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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Crazy Lunatic said:
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 beleive 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.

Because aside from the fact that revenues ought not to be the only variable involved, and that it gives rise to a whole host of perverse incentives and obligations, the owners are not prepared to include in revenue all sources of hockey-related revenue and capital gains that can be attributed to players. To claim that owners are being altruistic is wanting to "share" a "fair" percentage of revenues is not accurate at all; they want to artificially guarantee profits and protect themselves from themselves.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Jobu said:
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.
Help yourself out smart guy. My post are clear.
The majority of hockey fans understand the basics of the dispute. You are arrogant enough to believe that they couldn't possibly understand the issues and still support the owners, so I doubt they meet your highly biased definition of "informed".

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

Why did the PA claim they'd never ever accept a luxury tax 10 years ago?
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
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.

Didn't the NHL counter with a rollback that covered even less players?

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.

And until the NHL realizes that linkage won't get a deal done, there will be no agreement.

There are many ways to make a tax work: change the thresholds, change the tax rates, add draft picks in as penalties together with finances, etc. The league hasn't been prepared to discuss this or revenue sharing, when in fact there is nothing to suggest that such a system would not work.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
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.

Luxury taxes have fuelled inflation? Please.

There is no logic in suggesting that a luxury tax set at the appropriate level won't place a drag on salaries, unless of course teams have much more money to spend than they are letting on.
 

snakepliskin

Registered User
Jan 27, 2005
1,910
22
Wilmington NC
i would really like to see the player reps without goodenow walk into the nhl offices and up to the receptionist and demand a meeting with the commisioner-and in that meeting ask any question they like and get a full explanation of the owners position in these negotiations because i really question exactly what and how much they think they know. either that or some guys like roenick-sakic-scott stevens-(some experienced guys that think for themselves) just walk in and get a meeting and find out exactly what and why it's going to take to get a settlement. i would rather some players went straight to the horses mouth and found out what is what rather than just accepting the daily spiel thats continues from the nhlpa offices.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Help yourself out smart guy. My post are clear.
The majority of hockey fans understand the basics of the dispute. You are arrogant enough to believe that they couldn't possibly understand the issues and still support the owners, so I doubt they meet your highly biased definition of "informed".

I don't think I ever said that one could not possibly understand the issues and still support the owners. If by "basic issues," you mean work stoppage and salary cap, I don't argue with you. But so many people base their opinions on misinformation and misguidance, and complete and utter irrelevance (e.g., players should play for the love of the game, teachers and doctors should make more, I work 60 hours a week and get paid less in a lifetime, etc.) - and usually these clowns fall on the side of the owners.

If you take a sample of 100 people who have read and followed the business of hockey for the last 20 years, and are up-to-speed on all elements of this dispute, I think you'd have a much different picture as to the levels of public support.

Not that public opinion matters.

Why did the PA claim they'd never ever accept a luxury tax 10 years ago?

Why would they? Seems like a curious position to bargain from.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Jobu said:
Luxury taxes have fuelled inflation? Please.

There is no logic in suggesting that a luxury tax set at the appropriate level won't place a drag on salaries, unless of course teams have much more money to spend than they are letting on.

Riiiiight. And credit cards do not lead to over-spending and financial troubles either. :shakehead
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Jobu said:
Because aside from the fact that revenues ought not to be the only variable involved, and that it gives rise to a whole host of perverse incentives and obligations, the owners are not prepared to include in revenue all sources of hockey-related revenue and capital gains that can be attributed to players. To claim that owners are being altruistic is wanting to "share" a "fair" percentage of revenues is not accurate at all; they want to artificially guarantee profits and protect themselves from themselves.

I hardly think the owners are altruistic, but they are the lesser of two evils in this instance. If you want to have a 10 team super league comprised of only the biggest markets, then by all means have a free market system where the big boys battle it out with obscene contracts for underachieving third line wingers. All the teams are likely to make money and players will be paid handsomely. If you want to live in reality, where over half the leagues teams lose money and, by any half-objective standard, payrolls are on a different planet, then some form of salary cap is whats best for the league as a whole.

Maybe you remember that early 90's catch phrase made popular by a blonde excercise guru with a buzzcut. She would say "stop the insanity!" The owners have finally decided to heed her advice. The players are happy to continue down the path to ruin for the NHL as long as it means they get as much cash as is possible.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Crazy Lunatic said:
I hardly think the owners are altruistic, but they are the lesser of two evils in this instance. If you want to have a 10 team super league comprised of only the biggest markets, then by all means have a free market system where the big boys battle it out with obscene contracts for underachieving third line wingers. All the teams are likely to make money and players will be paid handsomely. If you want to live in reality, where over half the leagues teams lose money and, by any half-objective standard, payrolls are on a different planet, then some form of salary cap is whats best for the league as a whole.

Maybe you remember that early 90's catch phrase made popular by a blonde excercise guru with a buzzcut. She would say "stop the insanity!" The owners have finally decided to heed her advice. The players are happy to continue down the path to ruin for the NHL as long as it means they get as much cash as is possible.

If the league cares so much about 30 teams and ensuring equivalent resources, what's the problem with splitting up revenues by 30?

Why does a salary cap have to be the only answer?
 

Enoch

This is my boomstick
Jul 2, 2003
14,239
872
Cookeville TN
transplant99 said:
Uh...yes they could...after they dropped Gauthiers 1.6 million and Saprykins 1.2 million.


What part of that arent you grasping?

It looks like the part that doesn't boost his Pro-NHLPA ego.

Come on JFF, Calgary losing Conroy had everything to do with being unable to afford him......i.e. a small market decision. The thing is, Conroy fit that team like a glove, and he was great for them in the playoffs. Its a shame the team lost him...
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Jobu said:
If the league cares so much about 30 teams and ensuring equivalent resources, what's the problem with splitting up revenues by 30?

Why does a salary cap have to be the only answer?

My guess is that by splitting up 75% of revenue 30 ways doesn't change the fact that its still 75% of revenue.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
Riiiiight. And credit cards do not lead to over-spending and financial troubles either. :shakehead

Seems to be that penalties imposed on Group II offer sheets works. Why wouldn't it do the same with team salary structures? Make it reasonably punitive in cash and draft picks and give something to the PA that has to be given a hard look.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Crazy Lunatic said:
My guess is that by splitting up 75% of revenue 30 ways doesn't change the fact that its still 75% of revenue.

Doesn't the fact that all teams who have the exact same resources mean that there would be little risk of certain teams "wrecking" it for the rest? I mean, all I hear here is how the Rangers and Torontos of the league are the problem what with their deep pockets. Just tell those teams to share the wealth.

Wait a second. The owners aren't interested.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Jobu said:
Didn't the NHL counter with a rollback that covered even less players?
Yes, the NHL offered a more equitable distribution of the rollback.



And until the NHL realizes that linkage won't get a deal done, there will be no agreement.

I guess we'll have to wait and see which side caves. I know where the smart money is going.
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,736
38,184
colorado
Visit site
Russian Fan said:
Bettman agreed, but said such success was costly: "I think in Carolina's case, their payroll increased by 33% or something like it after they went to the Stanley Cup final."

In fact Carolina's NHL roster payroll went to $33.75 million from $30.5 million, an increase of 10.66%. The team's total NHL payroll, including the farm system, bought-out and injured players, went to $46.1 million from $43 million, an increase of 7.06%. [/B]
carolinas run to the cup was costly regardles of how you look at the numbers, which im not sure i agree with. they had to sign in the following season or two ron francis, rod brindamour, brett hedican, and arturs irbe deals that were based on that cup run. francis, approaching his forties, justified staying in the 4/5 range. brindamour got a long term no trade deal in the 5 mill/seasojn range. hedican got 3/season for 5 years, and irbe got a big one too. i think the payroll went up to more than that myself, and it went there from lower number, as well. the implications were long reaching and powerful. as the team stuggled to repeat, those deals - which they felt obligated to do, as well as continue adding more players like markov at 4 mill/season - limited their ability to make moves, and made those players to this day nearly impossible to trade. francis got traded with a month left on his contract for a fourth round pick?! irbe was given away. no one will touch brindy. these guys are solid vets who should be able to get the canes the youngsters they now need, but because of the cost of the cup run - they arent worth what they should be. i don tlike bettman either, but if your attacking his pov on the cost of the little guy going all the way and using the canes as an example....bad choice my friend. the cup run still hurts them now....mentally and financially.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Yes, the NHL offered a more equitable distribution of the rollback.

No, it was less equitable in fact. It was intended to appeal to the lesser paid and so excluded them from the rollback.

I guess we'll have to wait and see which side caves.

Yup, if the past is any indication, the owners.
 

snakepliskin

Registered User
Jan 27, 2005
1,910
22
Wilmington NC
bleedgreen said:
carolinas run to the cup was costly regardles of how you look at the numbers, which im not sure i agree with. they had to sign in the following season or two ron francis, rod brindamour, brett hedican, and arturs irbe deals that were based on that cup run. francis, approaching his forties, justified staying in the 4/5 range. brindamour got a long term no trade deal in the 5 mill/seasojn range. hedican got 3/season for 5 years, and irbe got a big one too. i think the payroll went up to more than that myself, and it went there from lower number, as well. the implications were long reaching and powerful. as the team stuggled to repeat, those deals - which they felt obligated to do, as well as continue adding more players like markov at 4 mill/season - limited their ability to make moves, and made those players to this day nearly impossible to trade. francis got traded with a month left on his contract for a fourth round pick?! irbe was given away. no one will touch brindy. these guys are solid vets who should be able to get the canes the youngsters they now need, but because of the cost of the cup run - they arent worth what they should be. i don tlike bettman either, but if your attacking his pov on the cost of the little guy going all the way and using the canes as an example....bad choice my friend. the cup run still hurts them now....mentally and financially.
the cup run is now a nice piece of history and i agree with you about strachan's salary numbers . i thought the year after our payroll was close to 42 mill--that being said i really like the young guys we have drafted and acquired and am very happy where we are in the rebuild-we have already hit bottom and are now on the way up and if we still have a team after the dust settles from this league "disaster" my family will be back in our seats.
 
WHat good old Al seems to miss when he mentions that "owners of successful franchises don't understand..." is that a group is always only as strong as their weakest link. Thus the league is only as strong as its weakest market. For the owners to get together to benefit that market and by extension the league shows pretty remarkable foresight from that bunch.

Of course the big guys do great. But when small teams like Edmonton sell out their building, sell all their luxury suites, get the maximum revenues they can out of parking, advertising and name rights and STILL sit in the bottom 5 of payroll is because the system is broken. You can take a team to task when they can't sell their fans or advertising, but teams that do that, ice a pretty decent competitive team and still can't sign a first line player to anything more than what a third liner gets in Toronto can't really be pointed to as a real problem.

I don't care what they do really. Frankly both groups deserve one another. All I've wanted from this is a level playing field. If teams can't sell tickets or hold their end of the bargain than move them, contract them, do whatever you want. But to my mind all successful markets should start from the same line and the only differences between them lie in scouting, managing and coaching their players. If it's a big market team than they did honestly, if it's small market than good for them. I have no particular axe to grind against the Rangers or Red Wings, I just want the games deceided on the ice, not in boardrooms or press conferences.
 

Hockey_Nut99

Guest
I see a lot of people talk about how the salary cap will ruin the game becasue there will be more player movement. Well, like scaredsensfan usually says, you better run your team well and make sure you have someone to replace the departing player. Simple as that.

You know, some teams were already doing that before on a regular basis.

That clown Strachan seems to caught up in his own fantasy world. He thinks it's normal to pay over the hill, injury prone goaltenders, 8-9 million a year.
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
Reading Strachan is always amusing. Take these lines from the column:

The agents don't understand it. They're complaining that the rollbacks offered by the NHL Players' Association will have a major negative impact on their salaries.
Because they live off commission, their incomes will be cut by 24% off the top. But furthermore, the removal of the pressure points that cause inflation has some of them hopping mad.
Ever since the NHLPA offer was presented, they've been trying to devise ways to quickly ratchet up the salaries if and when the league comes back. And they can't do it.


I can just picture all those agents burning the midnight oil looking for loopholes in the NHLPA’s proposal. And every time they find one, they pick up the phone and give ole Al a call so I can tell the world. Yeah. Right.

Al not only says hockey fans are dumb. He believes it.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Jobu said:
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?

If the NHLPA were interested in such a system, why didn't they offer it last week rather than come back with essentially the same offer as the one made two months ago?
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
Crazy Lunatic said:
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?

I don't accept the premise that an owner agreeing to pay someone X means that player is "worth" X. Why should that be the automatic assumption? Wouldn't players themselves have just as good an idea as what "worth" each player has?

To that end, why not just work with the league concept that a certain percentage of revenues be distributed to the players ... and let the players decide who gets what. I'd trust that a helluva lot more as a way to compensate a player for his true worth than the Yashin $90M, Jagr $77M, etc., contracts that have everything to do with trying to appeal to fans and little to do with paying somebody what they're worth.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
The Iconoclast said:
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.

The rollback system would have lasted until this summer, and then an agent would say to the Rangers' owner, "jeez, you were willing to pay Pavel Bure $11 million, why not my guy?" Rangers' owner, idiot that he is would have paused and said, "Yup."

End of rollback.

That's why it was a total joke.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Jobu said:
Doesn't the fact that all teams who have the exact same resources mean that there would be little risk of certain teams "wrecking" it for the rest? I mean, all I hear here is how the Rangers and Torontos of the league are the problem what with their deep pockets. Just tell those teams to share the wealth.

Wait a second. The owners aren't interested.

So you're suggesting a system by which all teams earn identical revenues? Wow, that'll do wonders for the league's level of competition. Pray tell, why would an owner bother to put a quality product on the ice, hire good coaches and scouts, market his team to fans, etc., if there is no financial benefit in doing so? Why spend the money to finish in first place when you'll get just as for finishing in last?
Even the NFL, which has far more revenue sharing than any other league (thanks entirely to its fat TV contracts), isn't that foolish.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
The Iconoclast said:
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.

And I think the quickness and ease with which the public saw through the phony offer shocked and awed Goodenow, McCabe, et al.

From the evidence I've seen, they still haven't recovered and that's a big reason we are where we are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->