Russ Conway series

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Bicycle Repairman, Jan 3, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Bicycle Repairman

    Bicycle Repairman Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,688
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
  2. Alfie#11

    Alfie#11 Registered User

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Thanks for posting the links.

    Interesting articles. :teach:
     
  3. Bicycle Repairman

    Bicycle Repairman Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,688
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Interesting that NHL referees and linesmen qualify for government pogey. Certainly that makes their collective decision not to officiate in other leagues somewhat less high-minded than many here hailed it as.
     
  4. acr*

    acr* Guest

    I love the CBA idea for the tiered salaries. It's definitely the best middle-ground proposal I've read yet.

    However, I'm sure that neither side will go for it, as Bettman doesn't get his hard cap and the Union isn't gettin max cash inflow.

    Hell, I believe that this idea is better for the small market teams than the hard salary cap. If the price range is pre-determined for players of the different tiers, they'd probably be more likely to sign better players and field more competitive teams.
     
  5. GabbyDugan

    GabbyDugan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    I'm a little surprised that Russ Conway's well-researched articles and proposal seem to be slipping by almost unnoticed. There is some solid stuff here worthy of further discussion.

    Conway's the only hockey writer I can think of who has ever been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, but he seems to reach a very small percentage of the hockey audience. Maybe he should be a little more flamboyant.

    He does an excellent job of putting the Levitt Report into it's proper context, and he is one of the few "neutral" hockey writers who dares to challenge the way Gary Bettman exploits the Levitt Report. When Levitt's findings are connected with Conway's examples of intertwined business of NHL owners, I end up wishing that a few more reporters would take the time to delve into some of the myths that are floating around.

    Conway takes a very strong stand against arbitration, which certainly isn't going to endear him to the NHLPA.

    His complete proposal? It is quite different from what both the owners and players are looking for, so it would be incredibly easy to pick it apart no matter which side of the fence you are on.

    With neither side the least interested in an arbitrated/mediated solution with outside ideas, there isn't any chance that the owners or players are going to buy into Conway's proposal "as is". At least he presents his proposal in a business-like manner, and he has obviously put some serious time and thought into this.

    http://www.eagletribune.com/features/nhl-proposal.htm
     
  6. copperandblue

    copperandblue Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    10,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Not much to add other than saying that I am actually rather impressed by his proposal. It's seems to be a good example of thinking outside the box...something that the current "negotiations" seem to lack.

    It's becoming more and more mind boggling that as more and more time passes, less and less seems to be getting accomplished.

    This proposal seems to have a little of everything and really, as an outsider, I can't understand why there isn't something for the powers at large to work with here...
     
  7. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:
    Thanks for the read BR.

    Sure is quiet from the pro owner crowd. I guess we'll hearing how he's either a agent or related to a player.
     
  8. copperandblue

    copperandblue Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    10,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I don't know, I would consider myself pro-owner and I don't really see anything in there that is so unreasonable....

    Certainly nothing that changes my thinking in terms of where the problems lie today...I always knew how the NHL arrived at these problems so reading an article that points it out isn't going to change things.
     
  9. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    A fairly well thought out proposal.

    My biggest criticism is that the author seems to have an "ideal" team in his head and is forcing every team into that model, in spite of the fact that it isn't all that well suited for a rebuilding phase or championship mode. Unfortunately this ideal team is crucial to the pay structure in the model and is therefore a fatal flaw, IMO.
     
  10. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    146
    what about the NHL's proposal that all teams have to spend no less than 34m ? How does this help "revenue" challenges teams by forcing them to spend more ?

    Isnt this also a case of the NHL dictating an "ideal" team and forcing every team into that model ?

    DR
     
  11. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Conway proved he was actually a journalist a long time ago. I, too, wonder why he never made it big as a hockey writer. Maybe he likes small town life. Or maybe crossing ownership is not the way to get ahead for a hockey writer.

    The thing that drives me nuts about this part of the story is that about 50 hockey reporters should have taken the Levitt report to accounting firms when it was originally published. Does it matter now that the professionals Conway used thinks the report is a joke?

    I thought this was easily the weakest story of the bunch. He is right on about the Fedorov contract causing a burst of inflation, but it was that burst of inflation led to Leclair getting $7 million. It wasn't the arbitrator's fault. Leclair got market value, a value that was set by Karamanos. He actually asked for $9 million. I don't want this thread to devolve into another argument about arbitration, but I don't see the case is made in this article. In fact, I think the evidence that he does produce tends to imply the system is fair.

    I agree that there is no chance it will be accepted. The owners won't open up their books to be independently audited. If they would actually do that, there might be a deal to be made around some system. Quite a while ago, I suggested that the players turn the PR back on the owners by agreeing to tie revenues to salaries as long as they were talking real revenues derived by the type of audits Conway or his experts described - team by team.

    (It really isn't practical, though. Levitt's team supposedly did 2,000 hours of work and he didn't do any audits. These are 30 complicated businesses. How long would it take an independent firm to audit all 30 teams when they have separate companies that do nothing but sell board revenue? How many separate businesses have to be audited each year? Conway does not address this point.)

    Without that, how can Conway's plan go anywhere. What about the Jeremy Jacobs anecdotes? He under-reported revenue to the tax man with these kinds of ridiculous arguments:

    The Bruins argued that they shouldn't pay Massachusetts taxes on all of their home-game revenue because they are obligated to play half their games out of state, incurring expenses but making no money.

    The tax board rejected that argument. It also rejected the Bruins' claim that they shouldn't be taxed on all the team's broadcast revenue. The Bruins had a 31 percent ownership stake in New England Sports Network (NESN) at the time.

    The Bruins claimed that a third of the revenue came from out-of-state viewers receiving the broadcast from rented property that was far from Massachusetts -- a satellite floating "22,300 miles above Earth's surface and 1,200 miles west of Mexico's Baja California coast."


    Would anyone accept what Jeremy Jacobs says his revenues are without a thorough audit when he is willing to make these kinds of claims to an authority that could put him in jail?

    Tom
     
  12. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Conway's model forces teams into a far more restrictive model than the NHL's proposal would, without the benefits to the owners of fixing salaries at a % of revenue.

    In the NHL's proposal, it is left up to the team how they get to the minumum cap. In Conway's recipe you are forced to choose, one from column A, three from column B, three from column C....
     
  13. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,903
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Lots of interesting ideas. The trust issue still has to be worked around, but otherwise as a philisophy its interesting. It does sound a lot like the owners salary slotting proposal framework. Perhaps there is something here they can work with.

    Its an interesting way of framing the 2 perspectives though. The RFA arbitration comparables being established at new levels with market correction controls, vs salary slots. It is much the same debate of being forced into a structure that is artificially equivalent - cap or salary slots, but is also a different way of looking at it.

    Only one franchise player per team? Sakic Forsberg. Heatley Kovalchuk. Richards Lecavalier. Naslund Bertuzzi. How do these get resolved with one franchise player tag? Not the way those teams would of hoped i fear.

    Perhaps thinking of designing salary slots for a ghost roster and slotting players into them, can be managed with enough flexibility that it can co-achieve the goals of market rates and cycles, with 30 equal teams. Does it force homegenesousness on how a team is built?

    Would every team always have a franchise player? Even if their likely franchise player is currently on an entry level contract like Columbus? Would Pittsburgh or washington be able to fill every spot on the top tiers? Would they have to? I know some people think its a good idea if Washington get rid of some prospects and get some free agents, but I cant help but think that isnt their best interest.


    Is it a new way of looking at team building?
     
  14. Silver

    Silver Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    Messages:
    5,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    Qualifiying and collecting are two different things.
     
  15. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,585
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    a) unlimited price for franchise players. The richest teams will poach the best players. There is no way Pittsburgh could keep super-star Mario when a team like Philly, TO or NYR could throw $30m/y at him.

    b) I don't like how it works. Basically 30 players are free to collect massively more money than the others.

    c) doesn't reward putting together a good team
     
  16. Mr Sakich

    Mr Sakich Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    8,906
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Location:
    Motel 35
    Home Page:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"