Strachan: Fans just don't understand...like I do

[Sammy*]

It's true. The majority of fans are misguided and uninformed. 90%+ probably don't know that it's a "lockout" and not a "strike," and that's one of the easiest issues to understand.

And a genius like you cant even explain the why its only the NHLPA who apparently doesnt have the resources to retain skilled proffessionals to negotiate what is/isnt revenue & profit,or the people neccesary to conduct audits of same.
Too funny, Mr. Insider.

 

[Jobu]

Please quote me making this claim.

By denying my assertion, you did.

The majority of fans know that this is a lockout, not a strike. Ask them point blank if it is a strike or a lockout and I'm confident that a vast majority would pick the right answer.

Maybe so. But do they know what that means? When someone calls it a "strike," it means that by definition they have some misunderstanding.

Do they understand the issues?
Whose issues???

As evidenced everywhere you look, a great many people think this is about the players being greedy or asking for more. It's just not the case.

An agent will stand to make more money over the next CBA if the agreement doesn't contain linkage. Call it an educated guess as to your vocation.

Quite the conspiracy theory, but wrong.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Basicaly, that's how most fans see it, escpecially fans of small markets.

Thats ridiculous. I'm a Torontonian and I (along with the vast majority of hockey fans) support the owners because of a little thing called common sense. Almost everything that jackass shill Strachan says is laughable. The NHL in 2005 is a semi-pro bush league on the brink of total destruction. Its soon to be the number 28 sport in the US, behind arena football, lacross and womens polo. Players in a bush league like the NHL can't expect to be paid like NFL stars. Their union is delusional and deserve to get crushed into the ground. Most people can see simple facts and make judgements without the help of idiots like Weird Al Strachan who puposely muddy the waters.

 

[Jobu]

Jobu, you're vastly overestimating the extent to which the fans' support of the owners is based on their belief that the players are striking.

I certainly think this is one element, but it also dovetails with other issues related to this perception, or at least the perception that the players are asking for more than they have.

Point is, they have already conceded - it's about how much is far to concede, not how much more they can get.

 

[Jobu]

No, they are asking for the continuation of an inflationary system to ensure they get a higher % of revenues.

Interesting, because I thought that they have offered two-way arbitration and a luxury tax to go along with their 24% rollback. The same sort of structure that owners 10 years ago claimed would place an appropriate drag on salaries.

 

[Jobu]

And a genius like you cant even explain the why its only the NHLPA who apparently doesnt have the resources to retain skilled proffessionals to negotiate what is/isnt revenue & profit,or the people neccesary to conduct audits of same.
Too funny, Mr. Insider.

Where did I say that? I said it was quite simple to ascertain this: count all capital and revenue receipts related to hockey. Unfortunately, like in the NBA and NFL, there is no way the owners would go for this, knowing full well that if they can restrict the definition they are not only sharing less but are also better able to manipulate what they own and draw revenue from.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Interesting, because I thought that they have offered two-way arbitration and a luxury tax to go along with their 24% rollback. The same sort of structure that owners 10 years ago claimed would place an appropriate drag on salaries.

And that luxury tax had such bite wand started at a limit that 90% (I'll use your statistical sampling style) of the teams would never attain. Yeah, a realistic offer meant to do nothing but grab the attention of the mindless fan that you are saying is so entrenched on the owner's side.

 

[Jobu]

Thats ridiculous. I'm a Torontonian and I (along with the vast majority of hockey fans) support the owners because of a little thing called common sense. Almost everything that jackass shill Strachan says is laughable. The NHL in 2005 is a semi-pro bush league on the brink of total destruction. Its soon to be the number 28 sport in the US, behind arena football, lacross and womens polo. Players in a bush league like the NHL can't expect to be paid like NFL stars. Their union is delusional and deserve to get crushed into the ground. Most people can see simple facts and make judgements without the help of idiots like Weird Al Strachan who puposely muddy the waters.

The NHLPA didn't set the market. You argue that NHL players don't deserve to be paid as much as NFL players, but as far as I can tell, the NHL players are asking for the market to dictate that. Make categorical assertions and emotional arguments all you want, but nowhere are the players asking for a guarantee of certain salary levels or to be paid any more than they are "worth."

 

[Jobu]

And that luxury tax had such bite wand started at a limit that 90% (I'll use your statistical sampling style) of the teams would never attain. Yeah, a realistic offer meant to do nothing but grab the attention of the mindless fan that you are saying is so entrenched on the owner's side.

So you would, from the owners' perspective, accept the NHLPA's proposal with significant amendments to the teeth of the luxury tax?

I'm sure the PA would be willing to take, say, a 10-15% rollback with two-way arbitration and a more significant and effective tax. The owners simply aren't interested.

 

[CGG]

And a genius like you cant even explain the why its only the NHLPA who apparently doesnt have the resources to retain skilled proffessionals to negotiate what is/isnt revenue & profit,or the people neccesary to conduct audits of same.
Too funny, Mr. Insider.

I'm sorry, I missed the press release and court ruling stating that the players absolutely had to accept the owner's framework for a CBA and negotiate off of it.

Sure they have the resources. They choose not to. They don't want a system linked to revenue, so why negotiate what revenue is and try to get an army of accountants to do audits?

Maybe the players want a system linked to house prices in North Vancouver. Do the owners have to hire real estate experts and skilled professionals to negotiate what the appropriate average house price is?

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Interesting, because I thought that they have offered two-way arbitration and a luxury tax to go along with their 24% rollback. The same sort of structure that owners 10 years ago claimed would place an appropriate drag on salaries.

The NHL is a dying patient and Goodenow offers up an asperin. The NHLPA "luxury tax" of 20 cents on the dollar over what, 50 million, is some great sacrifice? For making that offer alone with a straight face to a dying league, the NHLPA deserves every bit of the venom and hatred its getting from fans. The fact that they are willing to clutch and grab (seeing as its the only thing they seem to know how to do) to a system that has bankrupted the very league that made them all millionaires is evn more reason.

Hockey players are no better than NBA players or NFL player, in fact they are MUCH worse at drawing any semblance of revenue. Speaking for myself, the fact that they believe they are entitled to 5 star treatment for their 1 star entertainment value is what makes me side most with the owners. Its like the most incompetant janitor demanding the same salary as the CEO. Sorry to tell you but hockey players are the incompetant janitors of the sports world.

 

[DuklaNation]

If you are trying to say that the common hockey fan knows that this is a lockout and not a strike, what this means, and the host of issues involved in this lockout, I feel sorry for you.

From a fan's perspective, there is little difference. The distinct definitions are primarily relevant to lawyers. Bottom line, both sides would need to negotiate a settlement whether its a lockout or a strike.

How do you pronounce potato?

 

[Luc Labelle]

Interesting, because I thought that they have offered two-way arbitration and a luxury tax to go along with their 24% rollback

Two-way arbitration that can only be applied to a player once in their careers and also only once per season per team. Luxury tax set at high thresholds with minimal penalties. Personally I think a luxury tax system without exhorbitant penalty levels is still inflationary. The bottom line is the NHLPA's last proposal is still almost as inflationary as the last CBA.

 

[SENSible1*]

By denying my assertion, you did.

For a self-proclaimed genius, you certainly have difficulty with basic logic.
I denied your assertion that 90% of hockey fans don't know that this is a lockout, not a strike. That in NO WAY equates to:

"Your claim is that the majority, if not great majority, of hockey fans know the difference between a strike and lockout, that this is a lockout not a strike, and are aware of most of the issues involved in this work sroppage.

It would certainly be convenient for you if you could change the emphasis from your ridiculous claim by putting words in my mouth, but that isn't about to happen.

Maybe so. But do they know what that means? When someone calls it a "strike," it means that by definition they have some misunderstanding.

Agreed and just as soon as you can produce a majority of fans (let alone 90%) who claim it is a strike, then you'll have a point. Until then, it is just the usual Jobu "I'm smarter than everyone else" BS.

As evidenced everywhere you look, a great many people think this is about the players being greedy or asking for more. It's just not the case.

The PA's offer was predicated on the ability to maintain an inflationary system and was designed to offer short-term losses in an effort to get more in the long-term. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

Quite the conspiracy theory, but wrong.

Sure thing.

 

[Jobu]

Two-way arbitration that can only be applied to a player once in their careers and also only once per season per team. Luxury tax set at high thresholds with minimal penalties. Personally I think a luxury tax system without exhorbitant penalty levels is still inflationary. The bottom line is the NHLPA's last proposal is still almost as inflationary as the last CBA.

So negotiate off of it. Do you really think the NHLPA would refuse to agree to real two-way arbitration or a luxury tax with more teeth?

 

[gionta316]

"At one point, he said the league needed a new deal because: "From our standpoint, we have seen the economic problems (in Buffalo and Ottawa)."

I wish I could speak in parentheticals.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

The NHLPA didn't set the market. You argue that NHL players don't deserve to be paid as much as NFL players, but as far as I can tell, the NHL players are asking for the market to dictate that. Make categorical assertions and emotional arguments all you want, but nowhere are the players asking for a guarantee of certain salary levels or to be paid any more than they are "worth."

Actually, that is exactly what they are doing. Every "free market" (God, that is such a misnomer, but I'll ignore it) system in pro sports history has been proven to be inherently inflationary. The Rangers and Stars and Leafs are "guaranteed" to oitspend the small fish and drive salaries into the atmosphere. The NHLPA knows this to be a cold, hard fact and thats why they are willing to flush an entire season of NHL hockey down the toilet to keep it. Are you arguing that the NHLPA believes a cap system is more inflationary than a "free market" sustem?

 

[Jobu]

It would certainly be convenient for you if you could change the emphasis from your ridiculous claim by putting words in my mouth, but that isn't about to happen.

So help me out here. Do you agree that the majority of hockey fans are mis- or uninformed or not? You appear to say that 90% is too high (my estimation), but 50% is too low.

The PA's offer was predicated on the ability to maintain an inflationary system and recoup their short-term losses in an effort to get more in the long-term. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

Why did the owners want a luxury tax 10 years ago? I think I heard "drag on salaries" more than "linkage" then.

 

[Jobu]

Actually, that is exactly what they are doing. Every "free market" (God, that is such a misnomer, but I'll ignore it) system in pro sports history has been proven to be inherently inflationary. The Rangers and Stars and Leafs are "guaranteed" to oitspend the small fish and drive salaries into the atmosphere. The NHLPA knows this to be a cold, hard fact and thats why they are willing to flush an entire season of NHL hockey down the toilet to keep it. Are you arguing that the NHLPA believes a cap system is more inflationary than a "free market" sustem?

Why is it a fact? The Devils refuse to pay anymore more than Marty Brodeur or Scott Stevens. They sure aren't forced to sign Holik for $9m or anyone else for that matter.

NHL players are asking for a system that fairly pays them. Whether that's $200k, $1m, or $2m. In fact, they have proposed a market re-set and offered tools to help owners help themselves.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

So negotiate off of it. Do you really think the NHLPA would refuse to agree to real two-way arbitration or a luxury tax with more teeth?

Why the hell should they? You are pointing out the major problem with the NHLPA. They think they run the show. Newsflash, they don't.

 

[Jobu]

Why the hell should they? You are pointing out the major problem with the NHLPA. They think they run the show. Newsflash, they don't.

Well, you'd think the NHL would be interested in a season and coming to a compromise. Apparently they aren't. Of course, that's their preogative; but to make the players out as inflexible or greedy is ridiculous and unrealistic.

To this point, on what significant issue have the owners compromised? Precisely.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Why is it a fact? The Devils refuse to pay anymore more than Marty Brodeur or Scott Stevens. They sure aren't forced to sign Holik for $9m or anyone else for that matter.

NHL players are asking for a system that fairly pays them. Whether that's $200k, $1m, or $2m. In fact, they have proposed a market re-set and offered tools to help owners help themselves.

If thats really what players wanted, how can you get any more fair than being allocated a percentage of revenue? I mean, honestly. Make the intellectual argument against it. If players believe they are 68% responcible for NHL revenue, then they should ask for a fixed cap at 68% of revenues. There is nothing fair about the Rangers, Avalanche and Leafs driving up slaries to ridiculous and unsustainable levels. To suggest the NHLPA only wants what is fair is disingenuous to say the least. I don't completely blame them for wanting the gravy train to keep on rolling. I *can* blame them for choosing to ride that train right over the cliff.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

So you would, from the owners' perspective, accept the NHLPA's proposal with significant amendments to the teeth of the luxury tax?

I'm sure the PA would be willing to take, say, a 10-15% rollback with two-way arbitration and a more significant and effective tax. The owners simply aren't interested.

No. The player's offer was all smoke and mirrors. The NHLPA tore a page out of the American military's playbook and waged a "shock and awe" attack in an attempt to shake the enemy to the point they surrender.

The 24% roll-back was a joke. It covered only a percentage of players and was a one time thing that had no guarantees to it. This was the shock and awe attack that the PA counter on in getting the public on their side and split the owners. It likely would have worked if the rest of the proposal was not so much more window dressing. When you add in the lack of control mechanisms and the structure essentially being status quo you can see why the offer was laughed at by the league and picked a part by anyone who bothered to actually read the document. It was not a serious offer.

Until the NHLPA gets it through their heads that cost certainty is the key there will be no agreement. Unless they want to do a $30M soft cap with a 200% tax on salaries over that level, and those funds earmarked for sources other than salaries, you're not going to see the type of system the players hope for.

 

[Sammy*]

Where did I say that? I said it was quite simple to ascertain this: count all capital and revenue receipts related to hockey. Unfortunately, like in the NBA and NFL, there is no way the owners would go for this, knowing full well that if they can restrict the definition they are not only sharing less but are also better able to manipulate what they own and draw revenue from.

Nice try, but they do it in the NFL & NBA. The owners have already said they would profit share. There is no reason why in hockey the owners would be better able to manipulate what they own and draw revenue from. Thats why there are auditors to audit & lawyers to draw up agreements to close any perceived loopholes.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Why did the owners want a luxury tax 10 years ago? I think I heard "drag on salaries" more than "linkage" then.

Because 10 years ago the belief was that a luxury tax would provide a drag on salaries. As it turned out it did not and fuelled inflation. That is why a luxury tax is a no go for the league. It has proven to be useless by the two leagues that use it.