Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,595
- 581
i agree ... a consistent theme from this poster. nttiatwwt.Kaiped Krusader said:I wish I had a dollar for every time you've said words to this effect.
dr
i agree ... a consistent theme from this poster. nttiatwwt.Kaiped Krusader said:I wish I had a dollar for every time you've said words to this effect.
Thunderstruck said:No TRUST is necessary.
do you have a link .... ?Bicycle Repairman said: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.Bicycle Repairman said: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.
shveik said: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?
mudcrutch79 said: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.
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.mudcrutch79 said: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.
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 ?mudcrutch79 said:don't think support would swing behind the PA if that was their quibble?.
Thunderstruck said:The "trust" issue is yet another PA smokescreen.
2. Related to point 1. Do you think the owners should agree to a broad range of what hockey related revenue ?DR said: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.
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 ?
mudcrutch79 said: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.
this is exactly how i feel too. very well said.mudcrutch79 said: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.
drmudcrutch79 said: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.
another post that articulates exactly why i hold my position.thinkwild said: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.
DR said: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
thinkwild said: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.
And half a century of getting caught.DR said: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.
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
DR said:so why are you suggesting the players should come to the table and play the owners linkage game ?
Bicycle Repairman said: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
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.mudcrutch79 said: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.
mudcrutch79 said: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.
mudcrutch79 said: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."
Kaiped Krusader said:I wish I had a dollar for every time you've said words to this effect.