent year, let alone a good one.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->