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

[kerrly]

Everyone seems to point at the big market careless teams that spend at will for ruining hockey and driving up salaries. If there had been 100% revenue sharing all along, there's no way the Rangers give Holik $9 million a year. They wouldn't have the revenues to cover it. And, in theory, every team would have the same amount to spend on players so it works the same as a salary cap, as far as competitive balance theories.

Admittedly, this won't work, since some teams don't seem to want a profit or even break even, so they'd still spend more than they take in. Also, assuming all other operating expenses are the same, teams in Canada would have far less to spend on salaries after paying property taxes, something the US teams magically don't have to pay.

It won't just be one team under a system like this running up the salaries, it will be most teams. A player here a player there. Sure it would give each team an equal footing, but it does nothing to curb spending, that got us in trouble in the first place. I'm open to all forms of revenue sharing, but without a super stiff tax or cap, they will not stop anything.

 

[Jobu]

Higher taxation on higher income is widely accepted as a more equitable form of taxation.

Now I see, a communist.

 

[Jobu]

No different than PA'ers using the argument that this is the owners mess and they are the ones who are responsible to fix it.

The PA isn't saying that at all. They have recogized the need to re-set the market by offering rollbacks and other concessions.

To expect the players to jump into bed with the owners is ludicrous. Didn't that already happen once?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Is that the best you got?

 

[Jobu]

Splitting up revenues equally among all the teams does nothing to curb spending. In fact it encourages it, especially among the lower teams who receive revenue sharing. Also all that would do is split the losses throughout the entire league. You take a league that is losing money, and spread that money around, it is still losing money. Pretty clear and easy to see why that won't work.

But I thought the big problem (or one of them) from the owners' cronies is that the sigificant difference in budgets is what screws up the market? The Rangers, Leafs, etc. make it bad for everyone, don't they?

Give everyone the same amount of money and we're on a level playing field, aren't we?

Your post makes no sense.

 

[kerrly]

Which is not significant in a league with over $2 billion in revenues.

The players have called for significant revenue sharing. Burke pointed that out as well.

In the Dec. 9th proposal, the players offer 3 alternatives to the NHL with amounts ranging from 65M, 124M, 190M. According to this, 150M offer by the league, seems to be in the same ball park of what the NHLPA is looking for.

 

[Jobu]

Misinformed is not knowing that the owners are interested in sharing revenues and profits. Brian Burke said the number was something like 150 million to be shared.

That's nice. But didn't the actual proposal basically say "we will revenue share" without any further details? Now that's negotiating!

But I just thought you said revenue sharing would only promote inflation. Now you agree with it? Or at least recognize the owners may have offered it? Why on Earth would they do that?

 

[Jobu]

Why does this happen? Collusion. The players get to, and the owners are scared ****less of it. End of story.

Sorry, but the PA conferring on the marketplace for players doesn't have anything to do with owners paying anyone anything.

 

[kerrly]

Because it's apparently a non-starter from the NHL's point of view. They never came back with any offer. In case you aren't aware of hoe negotiations work, there are two parties and it usually works best when you aren't negotiating against yourself.

Its a non-starter but instead, they come back with something that is even more of a non-starter, their old proposal, maybe tweaked a little. And sorry, the NHLPA is not negotiating with itself. The NHL is, the PA have tabled one formal proposal or concept since Dec. 9th. While the NHL has tabled many concepts since then. ALl that said, I do agree with your last sentence.

 

[Jobu]

Its a non-starter but instead, they come back with something that is even more of a non-starter, their old proposal, maybe tweaked a little. And sorry, the NHLPA is not negotiating with itself. The NHL is, the PA have tabled one formal proposal or concept since Dec. 9th. While the NHL has tabled many concepts since then. ALl that said, I do agree with your last sentence.

The NHL hasn't moved off of its initial proposal since this process started.

If the NHL is interested in a cap and linkage and nothing else, there isn't anything to discuss. Daly shouldn't be expecting the PA to pick up the phone anytime soon.

Given the interests of the owners (rather than their position), it is easy to see that a cap/linkage is not the only solution. Indeed, abou a million different options have been bounced around here lately.

Only one party seems willing to explore these options, and it's not the NHL.

 

[kerrly]

The PA isn't saying that at all. They have recogized the need to re-set the market by offering rollbacks and other concessions.

To expect the players to jump into bed with the owners is ludicrous. Didn't that already happen once?

If you read my post, that wasn't the point at all. The owners aren't saying the players are greedy and they make more than them in a lifetime. By PA'ers, I meant pro PA'ers, and they frequently resort to that statement on these boards, especially when cornered with a good argument or point. Any point like the one yo made in the previous post, is completely useless because it can be turned against your side just as quick.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Sorry, but the PA conferring on the marketplace for players doesn't have anything to do with owners paying anyone anything.

Sure it doesn't. Just like price-fixing by any suppliers to an industry doesn't have any impact on the cost of the end product.

 

[Jobu]

Sure it doesn't. Just like price-fixing by any suppliers to an industry doesn't have any impact on the cost of the end product.

How are the players price-fixing? They don't determine anything or pay anyone or set the market at all.

 

[kerrly]

But I thought the big problem (or one of them) from the owners' cronies is that the sigificant difference in budgets is what screws up the market? The Rangers, Leafs, etc. make it bad for everyone, don't they?

Give everyone the same amount of money and we're on a level playing field, aren't we?

Your post makes no sense.

Sure the 100% revenue sharing gives everyone an equal playing field, but when the league is losing money as a whole, and you just move that money elsewhere, the league still loses money. And with no constraints on salaries, they will continue to grow. How this doesn't make sense to you or anyone else, is beyond Pejorative Slured. Its still a market place, and all previous cases of market places in sports have shown to be inflationary.

 

[kerrly]

That's nice. But didn't the actual proposal basically say "we will revenue share" without any further details? Now that's negotiating!

But I just thought you said revenue sharing would only promote inflation. Now you agree with it? Or at least recognize the owners may have offered it? Why on Earth would they do that?

Revenue sharing without some major form of cost restraints does absolutely nothing. All it does it take money away from some teams, and give it to other teams that can spend it.

 

[txomisc]

I think it's a fair comment. After all, the IOC President doesn't know any better, and neither do dozens of posters on this board. It's not a leap to suggest that the laymen and those who don't even frequent this board are even more ignorant.

If you want to give more credit to Joe Fan than me, fine, but go ask 100 people about the "NHL strike" and I bet less than 10 will correct you or even perceive the difference.

The extent of most fans' knowledge is that the owners want a salary cap/linkage and the players don't. And because many of these people are jealous of hockey players because they play a "game" and are way more successful financially, they blindly side with owners.

Anecdotally, this has been my experience, and based on commentary on this board and elsewhere, I have no problem expressing it.

I guarantee if you made a poll on this board that asked "Is this a lockout or a strike." damn near 100% would say lockout. You'd have people who didn't take it seriously and and put strike just to mess around and you'd have very few who honestly got it wrong. Trust me Jobu, the fans here at HF know its a lockout. Any fan who is a hardcore fan knows whats going on.

 

[Jobu]

Sure the 100% revenue sharing gives everyone an equal playing field, but when the league is losing money as a whole, and you just move that money elsewhere, the league still loses money. And with no constraints on salaries, they will continue to grow. How this doesn't make sense to you or anyone else, is beyond Pejorative Slured. Its still a market place, and all previous cases of market places in sports have shown to be inflationary.

Aren't all labour markets everywhere, with few exceptions, inflationary? Seems to be capitalism is alive and well despite this.

Taking differential revenues out of the equation, surely spending will go down by big budget teams -- are you telling me a team would still pay its players $60+m when their share of revenues are only $70m to start with? That's ridiculous and if it is the case, these guys need to get out of business fast.

 

[Jobu]

I guarantee if you made a poll on this board that asked "Is this a lockout or a strike." damn near 100% would say lockout. You'd have people who didn't take it seriously and and put strike just to mess around and you'd have very few who honestly got it wrong. Trust me Jobu, the fans here at HF know its a lockout. Any fan who is a hardcore fan knows whats going on.

When did I ever say anything about hardcore fans or fans at HF? Please re-read the entire thread before spouting your ignorance.

 

[kerrly]

The NHL hasn't moved off of its initial proposal since this process started.

If the NHL is interested in a cap and linkage and nothing else, there isn't anything to discuss. Daly shouldn't be expecting the PA to pick up the phone anytime soon.

Given the interests of the owners (rather than their position), it is easy to see that a cap/linkage is not the only solution. Indeed, abou a million different options have been bounced around here lately.

Only one party seems willing to explore these options, and it's not the NHL.

Actually they have offered many concepts since their intial proposal, how do you explain a hard cap at 32 million, all of a sudden, is now at 42 million. The NHLPA, has not tabled one concept that we've heard of other than the 24% rollback. I haven't seen the NHLPA explore any of these options. If they are interested in a luxury tax with more teeth, then why don't they propose it. You use your opinions as if they are fact.

 

[Jobu]

Revenue sharing without some major form of cost restraints does absolutely nothing. All it does it take money away from some teams, and give it to other teams that can spend it.

And to think a 24% rollback, luxury tax, and salary arbitration revisions were meant to address this.

Nah, only a linked cap will work.

 

[kerrly]

Aren't all labour markets everywhere, with few exceptions, inflationary? Seems to be capitalism is alive and well despite this.

Taking differential revenues out of the equation, surely spending will go down by big budget teams -- are you telling me a team would still pay its players $60+m when their share of revenues are only $70m to start with? That's ridiculous and if it is the case, these guys need to get out of business fast.

Spending by the big market teams will go down most likely, but spending will go up in all other markets.

 

[Jobu]

Actually they have offered many concepts since their intial proposal, how do you explain a hard cap at 32 million, all of a sudden, is now at 42 million. The NHLPA, has not tabled one concept that we've heard of other than the 24% rollback. I haven't seen the NHLPA explore any of these options. If they are interested in a luxury tax with more teeth, then why don't they propose it. You use your opinions as if they are fact.

So an increase of $10m is a different concept?

Laughable.

The NHLPA, who, by the way, is negotiating off of a CBA where only it is making concessions, has offered a rollback, luxury tax, changes to arbitration, changes to the ELS, changes to QOs, etc. Owners have done nothing but insist on one concept and tweak other areas immaterialy or in their favour.

 

[kerrly]

And to think a 24% rollback, luxury tax, and salary arbitration revisions were meant to address this.

Nah, only a linked cap will work.

Notice, I said major form of cost restraint. The luxury tax that the NHL proposed not major, unless you're referring to it as a major form of window dressing.

 

[Jobu]

Spending by the big market teams will go down most likely, but spending will go up in all other markets.

Won't that happen with a salary floor too?

 

[Jobu]

Notice, I said major form of cost restraint. The luxury tax that the NHL proposed not major, unless you're referring to it as a major form of window dressing.

It doesn't matter. The NHL doesn't agree with the concept. Surely the nature of the tax can be negotiated to a "major" point. Would the NHLPA agree? Who knows, but the owners haven't pursued it as far as we can tell.