Simple:Are you on the owners or players side?

[Hockey_Nut99]

Sorry if someone posted this poll already. I see it in individual team boards only. As simple as it sounds. Just pick.

Click to read more...

 

[GirardIsStupid]

I refuse to side with billionaires who treat their NHL franchises like a toy. If you mangled it (I speak of the overall league health), you should deal with it yourself. Plus, if they want the players to accept a cap, they should have been much less confrontational. After all, would you want to form an economic partnership with people you don't trust? Answer me this honestly.

Moreover, it further angers me when the owners say their engaging in this lockout for the good of the game. I SAY PHONY BALONEY! Y'all doing this for money. Having a lockout is not good for the game. Its a slap in the face to the fans and players.

 

[montreal]

I'm not on either side. I'm on my side only. As a fan I want to see hockey, but as someone from the business field, I understand both sides. All in all this sucks for the fans but hopefully turns out to help the game down the road.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

I agree with you there. Its understandable for the owners to request a cap. I also believe the players have a right to request a free market because this is a free world (to some extent) and their playing careers are generally limited. But I just want my hockey back.

 

[Leaf Lander]

both sides are greedy

notto realize that is naive.

I want the players i root for to stay in the game

and the owners are interchangable as far as I am concerned


If anyone who thinks that a player making a 100 grand a yr will fix the leagues problems is incorect.

salaries may go down to more reasonable levels but prices profits and revenues most likely will not go down.

 

[Drrocket9]

a simple answer

if i pay less for my next Sharks game, then this will have been worth it. if not, i wont be going to see any Sharks nor any other NHL game.

 

[roadrunner]

No side, here. I'm pissed at both sides for waiting so long to come to this point. Lawyers, agents and insurance people are my least favourite entities in business. They hold too much power in these negotiations, and for that matter, the common man.

Bettman/Goodenow...let's see your heart(s), not what technicians tell you what to say! We ARE talking about the game of hockey, are we not?

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

I was going to make a 3rd option saying "neither" but elected not to. Just want to see where the numbers are if you HAD to choose one side.

 

[Chili]

Neither.

They've combined to make the mess that is the current NHL.

And they have to realize they need to work together to fix the problems. Until they realize that, there will be no NHL hockey.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Sorry if someone posted this poll already. I see it in individual team boards only. As simple as it sounds. Just pick.

It's hard to have much sympathy for either side.
But I consider the following:

Bettman vs Yzerman.
Bettman vs. Datsyuk.
Bettman vs. Lidstrom.
Bettman vs. Shanahan.

I watch NHL hockey because I get to see the best game in the world played by the best players in the world.
I don't go to many games (prices, you know). But when I do shell out the money, I like the idea that it's going to the players.

As a hockey fan, I've seen lots of great things.
Three times, Yzerman lifted the cup.
And each time, the only thing that spoiled the moment, even a bit, was listening to that moron Bettman before he passed the cup off to the captain.

If I thought for a moment that Bettman was acting on behalf of the game, I'd really support him.
But I've watched him ruin the sport in so many ways.

If I thought that a salary cap would bring teams back to Quebec City, Winnipeg and maybe even to Hamilton, then yeah, I'd support his salary cap.

But I know better. I watched Bettman stand by and do nothing as good hockey markets fled the north for the big television markets in the south.

Screw Bettman. If I was an NHL captain on a cup winning team, I wouldn't take the cup from his hands.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

if i pay less for my next Sharks game, then this will have been worth it. if not, i wont be going to see any Sharks nor any other NHL game.

news flash...you will not pay less for sharks games regardless of what happens. research (see spectorshockey.net for references) shows tickets prices are largely independent of player salaries. you would think players salaries would cause ticket prices to rise. in fact, the opposite is true.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

It's hard to have much sympathy for either side.
But I consider the following:

Bettman vs Yzerman.
Bettman vs. Datsyuk.
Bettman vs. Lidstrom.
Bettman vs. Shanahan.

I watch NHL hockey because I get to see the best game in the world played by the best players in the world.
I don't go to many games (prices, you know). But when I do shell out the money, I like the idea that it's going to the players.

As a hockey fan, I've seen lots of great things.
Three times, Yzerman lifted the cup.
And each time, the only thing that spoiled the moment, even a bit, was listening to that moron Bettman before he passed the cup off to the captain.

If I thought for a moment that Bettman was acting on behalf of the game, I'd really support him.
But I've watched him ruin the sport in so many ways.

If I thought that a salary cap would bring teams back to Quebec City, Winnipeg and maybe even to Hamilton, then yeah, I'd support his salary cap.

But I know better. I watched Bettman stand by and do nothing as good hockey markets fled the north for the big television markets in the south.

Screw Bettman. If I was an NHL captain on a cup winning team, I wouldn't take the cup from his hands.

I think it's great that you got to see all that and I respect your post. This is where everyone starts having their own opinion. You said you watch/go watch hockey becasue you get to see these guys all play. Teams like Nashville and other small market teams could never ever see guys like that b/c they all fly off to Detroit,Colorado,St.Louis,Dallas,etc...Not every player but a lot of major superstars.

The main way a small team like that can have big time superstars is if they draft one or two(which can be done), but it gives them a lot less chance of putting a winning product on the ice than those teams have. It will always be that way unless Nashville drafts out of their minds, gets really lucky, and all those players turn out to be awsome. That's one good thing about the nhl(that there's some luck involved and you have to put the team together carefully)..

I have 2 problems mainly:

1)A small team like that can draft as well as they want but if they turn into superstars and turn 31, they are most likely gone to the highest bidder.

2)They can have a prety good team due to smart management but they can't go out and get the best players at the trade deadline(as we call some of them, rentals)...They can't go pick up a Hasek or a Ray Bourque because of money. Some people will say: "Well if Nashville made a better team and drafted well then Bourque might want to come there". That's true but it comes downt ot he cycle again. It's been seen everywhere. Players usually leave at 31 b/c the team can't even afford to make a decent offer to their superstars.

I know many people don't agree with me but this is how I have always seen it.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I think it's great that you got to see all that and I respect your post. This is where everyone starts having their own opinion. You said you watch/go watch hockey becasue you get to see these guys all play. Teams like Nashville and other small market teams could never ever see guys like that b/c they all fly off to Detroit,Colorado,St.Louis,Dallas,etc...Not every player but a lot of major superstars..

Patience is a virtue.
Look, Detroit ain't the mega media market some hockey fans seem to think it is. If you followed Detroit hockey in the 70s and 80s (and maybe even the 60s, I don't know), you'd know the franchise looked far worse than Nashville ever did.
Do you remember the 40 point season of the Dead Wings?
Ouch.
Detroit had Yzerman. They got lucky by drafting Fedorov/Lidstrom/Konstantinov in the same year. They held onto their talent.
Suddenly, they were a contender for the first time in like 40 years.
So please, let's not talk about the hardships in Carolina or Nashville. They know nothing of it.
I give full marks to fans in those markets who spend their money and support the team. But they've got no right to success. They should have no right to profits unless they earn them.
Carolina offered Fedorov $30 Million over five years about a seven years ago. It was an unheard of offer for an RFA and it was used in arbitration cases all over the league, proving tremendously inflationary. Ironically, Karmanos is crying about inflation and not being able to keep his players.
Well, let's see, Mr. Karmanos. You moved your team to Carolina, where few people have ever seen a hockey puck. You tried to raid the defending cup champs (who really hadn't started spending like crazy at this point) with a crazy offer that inflated salaries throughout the league.
And now you're crying about inequities?
No, Mr. Karmanos. You've showed nothing in the way of business sense. We should not shut down the league for you.

The main way a small team like that can have big time superstars is if they draft one or two(which can be done), but it gives them a lot less chance of putting a winning product on the ice than those teams have. It will always be that way unless Nashville drafts out of their minds, gets really lucky, and all those players turn out to be awsome. That's one good thing about the nhl(that there's some luck involved and you have to put the team together carefully)....

It's been like that throughout the history of the game (at least since the advent of the entry draft)

Was it fair to the California Golden Seals when Montreal and Boston were dominating?
Was it fair to the Washington Capitols and Red WIngs and Jets when the FLyers and Montreal and the Islanders were dominating?
Was it fair to the Red WIngs and Nordiques when the Oilers were whomping everything in sight?

Nope. It wasn't fair.
But you know what? Over the years, thanks to all those draft picks, many of these teams were able to turn it around.

I have 2 problems mainly:

1)A small team like that can draft as well as they want but if they turn into superstars and turn 31, they are most likely gone to the highest bidder...

Well, there are ways around this.
1. Build your team so that the team peaks when young players are 27-30.
If your team succeeeds, well, great. Then you'll have some extra money to keep it together. If it fails, time to rebuild.
People forget how close the Red WIngs were to trading Steve Yzerman and rebuilding.

Again, the Red Wings aren't a major media market. Smaller than Chicago. Probably smaller than Boston.
So why are they so successful at raising revenues?
Why? Because their owner invests.
It's the old business motto.
You gotta spend money to make money.
The new breed of NHL owner apparently thinks that the expansion fee was a ticket to gauranteed success.

2)They can have a prety good team due to smart management but they can't go out and get the best players at the trade deadline(as we call some of them, rentals)...They can't go pick up a Hasek or a Ray Bourque because of money. Some people will say: "Well if Nashville made a better team and drafted well then Bourque might want to come there". That's true but it comes downt ot he cycle again. It's been seen everywhere. Players usually leave at 31 b/c the team can't even afford to make a decent offer to their superstars.

I know many people don't agree with me but this is how I have always seen it.

True.
But also not that true.
Ottawa isn't a huge market. In fact, they on the verge of collapse just a year or so ago. Haven't they made big moves at the deadline?

It's all in cycles, as you say, Of course, some teams are exceptions to the rule (Toronto/New York) will always have money to spend because they play in markets rich with advertising dollars.
Even in times of great success, teams like Calgary and Edmonton will never have the financial footing enjoyed even by medium market teams like Denver.
But that's the price of doing business in a smaller market. That's why owners of the Flames paid about one third of what it would cost to buy the Red WIngs or Rangers.

All I'm looking for is a sign from Bettman and the league that he's going to fix hockey.
He's sure as hell committed to protecting profits for the owners. But he's been terrible on just about every other issue.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

This sucks we didn't get any voting here

 

[misterjaggers]

The only way the players will gain any ground in the P.R. battle is if they accept a salary cap.

 

[rafal majka]

while the results of this poll are not surprising, they are still a bewildering display of the effectiveness of NHL PR.

It takes two to negotiate an agreement. Any and all CBAs negotaited between the NHL and the "new" NHLPA have been negotiated in good faith between the two parties. And when "costs" get "out of control" the NHL has the audacity to lay the blame for those costs squarely on the shoulders of the players and the not the owners and the GMs - where the answer to the problem lies. The owners knew what was in the previous CBAs, they knew of the "problems", they knew of the "costs" and yet they negotiated it and signed it. Any "mess" was the owners doing.

 

[PecaFan]

Ah, gotta love the "quote" thing. Just quote anything to mock and question it. Well guess what, if you were cutting the "cheques", you'd know just how real and "out of control" the "costs" are.

Your argument ultimately comes down to "they signed it once, they should be forced to live with it forever". Good thing the cable or telephone company don't feel that way. "Oh, I'm sorry, you can't disconnect cable. You knew the costs, you knew what you were getting."

The owners don't blame the players. They blame the *CBA* which had unforseen results, and allowed some GM's to do things which unfairly affect other GM's.

The owners say: "This CBA is broken, and needs to be completely replaced".
The players say: "This CBA is perfectly fine, all it needs is a new paint job".

There is no PR. The fans simply look at those two statements, and choose which one they agree with. And most of us think it's broken.

 

[I in the Eye]

The owners say: "This CBA is broken, and needs to be completely replaced".
The players say: "This CBA is perfectly fine, all it needs is a new paint job".

There is no PR. The fans simply look at those two statements, and choose which one they agree with. And most of us think it's broken.

I'm torn... I do think that the CBA is broken, but I don't think that a hard cap is the solution... and thus, I don't support any measures (i.e. a 1-year lockout, a 2-year lockout, a 3-year lockout, etc.) that may be needed to get a solution that resembles a hard cap implemented...

I used to be a firm owner supporter, but that was before I felt that the owners really wanted a hard cap - I assumed that wanting a hard cap was just posturing... Now, I'm not so sure... In my opinion, a hard cap is equivalent to using a blowtorch to light a cigarette... It works, but at a potentially dangerous cost... and with added unnecessary, potential risk...

I much prefer slow, steady steps forward (unless drastic change in needed at once, and I don't believe that this currently is the case - I don't believe that the NHL will die without a hard cap)... Fix the problem - but be careful not to create new problems while trying to fix the one you've already got... Sure, tie revenues and costs... But at this stage, tie them with with a ribbon and put a bow on top... No need to hammer nails like closing shut a coffin... IMO, use this CBA to get the philosophy implemented of tying revenues and cost together... But the only way to ensure that you don't fall off a cliff in business is to start small, test results, expand tests that are successful, and discontinue tests that are not... We're talking about drastically changing the entire economic framework of the NHL... Despite the theories and hypotheticals, nobody knows the impact - as a hard cap has never been done before in the NHL... Nobody knows that a hard cap is the correct solution for the NHL (at this point, there are just educated guesses based on other case studies)... Perhaps history will show that it works wonderfully, perhaps it will show that it's a disaster... But I say, why take the risk at this point?... IMO, things aren't nearly as dire as the NHL owners would like us fans to believe... Yes, there is a mouthful of cavities, but that doesn't mean that the dentist should yank out all of the teeth... IMO, a hard cap is a 'nice-to-have' not 'need-to-have' feature, and yet, the owners are selling it as a 'need-to-have'... at any cost...

IMO, the only thing guaranteed with a hard cap is that the owners investments will be very attractive... The impact on the game is an unknown - and I'm starting to think, an afterthought...

I guess I'm a solution supporter, more than an owner or player supporter... I do still support the owners, but not so far that I feel inclined to participate in this poll... I've got one eye on them... and the other on my wallet...

Anyways, Merry Christmas everyone... Cheers to God (or math and science) for creating a world where us humans can be so content that problems like an NHL lockout can seem so important, and yet are really quite trivial...

 

[Steve L*]

The only way the players will gain any ground in the P.R. battle is if they accept a salary cap.

I disagree, they will look like a bunch or morons for wasting half a season and not negociating this CBA years ago when the NHL wanted too.

I will particularly look forwards to laughing at McCabe (for once, it wont be at his play) when he steps on the ice because he said hed sit for the rest of his career rather than play under a cap.

The players have lost the PR battle no matter what happens due to loudmouth idiots like him and Modano making all players seem selfish and greedy.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

It's hard to have much sympathy for either side.
But I consider the following:

Bettman vs Yzerman.
Bettman vs. Datsyuk.
Bettman vs. Lidstrom.
Bettman vs. Shanahan.

I watch NHL hockey because I get to see the best game in the world played by the best players in the world.
I don't go to many games (prices, you know). But when I do shell out the money, I like the idea that it's going to the players.

As a hockey fan, I've seen lots of great things.
Three times, Yzerman lifted the cup.
And each time, the only thing that spoiled the moment, even a bit, was listening to that moron Bettman before he passed the cup off to the captain.

If I thought for a moment that Bettman was acting on behalf of the game, I'd really support him.
But I've watched him ruin the sport in so many ways.

If I thought that a salary cap would bring teams back to Quebec City, Winnipeg and maybe even to Hamilton, then yeah, I'd support his salary cap.

But I know better. I watched Bettman stand by and do nothing as good hockey markets fled the north for the big television markets in the south.

Screw Bettman. If I was an NHL captain on a cup winning team, I wouldn't take the cup from his hands.

Really? I see it as:

Holik $9 million
Lapointe $5 million
Tkachuk $11 million

Now, I admit that the owners are fools for paying these players this kind of dough when they know damn right that they dont have the TV revenue's or the attention of American's, but the players and their no cap stance is just a plot to one day have the salaries escalate once again.

So who's side am I on? Neither, but I vote owners.

 

[misterjaggers]

I disagree, they will look like a bunch or morons for wasting half a season and not negociating this CBA years ago when the NHL wanted too.

I will particularly look forwards to laughing at McCabe (for once, it wont be at his play) when he steps on the ice because he said hed sit for the rest of his career rather than play under a cap.

The players have lost the PR battle no matter what happens due to loudmouth idiots like him and Modano making all players seem selfish and greedy.

When I said the NHLPA could gain some ground in the PR battle, I didn't say they'd win over all of the fans or even most of the fans, but it should win over some of the fans.

 

[mikeg]

i'm with the owners, at this point i don't care about ticket prices, new rules, and all that crap... it's because everytime i hear some whiny brat player go on about the "principal" of not accepting a salary cap, or blasting the commish in public, or saying some stupid thing about how millions of dollars to play a game is not enough, it just makes me hate them even more.

and i know it's the owner's that borught this on themselves, however, this war is being waged by the small market clubs, who have no control over how the teams with deep pockets spend their money, in a sense they are the little guy in this standoff and i am with them 100%.

bring on the scabs, start the opening night with a video message from donald trump to all the players that didn't cross the line, saying "YOU'RE ALL FIRED", and let's create new stars.

mike

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

If the players sat down with the owners and they got all the so called "real numbers" just like the NFL does, then would they still accept some sort of cap? If they were 100% sure they had all the data would they still succumb to a cap? If they wouldn't then I don't know what makes them higher than any other union in pro sports.

 

[rafal majka]

Ah, gotta love the "quote" thing. Just quote anything to mock and question it. Well guess what, if you were cutting the "cheques", you'd know just how real and "out of control" the "costs" are.

Your argument ultimately comes down to "they signed it once, they should be forced to live with it forever". Good thing the cable or telephone company don't feel that way. "Oh, I'm sorry, you can't disconnect cable. You knew the costs, you knew what you were getting."

The owners don't blame the players. They blame the *CBA* which had unforseen results, and allowed some GM's to do things which unfairly affect other GM's.

The owners say: "This CBA is broken, and needs to be completely replaced".
The players say: "This CBA is perfectly fine, all it needs is a new paint job".

There is no PR. The fans simply look at those two statements, and choose which one they agree with. And most of us think it's broken.

Do you mean the "Levitt costs" or the "Forbes costs"

All you're saying above is that the NHL as an entity never had the ability or will to govern itself effectively and does not want to have the ability or will to govern itself and is looking for "cost certainty" on the backs of the players.

The owners say: "We want to tie player salaries to revenues" - such as the revenues accounted for in the Levitt report, which was shown to be nothing but lies by Forbes. And, "we want to limit the profits of players while not limiting our own profits and call it a 'partnership'".

The players say: "we want the market to decide salaries but we acknowkedge that some serious issues do need toi be addressed but a salary cap is not sacrosanct to any negotiated agreement."

It's obvious that the owners, under the incompetant leadership of Bettman, want to get back to the days of a compliant Eagleson-type NHLPA.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Really? I see it as:

Holik $9 million
Lapointe $5 million
Tkachuk $11 million

Now, I admit that the owners are fools for paying these players this kind of dough when they know damn right that they dont have the TV revenue's or the attention of American's, but the players and their no cap stance is just a plot to one day have the salaries escalate once again.

So who's side am I on? Neither, but I vote owners.

Dude, the funny thing is that you picked three of the four dumbest contracts in hockey.
Each of these, when announced, was universally decried.
Can't fault the players for taking the money, really.
You can fault owners and GMs for making the offers.