Question about a Cap

[Brent Burns Beard]

I wish I had a dollar for every time you've said words to this effect.

i agree ... a consistent theme from this poster. nttiatwwt.

dr

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

No TRUST is necessary.

Which is why, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times, cracks are developing in ownership ranks. They don't trust each other either, and trust in Bettman is slipping.

LA Times

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Which is why, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times, cracks are developing in ownership ranks. They don't trust each other either, and trust in Bettman is slipping.

do you have a link .... ?

a) you cant drop a source bomb without a link
because really,
b) id like to read the article.

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

Which is why, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times, cracks are developing in ownership ranks. They don't trust each other either, and trust in Bettman is slipping.

Sure thing Sparky.

Are you sure it wasn't a Brooks "article?" :lol

 

[mudcrutch79]

Whatever it is, it is not partnership. The players would not be involved in the financial and other decisions (not that they would want to). The bottomline, whatever other consquences are, the players would have to trust the owners to agree to the cap. I do not, do you?

No they don't. They could agree to a cap, and say that they want the owners to foot the cost for forensic audits of every team, every year. Release that offer to the public, if that's your issue. You don't think support would swing behind the PA if that was their quibble? It'd be an understandable problem, and one that's readily addressed. This is a red herring issue brought up by union supporters-in the grand scheme of things, we're talking about small potatoes.

I stand by my argument that the players want to maintain a system where they can all make as RFA's whatever a comparable player can lever out of the dumbest owner. I understand that, and don't blame the players for it, but at the same time, I can see where it's frustrating as all hell if you're an owner of a team with a business plan that involves just running a hockey team, and not developing the plains of Arizona. Address this issue, and you might have something.

 

[SENSible1*]

No they don't. They could agree to a cap, and say that they want the owners to foot the cost for forensic audits of every team, every year. Release that offer to the public, if that's your issue. You don't think support would swing behind the PA if that was their quibble? It'd be an understandable problem, and one that's readily addressed. This is a red herring issue brought up by union supporters-in the grand scheme of things, we're talking about small potatoes.

I stand by my argument that the players want to maintain a system where they can all make as RFA's whatever a comparable player can lever out of the dumbest owner. I understand that, and don't blame the players for it, but at the same time, I can see where it's frustrating as all hell if you're an owner of a team with a business plan that involves just running a hockey team, and not developing the plains of Arizona. Address this issue, and you might have something.

The "trust" issue is yet another PA smokescreen.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

No they don't. They could agree to a cap, and say that they want the owners to foot the cost for forensic audits of every team, every year.

1. Do you think the owners should agree to a forensic audit of their other operating, but related divisions. For instance, in CHI the hockey team does not sell the board advertising and therefore shows no revenue.
2. Related to point 1. Do you think the owners should agree to a broad range of what hockey related revenue ?
3. In BOS, Jeremy Jacobs (according to the Conway report), was so sure he could hide hockey related revnue from the govt that he was willing to risk going to jail if caught. How do you propose this very experianced businessman can guarantee he wont try and cheat the players ? Especially when he has a half century history of being a financial cheater.

don't think support would swing behind the PA if that was their quibble?.

You tell me. If the owners truly would not budge once the players agreed to a cap with strict auditing would you and eye and thunderstruck and iconoclaust and others, would you all change your support to the players ?

You tell me.

DR

 

[mudcrutch79]

The "trust" issue is yet another PA smokescreen.

I'm so tired of the zealots on each side of this issue. I've never even heard the PA say "We'd accept a cap, if we could trust the owners." It's something brought up by the PA zealots. Then you get the owners zealots, who say things like the quote above. It's just tiresome. Each side has interests that they want to protect. There's no real right or wrong, there's just a solution that satisfies the interests of each side as best as is possible. I've enunciated what I think would go a long way to solving the problem, basing arbitration awards on a team's payroll or something and pooling money amongst comparable players, but really it's nothing more than an attempt to find something that achieves some sort of balancing of interests.

I don't understand why this issue is so bound up in morality and right/wrong for people.

 

[mudcrutch79]

1. Do you think the owners should agree to a forensic audit of their other operating, but related divisions. For instance, in CHI the hockey team does not sell the board advertising and therefore shows no revenue.

2. Related to point 1. Do you think the owners should agree to a broad range of what hockey related revenue ?
3. In BOS, Jeremy Jacobs (according to the Conway report), was so sure he could hide hockey related revnue from the govt that he was willing to risk going to jail if caught. How do you propose this very experianced businessman can guarantee he wont try and cheat the players ? Especially when he has a half century history of being a financial cheater.[/quote]

None of this is the slightest bit relevant. Interesting concerns, but not at all relevant. Let the players lay out everything that they want to have audited, and let the owners respond, if this is their issue. You think the other 28 owners or however many are willing to play fair in a cap system are going to hold things up so that Wirtz and Jacobs can hide money? The fact that the players don't put forward such an offer flat out tells you that this isn't their concern.

You tell me. If the owners truly would not budge once the players agreed to a cap with strict auditing would you and eye and thunderstruck and iconoclaust and others, would you all change your support to the players ?

Hell, my support is pretty much with the players now, but not because I really care which side wins this debate. I think that the financial plan they've laid out is better for producing an exciting NHL than that the owners laid out. What do you know, I've got my own interests I want to see protected, just like the players and owners. I'm just upfront about having those interests, and what exactly they are. None of this "competitive balance" or "belief in a free market system" nonsense you hear from the owners and players respectively.

 

[thinkwild]

There's no real right or wrong, there's just a solution that satisfies the interests of each side as best as is possible. I've enunciated what I think would go a long way to solving the problem, basing arbitration awards on a team's payroll or something and pooling money amongst comparable players, but really it's nothing more than an attempt to find something that achieves some sort of balancing of interests.

I don't understand why this issue is so bound up in morality and right/wrong for people.

Because the owners are wrong to do what they are doing. They have a record of being wrong in courts, congress, and capital markets, not to mention wrong in how to run a hockey league. Jacobs and karmanos are wrong to abuse a perfectly good system, and then wrong to be the hardliners leading a parade to satisfy their interests.


I agree with the premises of your pooling money amongst comparables idea. This is the kind of thinking that leads to a solution. This is along the ideas of the way the players are proposing to solve it. But it doesnt provide a balance of interests if the owners position is as stated and they are not going to move off a cap.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Hell, my support is pretty much with the players now, but not because I really care which side wins this debate. I think that the financial plan they've laid out is better for producing an exciting NHL than that the owners laid out. What do you know, I've got my own interests I want to see protected, just like the players and owners. I'm just upfront about having those interests, and what exactly they are. None of this "competitive balance" or "belief in a free market system" nonsense you hear from the owners and players respectively.

this is exactly how i feel too. very well said.

so why are you suggesting the players should come to the table and play the owners linkage game ?

No they don't. They could agree to a cap, and say that they want the owners to foot the cost for forensic audits of every team, every year. Release that offer to the public, if that's your issue.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Because the owners are wrong to do what they are doing. They have a record of being wrong in courts, congress, and capital markets, not to mention wrong in how to run a hockey league. Jacobs and karmanos are wrong to abuse a perfectly good system, and then wrong to be the hardliners leading a parade to satisfy their interests.

another post that articulates exactly why i hold my position.

dr

 

[thinkwild]

You tell me. If the owners truly would not budge once the players agreed to a cap with strict auditing would you and eye and thunderstruck and iconoclaust and others, would you all change your support to the players ?

You tell me.

DR

Id like to know the answer to this too. Are all the vigorous defenders of Bettman suggesting that if the players proposed this, they would win the PR war? Everyone knows the owners would never go for this. Anyone believe they would?

 

[mudcrutch79]

Because the owners are wrong to do what they are doing. They have a record of being wrong in courts, congress, and capital markets, not to mention wrong in how to run a hockey league. Jacobs and karmanos are wrong to abuse a perfectly good system, and then wrong to be the hardliners leading a parade to satisfy their interests.

Why are they wrong? I'm a little unsure about how they have a record of being wrong in capital markets-they generally make large capital gains when they sell the teams, although I wonder about the sustainability of that. As for congress...what in the name of all that is holy are you referring to? Seriously, I have no idea what you're referring to. The courts...sure. It was 10 years ago. Move on with your lives, there's money to be made here. How are Jacobs and Karmanos "wrong" in how they used the system? Foolish? Definitely, but you can't expect them to be asking themselves "How does this affect everyone else?" when they're making decisions. It's not their problem. Unfortunately, the system allows those errors to affect other people. If they didn't, I'd have even less of a problem with it.

As for them being "wrong" to lead a parade...every owner is smart enough to make their own decisions. They're behind this because they perceive it to be in their interests, just like everyone else.

I agree with the premises of your pooling money amongst comparables idea. This is the kind of thinking that leads to a solution. This is along the ideas of the way the players are proposing to solve it. But it doesnt provide a balance of interests if the owners position is as stated and they are not going to move off a cap.

I must have missed the part of the PA proposal where they offer to redo arbitration along these lines.

 

[SENSible1*]

1. Do you think the owners should agree to a forensic audit of their other operating, but related divisions. For instance, in CHI the hockey team does not sell the board advertising and therefore shows no revenue.
2. Related to point 1. Do you think the owners should agree to a broad range of what hockey related revenue ?
3. In BOS, Jeremy Jacobs (according to the Conway report), was so sure he could hide hockey related revnue from the govt that he was willing to risk going to jail if caught. How do you propose this very experianced businessman can guarantee he wont try and cheat the players ? Especially when he has a half century history of being a financial cheater.

And half a century of getting caught.

The auditors could find the revenue and punishment provisions could be readily placed into the agreement.

You tell me. If the owners truly would not budge once the players agreed to a cap with strict auditing would you and eye and thunderstruck and iconoclaust and others, would you all change your support to the players ?

You tell me.

DR

If the owners refused to open their books, I would readily switch sides. If the owners are going to offer a partnership, especially one with an unwilling partner, then they have to be prepared to take this basic step.

If they opened the books and then the PA then made ridiculous claims based on items that have no business being classified as hockey revenue, then I would continue to support the owners.

 

[mudcrutch79]

so why are you suggesting the players should come to the table and play the owners linkage game ?

I'm saying that if the players problem was trust, they'd come to the table and offer a linkage, with an incredibly high level of forensic auditing. I don't think that they should, from the perspective of protecting my own interests, but if their issue was trust they would. They haven't, so that tells me that that's not their problem. As I've said over and over, I don't have a problem with that. I just wish this damn thing would end.

 

[PecaFan]

Which is why, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times, cracks are developing in ownership ranks. They don't trust each other either, and trust in Bettman is slipping.

LA Times

Not that the word "trust" shows up in the article at all.

There's nothing new there. The few profitable teams in the league are of course hardest hit by the lockout. We've always known that they'd prefer to keep making money.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I'm saying that if the players problem was trust, they'd come to the table and offer a linkage, with an incredibly high level of forensic auditing. I don't think that they should, from the perspective of protecting my own interests, but if their issue was trust they would. They haven't, so that tells me that that's not their problem. As I've said over and over, I don't have a problem with that. I just wish this damn thing would end.

Sean Burke said on Bob McGown show tonight something to the effect that the players are resisting because they feel like they are being rail roaded by the owners.

I am going to listen again to clarify what I heard. A rebroadcast is on Sportsnet 27 at 11pm tonight (Calgary). NOt sure if its archived on the internet somewhere.

Anyhow, from what I heard, to solve this the owners need to bring some sugar to the table (a different approach from the hardline sour pickles they have brought). The players feel treated very poorly in this CBA negotiation and thats why they are fighting the fight.

Would it hurt for the owners to try some sugar at this stage of the game ?

DR

 

[shveik]

No they don't. They could agree to a cap, and say that they want the owners to foot the cost for forensic audits of every team, every year. Release that offer to the public, if that's your issue. You don't think support would swing behind the PA if that was their quibble? It'd be an understandable problem, and one that's readily addressed. This is a red herring issue brought up by union supporters-in the grand scheme of things, we're talking about small potatoes.

I am not sure what an audit would reveal. If the team was a separate publicly traded company, then by all means, all the dealings are right there. If it is a portion of somebody's *private* holdings, then things become much more complicated. For instance, let's say a TV station comes and offers up 5 million a year for broadcast rights. The owner says, yeah, we can do that. But how about this, you only pay me 2 million a year for that, but in return I will only pay 2 million instead of 5 for the TV advertising of my pizza business. Or how about lowering ticket prices and jacking up the parking fees (if the parking fees aren't included in revenue)? I am as far from the business side of things as you can get, but I am thinking, if I can come up with simple stuff like that, the owners, who are shrewd businessmen, could probably come up with 100 ideas in 1 minute that would be worlds more effective than what I mentioned.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I'm so tired of the zealots on each side of this issue. I've never even heard the PA say "We'd accept a cap, if we could trust the owners."

No, but when a player is asked why they reject a cap, trust always comes up. Sean Burke responded exactly like that on McGowan this afternoon. When asked by a fan why the players wouldn't accept a cap. And he said the players just didn't want to get into the revenue game. He pointed to the trust issue and noted it wasn't just in hockey there have been problems with revenue reporting. They don't want to turn the NHLPA into some version of the SEC. They shouldn't have to do it.

But I agree with you. Even if that issue did not exist, the players would not accept a cap.

Tom

 

[Jaded-Fan]

My interests, in hockey or any sport:

........ a fairly level playing field where every city can feel that their product on the ice is solely reflected by management decisions and where they have as much chance to land and/or keep the all star or all star players as any other team. Sports are unique in their being competition between the teams and yet it also is a symbiotic relationship. The *oink oink* Yankees can not field their team filled with all stars filling bench rolls if there is not another team to play against. They need other teams or there would be no Yankees. So the teams in that sport or any other are not a collections of individual corporations who could give a damn about every other team as underlies the arguments of the 'keep the huge advantage to my friggin' team apologists' that I see here and for other sports.

There will be salary variences even under a Cap system as there are in the NBA and even football, but not huge ones. If you have a thumb on the scale to degrees where the highest payroll teams have collective salaries many multiples of the lowest, and never ever have to pay an eventual price (in the NFL you can play games but it comes due eventually when those deferred salaries hit) and you allow teams to garner the all stars every single year and make half the league feel that they are minor league feeders to the five or six who hog up all the stars for their third and fourth lines, then you have a problem.

Baseball is there. Hockey was heading there. I personally will not support any 'sport' where there is not some sort of a Cap. Why should I? There are other sports out there that give all of the teams a chance. I will just take my dollars elsewhere and anyone not in a city that can hog it up would be stupid to not do the same. Let the leagues of so called 'sports' who do otherwise see how it is to field teams in four or five cities and see where their so called sport ends up.

 

[codswallop]

I wish I had a dollar for every time you've said words to this effect.

So do I, it would be a great help with the bills.

Doesn't mean the statement becomes less true through the repitition.

I'm sorry that I don't have much to offer in the way of banter and/or discussion on these topics. It's pretty obvious that I see many of these "debates" as meaningless, devoid of much or any real substance. Even on an anonymous message board, I can't get away from my honesty. I don't apologize for not diving into opinion and assumption, even though that seems to be the driving force behind many of these threads (no matter what your beliefs on the situation are).

Join the club, many have not countered my posts as of late. Within the scope of the threads here, there really isn't much to counter. I understand and expect that. Take it for what it is and move on (which I personally think is a good idea for most posts).