Simple:Are you on the owners or players side?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
impudent_lowlife said:
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 Levitt report was proven to be nothing but lies by Forbes? That's a laugh. Forbes "guesses" at their figures and is regularly out to lunch on the values they place on teams and the revenues they generate. Leavitt followed the same formula that the NFL uses for revenues to define the numbers in his report. What really drove home the fact that the Leavitt report was factual was that the number the players offered as a salary roll back almost perfectly matched the number that the Leavitt report said the league was bleeding. Using Forbes as a source for revenue numbers is like using the National Enquirer as a souce for your discertation. It makes for interesting reading but doesn't hold up when it comes to defense.

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."

What that really says is yes, the market is broken and we admit that. But we still expect to get all the traffic will bear and not have to deal with iron clad rules. If we cannot use collusion to our advantage, and have the threat of suing the league and the teams for collusion to ensure that salaries continue to escalate, then the deal just doesn't work for us. Collusion is the best thing that ever happened to the players and hate the fact that this is the only time the owners get to legally collude and that the players are going to get hit hard, the exact same way the players have hit the owners for the past decade.

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.

I love how the morons in the NHLPA take shots at Bettman. Do they really think before they engage their mouths? Really? They experienced more growth in their salaries under Bettman, and saw more union jobs created under Bettman, than at any time in NHL history. Do the players have anything to be mad at Bettman about for the last decade? Not a thing. If anything they should have him at the top of their Christmas card list. Bettman and many of the moves he made were the best thing that ever happened to the NHLPA.

Do the owners want to get back to a comliant NHLPA? You bet your bottom they do. Will Bettman lead the owners there? He better, or he'll be looking for a new job. Fortunately, Bettman is getting the job done and has the players by the nads. Its over and the league has won. All he has to do is wait this one out.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
I in the Eye said:
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...

YES.

YES.

YES.

THANK YOU.
 

rafal majka

Registered User
Sep 29, 2004
1,292
4
The Levitt report was proven to be nothing but lies by Forbes? That's a laugh. Forbes "guesses" at their figures and is regularly out to lunch on the values they place on teams and the revenues they generate. Leavitt followed the same formula that the NFL uses for revenues to define the numbers in his report. What really drove home the fact that the Leavitt report was factual was that the number the players offered as a salary roll back almost perfectly matched the number that the Leavitt report said the league was bleeding. Using Forbes as a source for revenue numbers is like using the National Enquirer as a souce for your discertation. It makes for interesting reading but doesn't hold up when it comes to defense.

You obviously haven't delved too much into the Levitt report.


What that really says is yes, the market is broken and we admit that. But we still expect to get all the traffic will bear and not have to deal with iron clad rules. If we cannot use collusion to our advantage, and have the threat of suing the league and the teams for collusion to ensure that salaries continue to escalate, then the deal just doesn't work for us. Collusion is the best thing that ever happened to the players and hate the fact that this is the only time the owners get to legally collude and that the players are going to get hit hard, the exact same way the players have hit the owners for the past decade.

Collusion? The NHL needs an players' union in order to operate the way it does. IF the owners have been hit hard then it's only because they haven't the will or ability to govern themselves - which is par for the course when looking at the history of the NHL. The owners, through the auspices of the NHL hierarchy, negotiated agreements that have turned out to be detrimental to their welfare? Then look in the mirror.

I love how the morons in the NHLPA take shots at Bettman. Do they really think before they engage their mouths? Really? They experienced more growth in their salaries under Bettman, and saw more union jobs created under Bettman, than at any time in NHL history. Do the players have anything to be mad at Bettman about for the last decade? Not a thing. If anything they should have him at the top of their Christmas card list. Bettman and many of the moves he made were the best thing that ever happened to the NHLPA.

Bettman is not responsible for any gains the players have made. Replacing the owners' "yes" man, Eagleson (who is the type of crook who fits right in with the owners) with Goodenow is what got the players to where they are right now.

Do the owners want to get back to a comliant NHLPA? You bet your bottom they do. Will Bettman lead the owners there? He better, or he'll be looking for a new job. Fortunately, Bettman is getting the job done and has the players by the nads. Its over and the league has won. All he has to do is wait this one out.

At this point in the drama nobody has anyone by the nads - that's just irrational jingoism.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
impudent_lowlife said:
Do you mean the "Levitt costs" or the "Forbes costs" :shakehead

Does it matter? They both agree that the NHL as a whole is losing money hand over fist. Worst case, 200+ million a year, pie in the sky most optimistic case ignoring all sorts of expenses, and practically guessing (that'd be Forbes, just in case you weren't sure), 100+ million a year.

impudent_lowlife said:
IF the owners have been hit hard then it's only because they haven't the will or ability to govern themselves - which is par for the course when looking at the history of the NHL. The owners, through the auspices of the NHL hierarchy, negotiated agreements that have turned out to be detrimental to their welfare? Then look in the mirror.

You're so busy trying to assign blame, you're missing the picture. Blame is irrelevant. The owners don't like the last system. So they want a new one. A different one. That's all this is about.

Again, your argument boils down to "they signed it, they should have to live with their mistake forever, neener neener".

Bettman is not responsible for any gains the players have made.

Right. Hundreds of new jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and wage increases, all that came from the tooth fairy I guess.

I love this stuff. He's responsible for everything *bad* that happens on his watch, but if there are any positive effects, nope, Bettman had nothing to do with that.

At this point in the drama nobody has anyone by the nads - that's just irrational jingoism.

Just a hint, you might want to look up the word jingoism before you go around using it again.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
The Iconoclast said:
Do the owners want to get back to a comliant NHLPA? You bet your bottom they do. Will Bettman lead the owners there? He better, or he'll be looking for a new job. Fortunately, Bettman is getting the job done and has the players by the nads. Its over and the league has won. All he has to do is wait this one out.

The owners have stated concerns regarding salaries being too high, arbitration being inflationary, leverages not enough. The PA has addressed each of these concerns. They even offered paycuts to match the phoney Levitt numbers that nobody believes. How much more compliant can they get? They want to address real problems with the CBA.

Everyone complains about Daigle and rookie contracts being ridiculous and inflationary and ruining the league. The PA addresses this and is immediately accused of throwing rookies under the bus. A popular phrase with the poodles.

What exactly is inflationary about the CBA? The fact that owners are left to decide what they can afford themselves is inflationary? puhleeese.

IF the owners want a partnership, why not negotiate and register a partnership agreement between the 2 organizations, or perhaps a merger.

Why would the players want a CBA to protect owners from themselves? Isnt a CBA to protect workers from management?
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
PecaFan said:
You're so busy trying to assign blame, you're missing the picture. Blame is irrelevant. The owners don't like the last system. So they want a new one. A different one. That's all this is about.

Again, your argument boils down to "they signed it, they should have to live with their mistake forever, neener neener".

Nice jingoism. It sounds more to me they are saying this a cleverly designed marketplace that proper management could easily make work. Neener, neener.

Assigning blame properly can help identify where the problems lay. Avoiding blame or understanding the problems dooms you to repeat them.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Again, please look up the word jingoism. It has no place in this conversation, it refers to nations and nationalism.

And again, there is no blame. There is no need or benefit to assigning blame, since there is none. Both sides signed an agreement, both sides lived up to the agreement.

That's in the past. The agreement is over. It's time for a new one. One side likes the old agreement, since it turns out it was completely one sided. The other side wants nothing to do with it.
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
As others have said, I'm on my side. I just happen to think that the owners' stance is the best for me when it comes to the NHL.
 

barnburner

Registered User
Apr 23, 2004
567
0
I voted owners.

The owners created the problem, but at this point - that means nothing.
The problem has to be fixed, and the players refuse to to accept the premise
of the one thing that can do it.
Some people talk about the owners wanting guaranteed profitability. I don't think that is the case at all, what they are looking for, is fiscal conditions that allow them the "opportunity" to run their business in a profitiable manner.
Incompetent management will still result in losses - but at least they have
the chance for profit.
The players know they have been getting inflated contracts and want to continue getting them regardless of how much damage it causes the league.
 

Psycho Papa Joe

Porkchop Hoser
Feb 27, 2002
23,347
17
Cesspool, Ontario
Visit site
Psycho Joe said:
Neither. Both sides need a significant reality check. As soon as they figure it out, maybe I might consider giving a crap.
I am now on the players side. Unlike Bettman, the NHLPA has moved significantly from their intial postion (the status quo), whereas the NHL has not compromised one iota from their initial position. The NHLPA has at least shown a willingness to compromise. The NHL is to blame for the impasse in negotiations, not the players and in addition it's not the players who went on strike, it's the NHL that shut down the game. Until the NHL is willing to have meaningful revenue sharing, I will continue to support the players in this dispute. If the owners aren't interested in being equal partners amongst themselves, how do they expect the enemy, the NHLPA, to be partners with them. Additionally, I put the blame on the owners for the mess they have gotten themselves into.
 
Last edited:

jcpenny

Registered User
Aug 8, 2002
4,878
0
Montréal
Visit site
Psycho Joe said:
I am now on the players side. Unlike Bettman, the NHLPA has moved significantly from their intial postion (the status quo), whereas the NHL has not compromised one iota from their initial position. The NHLPA has at least shown a willingness to compromise. The NHL is to blame for the impasse in negotiations, not the players and in addition it's not the players who went on strike, it's the NHL that shut down the game. Until the NHL is willing to have meaningful revenue sharing, I will continue to support the players in this dispute. If the owners aren't interested in being equal partners amongst themselves, how do they expect the enemy, the NHLPA, to be partners with them. Additionally, I put the blame on the owners for the mess they have gotten themselves into.
I am on the owners side exactly because of comments like this one. With all due respect to your comments, i dont think you and many others understand the situation of the owners. Many posters here tried to make all pro players understand it but i think i need to do it again. The old system had no restraint whatsoever.

1-Owners do not work togheter which means that if they have the money to spend like (Colorado, Philly, Detroit, Rangers, Toronto), when they sign players they dont consult each others to see if their contracts are reasonable. Since they are the biggests markets in the league the others have no choice to follow them since players will use them as example for contracts.

2- Theres the pressure to win and the fans. Even if sometimes they dont want give the big bucks, often they are forced to if they want their fans to stay and keep winning. More fans + Winning= $$ So sometimes, giving that money can eventually come back if the gamble works well. Players take risks sometimes, so do owners.

3- Famous ridiculous contracts. I talked about that many times,this situation is part of the competitivness between teams. I like to compare this to an auction. Players are like paintings, the reasonable owner set a price and the other teams ineterested try to outbid each others especially when the player is missing piece or a need for the team like (guerin,Alfredsson, Pronger, Iginla to the role players like Stillman,Madden etc. ) Even if they dont worth that much money they will come out with a much bigger value anyway cuz theres no restraint.

4-Imagine a game of Hockey without restraint (penalties) and we'd ask the players to manage themslves, the game would get out of hand in a second. If We want our referees to be more severe to have a better product then so does the System. I'm not saying that the cap is the answer but the next eventual system will have to be severe if we want the market to stay healthy.

If you decide to run your buisness reasonably in the NHL teams like Detroit and the others would still get the best players since for them being reasonable is not the same as Nashville or Hurricanes. Contracts would still get outta hand since players would still compare to these teams. Players with holdouts are not helping at all either. This where Owners and GM feel pressured if their teams are not doing well hand this is where we them panic.

Being a Owner of a professional team aint no easy job. Players dont understand that at all.
 

The Maltais Falcon

Registered User
Jan 9, 2005
1,156
1
Atlanta, GA
jericholic19 said:
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.
So as salaries have shot through the roof over the last decade ticket prices have gone down? That's news to me.
 

Hockey_Nut99

Guest
Haven't checked this out in a long time. Didn't know it got over 200.
 

Owen Wilson

Registered User
Feb 21, 2003
1,835
0
Hamilton, Ontario
Visit site
Well i'm on the owner side cause I believe something has to be done, but I don't think a hard cap is necessarily needed.

The rumoured offer that was going around yesterday looked pretty good to me

-$50 million hard cap
-$40 million soft cap
-Anything over 40 million is a dollar for dollar luxury tax with money going towards the small market teams
-Franchise player exempt
-Some kind of rollback

I don't understand why something like this couldn't work
 

Psycho Papa Joe

Porkchop Hoser
Feb 27, 2002
23,347
17
Cesspool, Ontario
Visit site
Owen Wilson said:
Well i'm on the owner side cause I believe something has to be done, but I don't think a hard cap is necessarily needed.

The rumoured offer that was going around yesterday looked pretty good to me

-$50 million hard cap
-$40 million soft cap
-Anything over 40 million is a dollar for dollar luxury tax with money going towards the small market teams
-Franchise player exempt
-Some kind of rollback

I don't understand why something like this couldn't work
Agreed. IF that was indeed offered by the owners and the PA rejected, I would switch to the owner's side. That's the type of deal I've always thought would be a worthy compromise between the two positions so long as it included meaningful revenue sharing as well.
 
Feb 28, 2002
10,922
0
Abbotsford, BC
Visit site
I am on the owners side, because they are interested in fixing the game as well as lining their pockets, the Players just do not want to lose the current damn system.

Also it is the owners league. They have the right to run it as they see fit, and there is nothing in any of the owners proposals that treats the players poorly. They will still be millionaire's. There is nothing wrong with that.
 

Rageinthecage

Registered User
Aug 5, 2003
325
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Neither side has compromised enough to gain my support. I was pro-owner to begin all this, but if they can't at least budge off of the hard cap and introduce some sort of luxury tax (or at least make the hard cap $50 million), they are asking for more than they need. However, anyone who thinks the 24% rollback by the players with virtually no other concessions from the old system is going to solve this issue long-term, is simply wrong.

$50 mill. hard cap (no franchise players exempt)
$42 soft cap w/ stiff tax
$32 salary floor
two-way arbitration
lower ufa age to 28
no rollbacks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->