bleedgreen
Registered User
god bless you. i know your pain.ColoradoHockeyFan said:Lest you think that I've not been through enough, or that I take success for granted, I grew up a North Stars fan.
god bless you. i know your pain.ColoradoHockeyFan said:Lest you think that I've not been through enough, or that I take success for granted, I grew up a North Stars fan.
Out of 8+ million people in the NY metro-area, the Rangers don't have a problem selling 18,000 seats especially when some of those seats are brought by corporations with pocket change. It's just not a problem.NYIsles1 said:What doesn't make sense? That people who used to be fans stopped following or attending because a few hundred dollars or more is too expensive to pay to see a hockey game. You have the same problem the Isles and Devils have only the garden has more corporations who also get Knicks tickets and maybe take the Rangers to get a better seat selection.
And of those 8 MILLION people in NYC, only 60,000 homes watched 82 games in 2003-04, that's the New York City hockey market here. Like it or not hockey is a one demographic sport here, it always has been and it's lost the casual fan it used to have years ago and there is nothing to get anyone interested again.
An $80M team which was completely overpaid and past their primes. Having an $80M team means nothing if half the team is terrible despite making a lot of money and they miss the playoffs 7 years in a row. Honestly, I don't think NYR revenues will change much with the decrease in payroll.NYIsles1 said:The had to ice an 80m dollar team to generate the 85m in revenue, there is nothing fine about that at all. What's going to happen to Ranger revenue after a work stoppage with at least a ten percent ticket price reduction and no more 80m team of stars to advertise going into the next season? Tell me why after keeping the Mets off Time Warner (which may just last all season) is TW going to put four teams Dolan owns television rights on television next fall?
Cut that number for Ranger telecasts in half, combined with the indifference after being shutdown for a year.
So your saying other markets have room to grow...fine. In 20 years you can start thinking about moving a team from NYC IF by that time the other NHL markets have sustained themselves and are making more revenue.NYIsles1 said:If Pittsburgh breaks even with less total revenue than the Rangers losing 40.9m to make 85m that is not fine. It's only spending more and making more to lose more. The point is the Rangers are stuck where they are behind the large market teams in New York. Pittsburgh is not and has a minor league team in the AHL with excellent fan support getting attention in the Pittsburgh media outlets..
But, as you said, it's not going to happen. The Rangers aren't going to move, not to another city or to another area of this city.NYIsles1 said:It's not going to happen (move or contract) but I think the New York hockey market should not have a team on the Yankees or Mets doorsteap anymore because they cannot spend or compete for those fans without media and they are not interested.
The Dragons and Metrostars are setup outside the city to their own fans/media and today I think that is what the hockey market should be.
The point is put some of those name-veteran stars that did not make profits in Manhattan in other places and you will have better attention-interest and better revenues/profit which is what this business must be about.
nyr7andcounting said:The players could complain about that situation, but they would not have a case. All the NHL has to do is allow the teams books to be public and than any time they decline to sign a free agent they just open the books and say look, we want to break even here we're not signing this guy for $2M or whatever. Your are free to set a budget for your team and stick to it, and if anyone doesn't believe you than simply open your books and say look at this.
No no no, you completely missed the point.
As I said..."Each owner has a different amount of revenues and a different amount of expenses outside of player costs. With that said, every team has a different amount they can spend on players in order to break even. And your telling me that if each owner spends that amount because he doesn't want to lose money, it's collusion? No, we aren't talking about one "budget" league-wide, and we're not talking about a cap. If every team has a different budget to stick to, and they stick to it, there is nothing illegal in that."
If the owners sent out a memo saying no owner was to spend more than 30% of their revenues on salaries, yes that would be collusion. But that is clearly not what we are talking about and clearly a much much different situation than each owner sticking to their budget.
Arbitration has been around for 30 years. Owners used to love it, since it meant for sure they'd have their players in the lineup on opening day. Only recently did Gary declare that arbitration was evil. The players might have offered to get rid of it if the league hadn't extended the CBA twice. And then the players did offer to get rid of one-sided arbitration, and make it two-sided. But that doesn't count, for some reason, because Gary says so.
mooseOAK said:You make seem so easy for the owners, like they didn't have to deal with:
- the NHLPA and agents setting the price for players, legal collusion in a sense
- arbitration
- the threat of arbitration
- pressure from fans and media to keep their best players and get more
- players holding out for more money
- their own desire to gamble on the future to try to win now.
All things that put upward pressure on them to spend more money.
Not to mention your suggestion is like MLB's which that league isn't thrilled with and would love to change to a cap system.
Out of those 8m people only 60,000 homes watch Ranger hockey. It's a huge problem and it's the same problem the Isles and Devils have and it begins and ends with prices, interest and the market competition. This idea the Rangers are the Giants and Jets with a lot of no-shows just is not true. The seats are empty from October to April most nights at Msg. Early on it's the baseball playoffs, later on it's spring tranining and opening day.nyr7andcounting said:Out of 8+ million people in the NY metro-area, the Rangers don't have a problem selling 18,000 seats especially when some of those seats are brought by corporations with pocket change. It's just not a problem.
You post as if Ranger expectations the last seven years going into each year were to lose and rebuild. Nothing could be further from the truth. Between the indifference and apathy toward the Rangers/Hockey, Sather, Dolan and little expectation of winning without being able to spend hockey revenue is going to drop huge at Msg when the lockout ends. And they no longer have the television contract and maybe will not even have Time Warner to show hockey to half of those 60,000 homes....Dolan no longer can use leverage with advertisers with hockey because he no longer owns rights to a baseball team. In fact Yes, TW and Comcast will do all they can to squeeze Dolan's revenue.nyr7andcounting said:An $80M team which was completely overpaid and past their primes. Having an $80M team means nothing if half the team is terrible despite making a lot of money and they miss the playoffs 7 years in a row. Honestly, I don't think NYR revenues will change much with the decrease in payroll.
The markets viability is in question because of the enormous hold baseball now has, which is not present in other hockey markets. As for Dolan this is a man who gave the Islanders a thirty year television contract that today is so above market value for hockey it's going to be more than the Rangers take in themselves. Meanwhile he puts them on Metro and damages hockey visibility in his own market which has hurt his own team.nyr7andcounting said:Now the ticket prices the owner chooses and the problems he might have getting TV revenue for his team (because of all the disputes he gets in to) has nothing to do with the viability of the market, that is simply the kind of owner Dolan chooses to be.
That's not the issue. The issue is no matter what the Rangers do they are a small market team in baseball's largest market. Baseball today is a 365 day mania with the public in the city. Nothing hockey does on the ice or off will change that anymore because the people who used to cover hockey stopped. In other places when some star players emerge with a balanced Cba those markets will have higher expectations of winning with more marketable players. A lot of these newer franchise are one or two name veterans away, veterans who could not sell hockey to anyone in Manhattan.nyr7andcounting said:So your saying other markets have room to grow...fine. In 20 years you can start thinking about moving a team from NYC IF by that time the other NHL markets have sustained themselves and are making more revenue.
HockeyCritter said:The problem with arbitration is not that it’s one-sided or even two-sided (as outlined in several proposals). The problem with arbitration is that it artificially inflates salaries. These inflated salaries then become the benchmark for future contracts. A player’s contract is about to expire at $2-million. The club wants to offer $3-million, the players asks for $7-million; the arbitrator more often than not picks a number in the middle (in this case $5-million) and BOOM! All players with similar numbers now ask for at least $5-million on their next contract. Knowing this players, pick extremely high numbers counting on the fact that arbitrators tend to spilt the difference. It’s this pick a number in the middle of the road style arbitration that needs to go. Baseball absolutely has arbitration right – the arbitrator picks one number or the other and doesn’t split the difference.
thinkwild said:And about teams losing money, one of the interesting but seldom discussed figures from the Forbes report was team debt as a percentage of revenues. Some teams, like the Rangers, were said to have a debt equal to their annual revenues. When the Sens were under this debt, and making $19mil a year repayments, the ability to spend on players was limited. The percentage of revenues that could be allocated to salaries would have been lower.
Will this debt never go away? If they paid it off, what percentage of revenues should then be a fair allocation for salaries? Who are they paying the debt to?
thinkwild said:Arbitration is not inflationary. Its stabilizing.
Arbitrators dont pick numbers out of the air. You cant come in with arbitrary comparisons, the rules are very specific. The PA proposal detailed very specifically how it would work. Whether they pick a number in the middlie or high low, whatever, that isnt the problem.
kdb209 said:The debt may be from many sources - outstanding debt from the purchase of the team, debt payments on privately funded arenas,
thinkwild said:In the last system, revenues were exploding, so naturally salaries went up. Arbitration merely reflected this, it couldnt, by definition, escalate it.
The last system may have been inflationary, but is moot, for its the players new proposals which have to be discussed. And they have proposed significant changes.
Your talking out of your @$$ around here with those comments,fans of large market teams totally ignore posts like that,their GM's never overpay their players and screw the small market teams...shame on you,you should know better then to post such rubbishkdb209 said:You miss one point that makes arbitration more inflationary than a pure UFA market might be. One owners stupid signing sets a benchmark that forces other owners to make the same mistake. Just because one big market team decides to pay some 4th liner or #5 D-man $2.5M, suddenly every FA or arb eligible player will use that as a comparable. Now that team may not need 2 $2.5M #5 D-men and no other team may think a #5 D-man is worth that, but it will be used in arbitration. Yes, there will be other data points, but since the arbiter has complete flexibility, that one outlier may increase an arbitration award from say $1.5M to $1.8M or $2M - inflationary.
That's why I prefer baseball style arbitration (arbiter picks one or the other, none of this splitting the difference). It forces GMs and agents to come in with more reasonable numbers - ask for too much or lowball and you screw yourself.
In my perfect world I would have two-way arbitration (either player or team can force arbitration - no RFA holdouts), allow team offers with pay cuts, baseball style awards, and no (or very limited) walk-aways.
kdb209 said:You miss one point that makes arbitration more inflationary than a pure UFA market might be. One owners stupid signing sets a benchmark that forces other owners to make the same mistake. Just because one big market team decides to pay some 4th liner or #5 D-man $2.5M, suddenly every FA or arb eligible player will use that as a comparable.
thinkwild said:I dont think I've made my point very well. Its not the arbitration that is inflationary, its that some players are not going to arbitration and then setting a benchmark for all other players. Why would one team offer their 4th liner or 5th dman $2.5mil when the arbitration schedule is clearly laid out. If they agree on his salary, they are obviously agreeing on his place in the hierarchy. If they arent agreeing on his salary, then they are disputing his place in the hierarchy. Which an arbitrator will decide. It wont be inflationary. It will just be that you dont think he is compared right. And of course in those one or two Brian Savage type cases, one I think, the players have provided mechanisms to address that. Besides simply not qualifying as teams do far more regularly.
ARTICLE 12
Salary Arbitration
...
12.5. Rules of Procedure
...
f. Evidence.
i. Subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (iii) below, the parties may present whatever witnesses, affidavits, documents and other relevant evidence they choose to present at the hearing. The Arbitrator, on behalf of any party, or on his own behalf, may call witnesses or request documents or other evidence as he deems necessary to resolve the dispute. The Arbitrator in his discretion shall be the judge of the relevancy and materiality of the evidence offered and/or the weight, if any, to attach to any evidence and shall not be bound by any formal legal rules of evidence. All evidence shall be presented in the presence of all the parties, unless a party is in default, having failed to appear for the hearing, or has waived his right to be present. Statistical evidence asserted in a party's affirmative case must be included in such party's brief in order to be admissible.
ii. The parties may offer evidence of the following:
A. the overall performance, including official statistics prepared by the League (both offensive and defensive) of the Player in the previous season or seasons;
B. the number of games played by the Player, his injuries or illnesses during the preceding seasons;
C. the length of service of the Player in the League and/or with the Club;
D. the overall contribution of the Player to the competitive success or failure of his Club in the preceding season;
E. any special qualities of leadership or public appeal not inconsistent with the fulfillment of his responsibilities as a playing member of his team;
F. the overall performance in the previous season or seasons of any player(s) who is alleged to be comparable to the party Player whose salary is in dispute; and
G.
1. The Compensation of any player(s) who is alleged to be comparable to the party Player, provided, however, that in applying this or any of the above subparagraphs, the Arbitrator shall not consider a player(s) to be comparable to the party Player unless a party to the arbitration has contended that the player(s) is comparable; nor shall the Arbitrator consider the Compensation or performance of a player(s) unless a party to the arbitration has contended that the player(s) is comparable.
2. To the extent a non-cash economic item does not have an attributed value set forth in the player's contract or any addenda thereto, the parties shall attribute a value thereto by mutual agreement or, failing to reach such agreement, then such value shall be determined by the Impartial Arbitrator.
iii. The following categories of evidence are inadmissible and shall not be considered by the Arbitrator:
1. Any contract the term of which began when the player party to such contract was not a Group II Player;
2. Any contract entered into by an Unrestricted Free Agent, including contracts signed by players after the player's Club has exercised a walk-away right pursuant to Section 12.6;
3. Qualifying Offers made by the Club pursuant to Section 10.2;
4. Any prior offers or history of negotiations between the Player and the Club;
5. Testimonials, videotapes, newspaper columns, press game reports or similar materials;
6. Any reference to actual or potential walk-away rights;
7. Any award issued by an arbitrator as to which a Club exercised its walk-away rights pursuant to Section 12.6;
8. The financial condition of the Club or the League.
In presenting any player's Compensation in a brief, the first reference thereto shall be a complete breakdown by component parts (clearly identified) of all such player's Compensation figures in the same format as the Joint Exhibit.
thinkwild said:I dont think I've made my point very well. Its not the arbitration that is inflationary, its that some players are not going to arbitration and then setting a benchmark for all other players.
thinkwild said:Yes thats how it was in the old system. I dont think that is the system on the table now.
There's a quite obvious schedule for arbitration. I bet I can name any RFA player in this league, and you can figure out pretty closely what he will get this summer. Because you know the schedule. What will Iginla get in arbitration? What will he get if the players he compares with are benchmarked 24% lower? I dont know for sure what he will get if he holds out and they try and negotiate a deal based on leverage. But I think I do know what he wil get if he is always in arbitration. And owners have new tools to keep those salaries consistent. He's not going to get what a rich owner can afford. He's going to get his value based on the market established and stabilized and consistent. Maybe what would help is a rule where 20 GMs can band together and force one other teams player into arbitration in hopes of lowering his salary because it is an unfair comparable. One mutual arbitration to reset problems. And there's so few anyway.
I'd say that number is closer to 20 . . . . .e-townchamps said:NHL teams that lost LESS money by not playing this year?4
PecaFan said:But that's exactly the point. The crappy guys, the guys who had lousy seasons that you're implying don't go to arbitration, *don't* set new benchmarks. Their salary can't go down. It can only go up or stay the same. It makes no difference if they go to arbitration or not.
Imagine a player Z. He makes $2 million a year, because he had a good season in a contract year. Now, it's 2 years later, he's forced to go to arbitration. He was *horrible*. Beyond description. 2 goals, 4 assists, a -20. Up comes his comparables:
A, 3 goals, 4 assists, -5, 1.0 million a year.
B, 2 goals, 10 assists, +2, 900K a year.
C, 5 goals, 8 assists, -10, 1.5 million a year.
What is his award by the arbitrator? The same $2 million a year he makes now. They can't lower his salary, and make him fall in line with the rest of the players at his level. He *doesn't* set a new low benchmark.
In fact, it's *worse* than that. Because scarily, Z becomes part of the new benchmark for A, B, and C when *they* go to arbitration. So A, B and C get raises, and start getting paid near the $2 million level, because they're clearly outperforming Z, yet are lower paid.
That's what's wrong with arbitration. No matter where you start, and how many players you send into the process, salaries will always escalate upwards based on the extremities, IE those that over-perform, and paradoxically, those who under-perform.
thinkwild said:Oh come on. Can you think of any real life example that fit those numbers. You have a $2mil player with 2 goals, 4 assists, a -20 who is in arbitration? Players like that never make it to arbitration.
PecaFan said:Yes, it's an exaggerated example, to illustrate a point.
Im unfamiliar with the point you attributing to me.And the point stands. No matter how badly a player performs, he cannot set a new low benchmark in arbitration. Which was your whole point.
The "just walk away" from every overpaid / under-performing player is a strategy that leads to certain failure.
Also, there are limited assets. It takes time to stock the cupboards, you can't just empty them willy nilly. Players are not so copious that you can go out and sign an equivalent player for less money. When given the choice of overpay and maintain the quality of your team, or hold firm and damage your on ice product, the choice is clear.