BLONG7
Registered User
Has anyone heard of any reaction this morning to TSN's solution? Any comments in the papers or on radio from GM's,players, or more importantly Knob G or Gary B????
Reaction to TSN's Solution?
- Thread starter BLONG7
- Start date
- Status
oilers_guy_eddie
Playoffs? PLAYOFFS!?
Prediction:
Goodenow: "We disagree with some of the concepts, but we welcome the constructive input."
(translation: there is no way in hell we would agree to a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax or a $6 million maximum salary.)
Bettman: "We don't feel the TSN proposal addresses our core issues, but we welcome the constructive input."
(translation: we're pretty hung up on a hard cap.)
Goodenow: "We disagree with some of the concepts, but we welcome the constructive input."
(translation: there is no way in hell we would agree to a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax or a $6 million maximum salary.)
Bettman: "We don't feel the TSN proposal addresses our core issues, but we welcome the constructive input."
(translation: we're pretty hung up on a hard cap.)
Leaf Army
Registered User
oilers_guy_eddie said:
But I like what Bob McKenzie said.
He said that he has no doubt that Goodenow and Bettman will probably dismiss it out of hand. That's no surprise.
But what TSN is hoping is that there are parties on both sides (some owners, general managers, players, player agents etc...) that will feel that it is the basis for a fair agreement and therefore put pressure on Bob and Gary to get things moving.
If there's a 6 million cap on player's salary, say welcome to 15 million signing bonus. Also, there will be teams still spending up to 55-60 millions. It will help small markets teams to make money with the luxury cap. But it's not gonna help those teams to be competitive. The same teams are going to sign the UFAs.
Slats432
Registered User
That is exactly what I put on the Oilers board....
I am pretty much indifferent to the TSN proposal because if it is just a make work project for staffers with nothing to do, then it is just an exercise.
That being said I do have some thoughts.(Chuckles at Austin Powers reference.)
I disagree that the $6 million dollar ceiling won't affect the market. Players get paid by scale. If the best player gets $6 million dollars, then everyone will follow underneath that. If you pay Joe Thornton $6 million dollars, there is no way that you can pay Martin Lapointe $5 million dollars.
Agents use comparable players to get better deals. How can you get into a bidding war if there is a ceiling. NOW...here is the problem with that. If they don't close a bonus loophole, in 2008 Alexander Ovechkin is going to get the $6 million max for 5 years with a $25 million dollar up front signing bonus. That will help keep salaries down.
What about the 2nd contract guys that hold out? Drop dead signing date or no NHL for you is something I would love to see.
I am pretty much indifferent to the TSN proposal because if it is just a make work project for staffers with nothing to do, then it is just an exercise.
That being said I do have some thoughts.(Chuckles at Austin Powers reference.)
I disagree that the $6 million dollar ceiling won't affect the market. Players get paid by scale. If the best player gets $6 million dollars, then everyone will follow underneath that. If you pay Joe Thornton $6 million dollars, there is no way that you can pay Martin Lapointe $5 million dollars.
Agents use comparable players to get better deals. How can you get into a bidding war if there is a ceiling. NOW...here is the problem with that. If they don't close a bonus loophole, in 2008 Alexander Ovechkin is going to get the $6 million max for 5 years with a $25 million dollar up front signing bonus. That will help keep salaries down.
What about the 2nd contract guys that hold out? Drop dead signing date or no NHL for you is something I would love to see.
Granted this is an outside sources solution, but this will not help.
Why is it everyone in media seems to talk about hockey in trouble on all fronts but will not acknowledge the game needs restrictions so tough they should be on par with Arena Football and the WNBA.
Meanwhile the NHLPA talks about baseball as a comparision, they are not paid to help owners manage their businesses they are paid to make every possible dollar for the players. I guess that is Mr Goodenow's reality.
Hockey is what it's ratings are. There is almost no interest in New York, it's a baseball-football market. Islanders-Rangers? No journalist cares about a
work-stoppage or even follows hockey, the cult fans are all that's left.
Tsn's solution is just let the owners who are willing to lose the most just pay a luxury tax for the best players and this seems like it's all about the Leafs keeping an advantage. Status quo, very disappointing.
Just like Larry Brooks wants his team to keep an advantage in free agency and goes overboard for the NHLPA, regardless of how much revenue the Rangers lose. Where would he be without trade rumors without all-stars becoming Rangers?
Overall Tsn seemed just as uninformed as Bill Watters question to Arthur Levitt that the Rangers pack them in for games. When was the last time Watters saw a Ranger game? It's not Montreal, Philadelphia or Colorado. It's a exactly like the Meadowlands or the Nassaum Coliseum on weeknights, has been for several years.
Just like Boston plays to lots of open seats and Chicago. That's hockey today.
Tickets are too high, the product is boring, the media is not interested and they play to one fan demographic in this market. And that's with Ranger team of name players they have been icing for years.
Tsn's soultion is a lot like the NHLPA's solution which is more of the status-quo plays owners off one another for big names (with a six million dollar ceiling) and solves nothing because teams that spend will create larger bouns money to off-set a six million dollar total or stagger payments. Marquee players will continue to play only in select places and fans who take no time to learn about smaller markets will complain to contract them.
There is very little revenue to share. Teams that spend, mostly lose revenue but have billion dollar companies and simply will just lose a little more.
I want a hard cap even if that is not even the NHL's worded answer. Tsn's solution does not come close to where hockey really is these days with the public in most markets in the United States. The owners need a big drop in payroll and the fans need a big drop in ticket prices, it will take a miracle for hockey to get any attention in the New York Market during a regular season because even in winter it's a baseball town.
Why is it everyone in media seems to talk about hockey in trouble on all fronts but will not acknowledge the game needs restrictions so tough they should be on par with Arena Football and the WNBA.
Meanwhile the NHLPA talks about baseball as a comparision, they are not paid to help owners manage their businesses they are paid to make every possible dollar for the players. I guess that is Mr Goodenow's reality.
Hockey is what it's ratings are. There is almost no interest in New York, it's a baseball-football market. Islanders-Rangers? No journalist cares about a
work-stoppage or even follows hockey, the cult fans are all that's left.
Tsn's solution is just let the owners who are willing to lose the most just pay a luxury tax for the best players and this seems like it's all about the Leafs keeping an advantage. Status quo, very disappointing.
Just like Larry Brooks wants his team to keep an advantage in free agency and goes overboard for the NHLPA, regardless of how much revenue the Rangers lose. Where would he be without trade rumors without all-stars becoming Rangers?
Overall Tsn seemed just as uninformed as Bill Watters question to Arthur Levitt that the Rangers pack them in for games. When was the last time Watters saw a Ranger game? It's not Montreal, Philadelphia or Colorado. It's a exactly like the Meadowlands or the Nassaum Coliseum on weeknights, has been for several years.
Just like Boston plays to lots of open seats and Chicago. That's hockey today.
Tickets are too high, the product is boring, the media is not interested and they play to one fan demographic in this market. And that's with Ranger team of name players they have been icing for years.
Tsn's soultion is a lot like the NHLPA's solution which is more of the status-quo plays owners off one another for big names (with a six million dollar ceiling) and solves nothing because teams that spend will create larger bouns money to off-set a six million dollar total or stagger payments. Marquee players will continue to play only in select places and fans who take no time to learn about smaller markets will complain to contract them.
There is very little revenue to share. Teams that spend, mostly lose revenue but have billion dollar companies and simply will just lose a little more.
I want a hard cap even if that is not even the NHL's worded answer. Tsn's solution does not come close to where hockey really is these days with the public in most markets in the United States. The owners need a big drop in payroll and the fans need a big drop in ticket prices, it will take a miracle for hockey to get any attention in the New York Market during a regular season because even in winter it's a baseball town.
I don't agree with that last assessment. Hockey may not have the national following of the other major sports. But attendance figures are up on average from where they were 10 years ago, and up by about 3000 from where they were 20 years ago. The sport isn't losing any popularity at the gate, despite the dramatic increase in ticket prices. I think that a 'soft' luxury cap of 40 million could work, but I think they should double the penalty for every 5 or 10 million you go above it.
It may not make that much of a difference, but every 2 or 3 million you add to the budget of another team helps them stay that much more competitive. Also with salaries likely to decline, teams could afford to keep more players they have let go in the past.
This may not be the end all solution to the problem, but it should be a great jumping off point. Juggle the numbers a little bit, and get the show on the road. Either side is certainly not helping their 'cause by not playing.
It may not make that much of a difference, but every 2 or 3 million you add to the budget of another team helps them stay that much more competitive. Also with salaries likely to decline, teams could afford to keep more players they have let go in the past.
This may not be the end all solution to the problem, but it should be a great jumping off point. Juggle the numbers a little bit, and get the show on the road. Either side is certainly not helping their 'cause by not playing.
Dave is a killer
Dave's a Mess
The more I think about it, the more I think there's another solution for HOCKEY in north america. They should start a new league plain and simple. The NHL can't draw good ratings and it's obviously going to die if it stays that way.
Moskau said:
it's called collusion and bad faith negotiation and it's illegal depending on the circumstances. Collusion is definately illegal but this would be slightly different, this is a collective bargaining agreement which defines income levels for union members which based on my research is a fully acceptable labor practice in the united states.
Leaf Army
Registered User
Moskau said:
Well if all the owners got together and secretly decided not to pay any player over $6 million, yeah that would be illegal.
But I doubt it could be considered price fixing if it's negotiated into the CBA.
At any rate, with all the lawyers on both sides you can rest assured that what they're proposing is not illegal.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 7Staked: $1,033.00Event closes- Updated:
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Sacramento Kings @ New Orleans PelicansWagers: 5Staked: $318.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 10Staked: $9,925.00Event closes- Updated:
-