Shocking report: Another star player unhappy with the league

[copperandblue]

Back to Brodeur...

Does anyone else see the irony in Brodeur's statement about the coach becoming more important and that nobody wants to come out to see the coach? I wonder if he formed that opinion as he stood at the end of a half empty arena in Jersey while the Devils trapped the hell out of any opponent that came through the door?

The other thought that sprang up... I find it somewhat refreshing to here a player complain about a deal not getting done because he wants to play. Most fans around the league have experienced one of his/her favourite teams deal with a player that was holding out for more cash and wanting them back on the ice. It's kinda nice seeing the players experience the same thing. Not that I actually expect any lessons to be learned from it.

No back to your regular scheduled programming of Bicycle Repairman singing the praises of Bob Goodenow.....

 

[Buffaloed]

No back to your regular scheduled programming of Bicycle Repairman singing the praises of Bob Goodenow.....

Someone has to play the Devil's Advocate.

 

[Hasbro]

If the players dispute the Levitt report, could they come out with figures of their own? An automatic gainsaying of the league's figures and vague accusations of hiding luxary box revenue aren't swaying me.

 

[usiel]

Back to Brodeur...

Does anyone else see the irony in Brodeur's statement about the coach becoming more important and that nobody wants to come out to see the coach? I wonder if he formed that opinion as he stood at the end of a half empty arena in Jersey while the Devils trapped the hell out of any opponent that came through the door?

The other thought that sprang up... I find it somewhat refreshing to here a player complain about a deal not getting done because he wants to play. Most fans around the league have experienced one of his/her favourite teams deal with a player that was holding out for more cash and wanting them back on the ice. It's kinda nice seeing the players experience the same thing. Not that I actually expect any lessons to be learned from it.

No back to your regular scheduled programming of Bicycle Repairman singing the praises of Bob Goodenow.....

Brodeur statement was just idiotic. Even in those sports he mentions the players matter more than the coaches. There are only a couple of coaches in the leagues he mentions that could maybe help a team over achieve and then likely for only a season if they still have a dearth of talent. I haven't seen any persuasive reasoning from the players that refutes the potential use of some type of salary cap.

 

[struckmatch]

Yes, owners who don't know how to manage NHL teams, throwing money out the window for role players, piss-poor arena deals, sub-par PR, and attendance problems. That's all the players fault. It's the players that are dodging the problems facing some owners, some of which wouldn't qualify for expansion teams (NJ, NYR, NYI, STL, PIT among others) because of how poorly their franchise infrastrucure is built.



Make the players bail the owners out. I think the owners are dodging their own problems.

The owners created the problems, they aren't dodging the problems, their stance on a hard salary cap shows they are committed to solving the problem. It doesn't matter how the economic problems got there, but they need to be fixed. The players have had their gravy train.

Also, thats a simplistic way of looking at it. Because of a small number of signings for players, inflation in player salary occured as a leaguewide phenomenon, so that left owners and GM's in tough situations, either you could pay the price and sign the UFA's for theit inflated salaries, and satisfy yourfans who are calling for an upgrade to the team, or you sit back and don't spend the money being widely criticized by your own market for not being committed to win.

Thats the reality of it, most of the owners were in that situation, where they either make the signing, please the fans and the market, ot be criticized for its lack of committment to winning.

 

[Blane Youngblood]

Yes, owners who don't know how to manage NHL teams, throwing money out the window for role players, piss-poor arena deals, sub-par PR, and attendance problems. That's all the players fault. It's the players that are dodging the problems facing some owners, some of which wouldn't qualify for expansion teams (NJ, NYR, NYI, STL, PIT among others) because of how poorly their franchise infrastrucure is built.

Make the players bail the owners out. I think the owners are dodging their own problems.

In the end it's in the mean players best interest to help the league fix it's problems. At this point it's not about blame, I think everybody knows it's the owner's fault, it's about how to best solve the problem.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

In the end it's in the mean players best interest to help the league fix it's problems. At this point it's not about blame, I think everybody knows it's the owner's fault, it's about how to best solve the problem.

I don't think it is in the player's best interest to help the league fix its problems. And at this point it is about blame. It is not necessarily about blame as in "Nyah, nyah, fix it yourself". It is about defining the problems precisely before deciding how to fix it. This has never been done.

If we start with the premise the owners are not making enough money, there is no one solution because the losers are losing money for very different reasons. The Rangers are losing money to enhance the value of cablevision. Washington and St. Louis are losing money because they made very foolish decisions around payroll. Carolina, Anaheim and Florida are losing money because they don't sell tickets. Pittsburgh and the Islanders are losing money because they don't have good rinks.

Which of those problems should be solved with the CBA?

They all can ber solved as long as you peg payrolls to the lowest common denominator. Or they all could make money if there was very significant revenue sharing. The first solution is very unfair to the players, the second is unfair to the owner in a good market who may have paid three times as much for his franchise as the owner in a small market. The players reject the first, the owners reject the second.

Tom

 

[tantalum]

Tom the Ranger comment in the Linden letter was that CABLEVISION may lose money intentionally to prop up it's value...it said NOTHING about the Ranger subsidiary. A company primarily based in communications will quite often take bottom line hits as they set up infrastructure as it will guaratee them future gains. Having been a cablevision customer for up until 11 months ago they were heavily setting up the high speed internet and digital cable infrastructure in their controlling areas. As well as trying to bury cable across long island sound both expensive propositions that would yield no fruit for a few years until people started subscribing to digital cable etc. Could this be the source of the "intentional loss"? Who knows. Nor did I hear the original comments, however, what Linden paraphrased in the letter was clearly phrased as Cablevision taking that hit to the bottom line and as such it doesn't tell anyone a darn thing about the Rangers.

 

[ginner classic]

Brodeur statement was just idiotic. Even in those sports he mentions the players matter more than the coaches. There are only a couple of coaches in the leagues he mentions that could maybe help a team over achieve and then likely for only a season if they still have a dearth of talent. I haven't seen any persuasive reasoning from the players that refutes the potential use of some type of salary cap.

I dont think his comments were idiotic, just that he fails to understand how competition should occur in professional sport. The long-term success of a sports franchise should not be based on dollars available to buy talent as is currently the situation in the NHL and MLB. It should be based upon the talent of the management team, the coaches, the scouts and the interest of the local hockey fan in financially supporting the sport in general. The individual events in any sport are determined by the talent playing, but in the long run, the competition takes place at the head office and coaching level, which is exactly where it should occur.

I really wish that the PA would hammer away at the one point that they can surely win with the fans and hockey pundits. The NHL should under no circumstanes expect the players to buy in to a league concept that guarantees poorly run franchises financial success. Bad teams should be able to lose money, just as smalll market teams, should be able to build dynasties if they possess the management talent to make it happen. As long as Bettman holds on to this misguided belief that teams managed like Chicago and the Islanders have been, should expect to always make a profit, this negotiation just ain't going anywhere.

 

[thinkwild]

Thats the reality of it, most of the owners were in that situation, where they either make the signing, please the fans and the market, ot be criticized for its lack of committment to winning.

So is the suggestion then that a hard cap would take away any accountability from owners for dealing with upset fans? You could of also mentioned where they make the signing, initially please the fans, but then team loses, fans want trades. Owners want to escape criticism and accountability?

don't think it is in the player's best interest to help the league fix its problems. And at this point it is about blame. It is not necessarily about blame as in "Nyah, nyah, fix it yourself". It is about defining the problems precisely before deciding how to fix it. This has never been done.

If we start with the premise the owners are not making enough money, there is no one solution because the losers are losing money for very different reasons. The Rangers are losing money to enhance the value of cablevision. Washington and St. Louis are losing money because they made very foolish decisions around payroll. Carolina, Anaheim and Florida are losing money because they don't sell tickets. Pittsburgh and the Islanders are losing money because they don't have good rinks.

Which of those problems should be solved with the CBA?

This is so maddening too. When fans we know its the owners fault, now make the players take a cap and solve it. Like a cap is the only way to do it. And that no one is interested in exactly the problem and fixing it, just make a cap and get it iver with. Or that by default , all losses are because of salaries.

What if the players agreed to salary cut that amounted to $300mil less in salaries this year, and then tweaked the CBA as they suggest? If they ended up back in the same spot, how can they possibly get sysmpathy or suggest its the systems fault with all we know now?

 

[thinkwild]

Is the league in financial trouble?

Can the league keep operating under this current system?

Can all 30 teams be competetive under this current system?

Those are all questions that the answers are obvious to. When the NHLPA makes a real concession and attempt at solving these financial problems, thats when you should support them. Its clear that the NHLPA is only looking out for the Sakic's, Brodeur's, and Lidstrom's of the league, the majority of the players(the lower and average paid players) don't have any say at all in a UNION in which they are supposed to be a part of.

The union is a joke, they don't want to take a severe paycut, but don't worry boys, GO PLAY IN EUROPE FOR A QUARTER OF THE MONEY. Nice work at being consistent.

What a disgrace.

Geez man, how can you believe all this stuff? The players have offered a pay cut, and the willingness to negotiate it further. The Sakics, Brideurs, and Lidstroms are already set for life and dont need any looking out for. Its not them that will suffer, but it is them making a sacrifice.


Is the league in financial trouble?
Is it a problem they cant fix themselves, like spending less? The players are offering to help.

Can the league keep operating under this current system?
Definitely, especially if they tweak it and reset the equilibrium at a lower level

Can all 30 teams be competetive under this current system?
Come on, surely every hockey fan now can see this is true. Are they competitive each year? No. But are they competitive that in the next 5 years a team building has as good a chance of developing a cup winner as a team buying, like the NYR Tampa Bay race, absolutely. How can you not see that? The UFAs fans always want arent the answer or an unfair advantage in the big picture.

 

[struckmatch]

Geez man, how can you believe all this stuff? The players have offered a pay cut, and the willingness to negotiate it further. The Sakics, Brideurs, and Lidstroms are already set for life and dont need any looking out for. Its not them that will suffer, but it is them making a sacrifice.


Is the league in financial trouble?
Is it a problem they cant fix themselves, like spending less? The players are offering to help.

Can the league keep operating under this current system?
Definitely, especially if they tweak it and reset the equilibrium at a lower level

Can all 30 teams be competetive under this current system?
Come on, surely every hockey fan now can see this is true. Are they competitive each year? No. But are they competitive that in the next 5 years a team building has as good a chance of developing a cup winner as a team buying, like the NYR Tampa Bay race, absolutely. How can you not see that? The UFAs fans always want arent the answer or an unfair advantage in the big picture.

The players offered a paycut? a 5% salary rollback? That offer is a PR offer, not an offer that is intended to substantially contribute to the financial betterment of this league.

Is the league in financial trouble?
Is it a problem they cant fix themselves, like spending less? The players are offering to help

How can they spend less when salaries are so inflated? We all know UFA signings don't guarantee success, although there are other aspects where teams spend money, RFA's, and how much salary they can take on in trades are all affected by salary inflation, and are all crucial to a teams success.

The players have offered a pay cut, and the willingness to negotiate it further. The Sakics, Brideurs, and Lidstroms are already set for life and dont need any looking out for.

Tell that to the union, who couldn't care less when guys like Andrew Ference and Juraj Kolnik speak out, and then you've got Chris Pronger who's 10 million a year salary would be cut to a max of about 6 - 7 million with a salary cap, threatening the lower paid guys in the league. And if these guys are already set for life, why not take a pay cut(an actual pay cut, not a PR proposed pay cut) and accept a system that would actually help this league which is in financial turmoil?

Call me when the players get in touch with reality, that'll be when they tie their wages to league revenues.

 

[thinkwild]

The players offered a paycut? a 5% salary rollback? That offer is a PR offer, not an offer that is intended to substantially contribute to the financial betterment of this league.

An opening offer to cut salaries is there. The commitment is expressed. Do the owners negotiate? No, its cap or the highway.

How can they spend less when salaries are so inflated?

Why is everyone getting less than Holik? If no one can afford it, how can they spend more? They will all have to spend less. Why does an atrificial cap number make them spend smart, when the threat of losing money wont? What, if they dont spend that extra $5mil on a UFA, they will end up in 24th place instead of 19th?

Call me when the players get in touch with reality, that'll be when they tie their wages to league revenues.

Im sure thats the first thing you say whenever there is a labour dispute. They must tie salaries to revenues. Its such an obvious solution. We talk about it all the time. Everyone knows this is the only way. We learn it in English class.

Why dont the owners spend on salaries a figure that ties to revenues? I agree. They should do it. When they get in touch with this reality, the league will be in better shape.

 

[struckmatch]

An opening offer to cut salaries is there. The commitment is expressed. Do the owners negotiate? No, its cap or the highway.




Why is everyone getting less than Holik? If no one can afford it, how can they spend more? They will all have to spend less. Why does an atrificial cap number make them spend smart, when the threat of losing money wont? What, if they dont spend that extra $5mil on a UFA, they will end up in 24th place instead of 19th?




Im sure thats the first thing you say whenever there is a labour dispute. They must tie salaries to revenues. Its such an obvious solution. We talk about it all the time. Everyone knows this is the only way. We learn it in English class.

Why dont the owners spend on salaries a figure that ties to revenues? I agree. They should do it. When they get in touch with this reality, the league will be in better shape.

The owners are attemptying to tie wages to revenues, its the players who haven't shown they believe that idea.

You call a 5 percent salary rollback committment? Commitment to what? Definetely not a commitment to solving the leagues financial problems. You're still stuck on the fact that the owners spent unwisely, that is true, however this isn't about blame, this is about solving the problem, and the owners are doing their best to insure that tihe financial state of this league is in better shape.

You're entitled to your opinion, and we can argue about this all night, but I just don't see any solid effort from the players to cure the financial ailments in this league. It doesn't matter whether the problem was caused by expansion, or owner spending, or inflated player salaries, or players demanding raises, or player agents milking the finances of this league for what its worth, what does matter, is stopping the economic bleeding.

There's just too much hypocrisy from the players as well, they don't want to make less money, and work under a financially restrictive system, but then 200+ of them go to europe to play for peanuts of their original salaries? Thats a contradiction in itself, then, when you've got a leader like Mr. Goodenow who speaks for other people, like the NFLPA and how according to Goodenow they don't like their cap, and it isn't working there, well that must explain why the NFL is the most financially stable and successful league in all of North American sports, and why Troy Vincent, and other NFL'ers have mentioned that they like their system and are looking for an extension.

Too much hypocrisy from the PA, and they don't seem intent on curing this leagues problems. We all know this league is in trouble, and what else can be done to fix the problems? A 5% salary rollback won't do much, and a very very soft luxury tax, which destroys the point of even having a luxury tax sure as hell won't cure anything.

 

[thinkwild]

Sure it will

 

[ehc73]

The owners are attemptying to tie wages to revenues, its the players who haven't shown they believe that idea.

Given their spending habits, I would say they're not unless forced to. Which is what the salary cap will do, make it an idiot proof system. Some managers have stuck to a budget, why can't all of them do it? thinkwild has a point: why doesn't prospect of losing money reign in the spending?

You call a 5 percent salary rollback committment? Commitment to what? Definetely not a commitment to solving the leagues financial problems. You're still stuck on the fact that the owners spent unwisely, that is true, however this isn't about blame, this is about solving the problem, and the owners are doing their best to insure that tihe financial state of this league is in better shape.

Come now, you don't honestly believe that negotiation works on the first offer do you? If you're going to buy a car, do you buy the sticker price? No, you haggle. And when you do, do you offer the exact price you're willing to pay? No, you offer something lower, and then work towards a number that is lower than the threshold you're willing to pay. Otherwise, what's the point of negotiation? Sure, the 5% is a PR move, it's not a great offer, but it's a start.

Thats a contradiction in itself, then, when you've got a leader like Mr. Goodenow who speaks for other people, like the NFLPA and how according to Goodenow they don't like their cap, and it isn't working there, well that must explain why the NFL is the most financially stable and successful league in all of North American sports, and why Troy Vincent, and other NFL'ers have mentioned that they like their system and are looking for an extension.

Again, the NFL cap works because of their great TV deal. The revenues generated by that deal covers basically all the player salaries for each team. The gate and concession revenue goes into the team's coffers. The NHL TV deal is piss poor, and the NHL is gate driven. So just because it works in the NFL doesn't mean it'll work in the NHL.
If you bring in nonguaranteed contracts like the NFL, you'll see a lot more player movement. Player turnover would be insane. I don't like that kind of thing, but then that's just my opinion.

 

[struckmatch]

Given their spending habits, I would say they're not unless forced to. Which is what the salary cap will do, make it an idiot proof system. Some managers have stuck to a budget, why can't all of them do it? thinkwild has a point: why doesn't prospect of losing money reign in the spending?



Come now, you don't honestly believe that negotiation works on the first offer do you? If you're going to buy a car, do you buy the sticker price? No, you haggle. And when you do, do you offer the exact price you're willing to pay? No, you offer something lower, and then work towards a number that is lower than the threshold you're willing to pay. Otherwise, what's the point of negotiation? Sure, the 5% is a PR move, it's not a great offer, but it's a start.



Again, the NFL cap works because of their great TV deal. The revenues generated by that deal covers basically all the player salaries for each team. The gate and concession revenue goes into the team's coffers. The NHL TV deal is piss poor, and the NHL is gate driven. So just because it works in the NFL doesn't mean it'll work in the NHL.
If you bring in nonguaranteed contracts like the NFL, you'll see a lot more player movement. Player turnover would be insane. I don't like that kind of thing, but then that's just my opinion.

I said nothing about nonguaranteed contracts, and I agree with you that that would not be in the best intentions for the fans. I know the PA's initial 5% rollback was just a starting point, but some of you insist they've made actual concessions, thats not a concession to help the situation, thats a concession to gain PR.

Of course the prospect of losing money is a factor, thats why the owners are vying for a cap and trying to fix this problem. Once again, i'm not a blind owner supporter, I don't like their cap or the highway attitude, I just see too much hypocrisy from the PA to support them.

 

[me2]

Come now, you don't honestly believe that negotiation works on the first offer do you? If you're going to buy a car, do you buy the sticker price? No, you haggle. And when you do, do you offer the exact price you're willing to pay? No, you offer something lower, and then work towards a number that is lower than the threshold you're willing to pay. Otherwise, what's the point of negotiation? Sure, the 5% is a PR move, it's not a great offer, but it's a start.

I can see it now

NHLPA: 5% cut

NHL Counter offer: 50% cut

NHLPA: Dude, no way 10%

NHL: Dude, yes way 45%

NHLPA: Dude, you're breaking my balls 20% cut

NHL: Man chill out, I'll come down to 35% cut

NHLPA: You're breaking my balls, breaking my balls I tell you. 25% cut final offer

NHL: Woah way over budget man, best I can do is 30%

NHLPA: I'm walking away, wait last chance 27.5% cut in salaries.

NHL: Done. Gnarly man.

 

[coolguy21415]

Even as a supporter of the owners (more or less) I can see the merits in the PA's proposal. a 5% rollback would save some money, yes. The proposal on it's own doesn't work, but once negotiated, it could work. To be honest, I think one major thing that will help is cutting the roster sizes down (which the PA would never agree to). Cut it back by two players (those who sit out each game) and you've saved $1.5 million right there. Now that may not seem like much, but not included in that $1.5 million is hotel, transportation, food, training, equipment and all that jazz. Again, not much, but it's some.

Include that with a more realistic 7-9% rollback and it's a pretty good deal. The owners are irresponsible for imposing on the players a salary cap because (though there are numerous comparisons) the NHL doesn't map to the NBA (rosters of about 10-12 players) or the NFL (40k+ attendance, huge TV deal) where the salary caps work so well. It should still be the responsibility of the owners to ensure that their organisations earn money. The key is that the owners shouldn't be looking to get back the money they lost, but help prevent losing money in the future. Unfortunately I don't think that's what they have in mind.

HOWEVER. If it's left up to the owners, and salaries start to decrease, you'll get claims from players and agents about collaboration and everything to get salaries down lower. I don't really see any solution. Both sides are hard-lining, and neither's suggestions are amenable to the other side, it's a lose-lose situation, and those worst off are us, the people who are relegated to talk about it instead of last night's heated rivalry.

Edit: now that I realise this isn't on topic at all, I want to comment on Brodeurs shots at Roy's records. It should be noted that Roy endured through a strike too, so any records Roy has left will still be within grasp.

 

[chara]

Brodeur should stick it to Goodenow and not the NHL. You want a deal done, complain to your union brass otherwise shut your yap and stick to stopping pucks.

The NHL will never let any member of the union influence the way they run their business. Its like that with any unionized labour force. Only difference here --- the NHLPA averages 1.8M per guy whereas most unionized people work for peanuts in comparison and NHL guys can steal jobs elsewhere so they can hone their skills and "put food on the table."

 

[HughJass*]

I didn't bother reading this thread. How you get 4 pages out of a silly statement like what Brodeur said does not make sense. And if you want to be picky about it, I pay good money to see Parcells coach...

 

[BLONG7]

Brodeur has his own interest at heart here, he's not collecting his 7M contract and he does want to play... I thought he might be the star player who's comments might get Knob and Gary talking again... guess not, maybe if a couple more guys with some weight start talking then we could have something... wishful thinking I guess.

 

[littleHossa]

I like Brodeur's comments, he doesn't have an agent and knows a lot more about the economics of the game than the average player. His words can be taken more to heart because when he speaks he speak for himself. His salary is not the highest in the NHL in terms of goalies because agents get 15% of the cut and his salary is exactly that, 85% of a 8.5m contract, cares more about his team.

 

[triggrman]

Can someone tell me what successful business does not tie salaries to revenue?

 

[BLONG7]

Can someone tell me what successful business does not tie salaries to revenue?

ALL... but then again, the NHL is not a successful business. Not yet... here's hopin'