The Dictator Bob Goodenow better leave the door open with Thursday's offer

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Says the NHLPA. It's actually very easy to replace hockey players. In 2 years, which I predict is when the lockout ends, none of the fans will care who plays - just that there is hockey.

Come on.
If in two years, the NHLPA formed its own league, and the NHL was filled with no-name nobodies, I know which league I'd be watching.

 

[SENSible1*]

Come on.
If in two years, the NHLPA formed its own league, and the NHL was filled with no-name nobodies, I know which league I'd be watching.

Given two or ten years the NHLPA will never form a new league.

 

[tantalum]

Given two or ten years the NHLPA will never form a new league.

of course not. At the salaries they make and the system they want it isn't profitable.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Given two or ten years the NHLPA will never form a new league.

Maybe not but perhaps a European Super League could be formed and the PA may associate themselves with that league instead. Then the best players in the world won't be playing in the NHL but the league can impose its "cost certainty". Without the best players in the world, the league revenues will drop from the current level and in 10 yrs, the league is gone. Sounds good to me!

 

[Sanderson]

A European Super League could never pay nearly as much salary as the NHL. Right now Russia is the only country that is able to pay over a million per year.

Neither the scandinavian countries, nor Slovakia, the Czech Rep. or Germany could rise their salary structure to the level of Russia, Switzerland is borderline.
So unless they share revenue or the players play for way less money, you never will be able to open such a league.

Would be hard to find teams for the league as well. You either would have to use existing teams, which already play in a league (so you would have to fight against these leagues) or you could create new ones. Problem with that is, most of the big hockey markets already have at least one team and luring fans away won't be easy.

 

[kerrly]

Who cares how successful the league is? I'm being serious. We don't need big corporations to do anything.

We just want to watch hockey. I don't care whether it is more popular or not. I like it just fine, it isn't going anywhere, and I don't care if 90% of Americans (or Canadians for that matter) don't like it. Why should I? If more people like it, it will cost more, the players will make more, the owners will complain more and the game won't get any better. Not for me and not for anyone else who follows the game today.

What's good for the business of hockey is not necessarily good for the game.

What's good for the business of hockey is never good for the fan.

Tom

I personally like the game just fine that way it is as well. I also don't see how making the game more successful or even more stable, will hurt it. And you're also worried that your season tickets could go up a certain amount. Which is fine, I understand that.

To me it seems like you're frustrated as hell and just want the game back. I couldn't be more frustrated myself, but I am willing to wait to have the league healthy.

 

[PecaFan]

Oh, I beg to differ. Where the money the fans invest goes matters quite a bit. If the money doesn't go to the players, it goes to the owners. I don't care much to see an old man get richer.

You should care. All fans should want their owners to be *raking* in the money. That means several things:

1) Stability. Your team ain't moving. Winnipeg, Hartford, and Quebec all recent cases where the owner could make more bucks elsewhere.

2) Entertainment. It doesn't always follow, but generally the teams raking in big bucks will have better players, bigger stars, a better on ice product.

2) Success. And from those better players, better coaches, etc, comes *prolonged* success. Multiple long runs in the playoffs. Better chances of winning the Cup.

That's assuming a fan actually follows a team, and desperately wants them to win the Cup, of course.

 

[IWD]

You should care. All fans should want their owners to be *raking* in the money. That means several things:

1) Stability. Your team ain't moving. Winnipeg, Hartford, and Quebec all recent cases where the owner could make more bucks elsewhere.

2) Entertainment. It doesn't always follow, but generally the teams raking in big bucks will have better players, bigger stars, a better on ice product.

2) Success. And from those better players, better coaches, etc, comes *prolonged* success. Multiple long runs in the playoffs. Better chances of winning the Cup.

That's assuming a fan actually follows a team, and desperately wants them to win the Cup, of course.

No, I shouldn't care. If my team's owner doesn't like the amount of money he's making, he can sell. There's a huge lineup of people just waiting to buy the team. Considering it's one of the cornerstone franchises of the league with arguably the largest fanbase out there, I don't think there's any risk of the team moving.

I think you missed the point of my post, to be honest. Why people want the owners to get richer and the players to get poorer is beyond me. Bottom line: If my team, for example, makes $100m per season, I want as much of that $100m going back into the team as it can. With a $31m cap, that isn't going to happen very well. So where's the other $30m of my team's payroll going to go? I'm sure some will be invested into development, etc. But the majority will go into the pockets of the owner. Think he's going to lower prices? Why would any owner lower prices when they don't have to?

It seems the majority of people who support a cap are only doing so because their team doesn't have a large following and can't compete with the big market teams because they don't generate enough revenue. The big market teams have a legitimately earned advantage and the small market teams want to toss it out the window so their chance of winning improves. It's like saying "Zdeno Chara is bigger than everyone else, so we're going to have to put some sort of handicap on him in order to prevent him from overpowering everyone else. Gotta have an even playing field!"

No one has responded to this yet (probably because it shoots holes in their argument), so I'll ask again. If your team makes more money and revenue, why shouldn't that money be allowed to be put back into the team? Why shouldn't your team's following be rewarded for the money they invest into the team? You said it yourself, "generally the teams raking in big bucks will have better players, bigger stars, a better on ice product...And from those better players, better coaches, etc, comes *prolonged* success. Multiple long runs in the playoffs. Better chances of winning the Cup."

 

[Seachd]

I think you missed the point of my post, to be honest. Why people want the owners to get richer and the players to get poorer is beyond me. Bottom line: If my team, for example, makes $100m per season, I want as much of that $100m going back into the team as it can. With a $31m cap, that isn't going to happen very well. So where's the other $30m of my team's payroll going to go? I'm sure some will be invested into development, etc. But the majority will go into the pockets of the owner. Think he's going to lower prices? Why would any owner lower prices when they don't have to?

But why would an owner put $100 million in, if he can get the same team for $50 million?

 

[IWD]

But why would an owner put $100 million in, if he can get the same team for $50 million?

I didn't say he'd put all $100m in. Never. I used a hypothetical number (which is actually not far off for some teams) as an example of how much a fairly wealthy team brings in. So they bring in $100m. Then they pay for running the team, salaries, coaches, whatever. A team, like the Leafs, for example, had a $62m payroll. Then ended up making about around $20m of actual profit. If the small market owners brought in the $31m cap they want, then where's the other $31m going to go? To the owner, obviously. So instead of making around $20m, he'd be pulling in around $50m. Thanks, but no thanks.

A cap will do nothing but make the owners richer. The players are right. The owners screwed up and now they want to fix the problem at the player's expense. Which, ultimately, is still at our expense.

 

[Seachd]

A cap will do nothing but make the owners richer. The players are right. The owners screwed up and now they want to fix the problem at the player's expense. Which, ultimately, is still at our expense.

How is it at my expense? If the Maple Leafs have to make a little more money for my team to survive, why wouldn't I be all over that?

 

[IWD]

How is it at my expense? If the Maple Leafs have to make a little more money for my team to survive, why wouldn't I be all over that?

Oh gee, I don't know. Because more of your money will go into the owners pockets and less into the team?

So you admit that you only want a cap so that your team can be supported by others? That's like saying "if taxpayers have to pay a little more just to support my welfare cheque, then all the better!" Kind of selfish. Fair enough.

 

[Seachd]

Oh gee, I don't know. Because more of your money will go into the owners pockets and less into the team?

So? Why would I care? Whether it goes to the players or the owners, I'm not going to see it anymore. And, for reasons I've already mentioned, if most of my money goes to the owners, that's fine with me. What would be the reasons that I'd want the extra money to go to the players (who are getting paid no matter what)?

So you admit that you only want a cap so that your team can be supported by others? That's like saying "if taxpayers have to pay a little more just to support my welfare cheque, then all the better!" Kind of selfish. Fair enough.

No. A salary cap wouldn't make some teams support others. That would be revenue sharing. Strangely enough, we're not talking about welfare. We're talking hockey. If you call me selfish because I want to watch NHL hockey, that's fine. But I'm not sure you can fault me for that.

 

[IWD]

So? Why would I care? Whether it goes to the players or the owners, I'm not going to see it anymore. And, for reasons I've already mentioned, if most of my money goes to the owners, that's fine with me. What would be the reasons that I'd want the extra money to go to the players (who are getting paid no matter what)?

Actually, you should care. You may be paying the same amount either way, but if it's going towards the product then your money will actually make a difference. More money = better product (provided you have decent management). You say the players are getting paid no matter what. It's not exactly that simple. A cap is an artificial barrier. So any money you put in will not be going back into the team after a certain amount. So yes, it directly affects you. Like it or not, by purchasing tickets and merchandise, you're investing money into your team. You might not care that you're investing money without any sort of return, but I'm sure most people want to see some sort of benefit to giving their money away.

Strangely enough, we're not talking about welfare. We're talking hockey. If you call me selfish because I want to watch NHL hockey, that's fine. But I'm not sure you can fault me for that.

No, but it's the same principle. You said you don't care if another team's fans have to support yours. That's exactly like the analogy I brought up. And that's exactly what revenue sharing does. That's what's selfish. Why does any team deserve a handout from the richer teams. I think it's pretty obvious that everyone wants their team to win the cup. But now the small-market teams want the big-market teams to help them win. Of course you support that.

 

[Seachd]

Actually, you should care. You may be paying the same amount either way, but if it's going towards the product then your money will actually make a difference. More money = better product (provided you have decent management). You say the players are getting paid no matter what. It's not exactly that simple. A cap is an artificial barrier. So any money you put in will not be going back into the team after a certain amount. So yes, it directly affects you. Like it or not, by purchasing tickets and merchandise, you're investing money into your team. You might not care that you're investing money without any sort of return, but I'm sure most people want to see some sort of benefit to giving their money away.

For the past however many years, every red cent I put into that team went to the players. And the more I spend, the more they want. Yeah, I know... That's not exactly what you might be used to in the giant markets, where no matter what happens, the owners have plenty of money to burn. But it's a reality a lot of us have to live with.

If some teams can't make a profit (good management and all), and some automatically make large profits, how does it help the economic situation if those teams start piling more and more money on the players? Salaries have spiralled out of control, and this would just fuel the exponential growth. Why would I be for that? The league can't survive if one of the parties is suffering. The league is suffering. The players are not, and will not, no matter what system is brought in. They're guaranteed to make money.

No, but it's the same principle. You said you don't care if another team's fans have to support yours. That's exactly like the analogy I brought up. And that's exactly what revenue sharing does. That's what's selfish. Why does any team deserve a handout from the richer teams. I think it's pretty obvious that everyone wants their team to win the cup. But now the small-market teams want the big-market teams to help them win. Of course you support that.

See above. There are very good reasons for this.

 

[IWD]

For the past however many years, every red cent I put into that team went to the players. And the more I spend, the more they want. Yeah, I know... That's not exactly what you might be used to in the giant markets, where no matter what happens, the owners have plenty of money to burn. But it's a reality a lot of us have to live with.

If some teams can't make a profit (good management and all), and some automatically make large profits, how does it help the economic situation if those teams start piling more and more money on the players? Salaries have spiralled out of control, and this would just fuel the exponential growth. Why would I be for that? The league can't survive if one of the parties is suffering. The league is suffering. The players are not, and will not, no matter what system is brought in. They're guaranteed to make money.

Actually, it's not quite like that here in the large markets. The reason we have "money to burn" is because we have a large fanbase investing money. We earned our large market status. When the owners of small market teams moved into their markets they knew they'd be at a disadvantage in terms of fanbase, but they chose to go there anyway.

You, and the majority of pro-owner advocates, give a very socialist spin to the CBA debate. A lot of people seem to use the sport and the league interchangably. Fortunately, this is not the case. The NHL is a business. That's what it's been for almost a hundred years. And, like it or not, in the business world if your company is struggling, you will not get help from your competition. This is just a reality of life. Similarly, the NHL has teams that are struggling financially. What right do they have to get a handout from everyone else? Why should anyone's hard-earned money go towards helping out a company that stands in direct competition to their investment (their team)? Isn't the goal to win? You don't win by helping your competition.

 

[Seachd]

You, and the majority of pro-owner advocates, give a very socialist spin to the CBA debate. A lot of people seem to use the sport and the league interchangably. Fortunately, this is not the case. The NHL is a business. That's what it's been for almost a hundred years. And, like it or not, in the business world if your company is struggling, you will not get help from your competition. This is just a reality of life. Similarly, the NHL has teams that are struggling financially. What right do they have to get a handout from everyone else? Why should anyone's hard-earned money go towards helping out a company that stands in direct competition to their investment (their team)? Isn't the goal to win? You don't win by helping your competition.

What you're ignoring is that this is professional sports. Yes, it's a business. But no, it's not the real world. The needs of the league should be put ahead of those of individual teams or players for that matter. I'll say it right now - there are more than likely teams that could care less about other teams (and therefore the health of the league). They're the same ones that seem to give out these ridiculous contracts. But it's very clear the league is in trouble. That has to change. According to everyone (league, players, media, whoever), revenue sharing has to be a part of that. If I had it my way, I wouldn't have revenue sharing, because salaries would be low enough that the playing field would be even for everybody. Unfortunately, that can't happen, and some sort of middle ground has to be reached.

Combine the fact that some teams have an innate advantage over others regardless of how a team is run, a few stupid contracts, and players that want nothing but to leave the door open to more extreme salary growth, and you have problems.

I don't see why the players deserve my money any more than the owners do.

 

[PecaFan]

No, I shouldn't care. If my team's owner doesn't like the amount of money he's making, he can sell. There's a huge lineup of people just waiting to buy the team. Considering it's one of the cornerstone franchises of the league with arguably the largest fanbase out there, I don't think there's any risk of the team moving.

Right. So your point basically is "I've got mine, I don't care. Ding ding, I'm on the bus."

Your team is already raking in the dough, which is why it's a cornerstone of the league and not at risk of moving. Which was exactly my point. Owners making money makes for a stable league.

Thus, every fan in every city should want their owners to be financially well off.

 

[thinkwild]

Every owner should have the opportunity to develop a team, a market, a business. They need the opportunity to be able to make money when they have a low fanbase and a bottom team, and the opportunity to develop a winning team that makes money. Thats what a proper market does. Guaranteeing it means the owners should make a salary, not a profit.

 

[IWD]

What you're ignoring is that this is professional sports. Yes, it's a business. But no, it's not the real world. The needs of the league should be put ahead of those of individual teams or players for that matter.

Well yes, actually, professional sports is the real world. Every business on earth is the real world. What it looks like you're doing is making the mistake of referring to the sport and the league as a single entity. They're not. Hockey is the sport. The NHL is a business. As a business, the league itself is nothing more than 30 corporations competing against one another. If one corporation (team) leaves, the rest can still operate independently of one another.

I'll say it right now - there are more than likely teams that could care less about other teams (and therefore the health of the league). They're the same ones that seem to give out these ridiculous contracts.

Of course there are teams that don't care about others. Again, it's a business. In a business your job is to make money, not to feel sorry for - and help out - your competition.

You claim that these teams who don't care about others are the ones giving out ridiculous contracts. Really? I can think of plenty of struggling teams that have given out contracts that have come back to burn them. Calgary, Long Island, Florida, Washington, Anaheim... It only reinforces the argument that if you can't afford it, don't spend it.

But it's very clear the league is in trouble. That has to change. According to everyone (league, players, media, whoever), revenue sharing has to be a part of that. If I had it my way, I wouldn't have revenue sharing, because salaries would be low enough that the playing field would be even for everybody. Unfortunately, that can't happen, and some sort of middle ground has to be reached.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the league is in trouble (minus the lockout). I also wouldn't go as far as to say that everyone has stated that revenue sharing as to be part of the deal. The pro-owners side has said revenue sharing must be a part of it.

Here's the bottom line. And I don't think anyone can really debate this while keeping a straight face. The owners screwed up. Now they are trying to make the players pay for it.

Again, I'll ask since it hasn't been answered yet. I'm hoping someone will respond with a legitimate answer, however, I doubt anyone will since they know that ultimately revenue sharing is wrong: Why should the fans of rich teams waste their money by helping a team they hate win the cup? That is what revenue sharing will do.

Combine the fact that some teams have an innate advantage over others regardless of how a team is run, a few stupid contracts, and players that want nothing but to leave the door open to more extreme salary growth, and you have problems.

Then limit individual player contracts. Put an individual cap on player salaries. Lower the rookie cap. Get rid of guarenteed contracts. Or what they can do (and if they had done this in the first place) don't sign the contracts. We saw this past summer that salaries went down if some sort of financial restraint was practiced.

I don't see why the players deserve my money any more than the owners do.

Well, I've already pointed out why. They're the product. You're the investor. If you don't care that's fine. That's your money. Most people don't share your point of view. They actually want their money to go into the product their investing, not to be swallowed up.

 

[PecaFan]

Again, I'll ask since it hasn't been answered yet. I'm hoping someone will respond with a legitimate answer, however, I doubt anyone will since they know that ultimately revenue sharing is wrong: Why should the fans of rich teams waste their money by helping a team they hate win the cup? That is what revenue sharing will do.

We've gone through this before. A healthy league is required for *your* own benefit. It's like an arm saying "Why should I care about the health of the heart, or the brain?".

If the other teams all rot away, what good does it do you to be super powerful?

Remember the New York Cosmos? A perfect example of a team that didn't care about the health of a league.

Well, I've already pointed out why. They're the product. You're the investor. If you don't care that's fine. That's your money. Most people don't share your point of view. They actually want their money to go into the product their investing, not to be swallowed up.

They're not the product at all. You're paying to watch the game, by whichever players happen to be out there. There's no guarantees anyone will play. Guys get injured, or scratched etc. You don't get a refund, do you?

In theory, there could be not a single player on your team this year that played for you last year. Some retire, some get traded, some get let go, some prospects make the team etc.

Would you stop being a fan? Hardly. You just pick new favourites. Did Leaf fans stop being Leaf fans when Wendel Clark or Felix Potvin or Doug Gilmour left?

 

[IWD]

We've gone through this before. A healthy league is required for *your* own benefit. It's like an arm saying "Why should I care about the health of the heart, or the brain?".

If the other teams all rot away, what good does it do you to be super powerful?

Remember the New York Cosmos? A perfect example of a team that didn't care about the health of a league.?

Wrong. A league where all teams support one another and have equal financial footing does not benefit me or any person who supports a large market team. We're not talking about major league baseball where one team dominates every financial corner of the market. We're talking about a league that has a pretty solid number of teams who can afford to improve their team by adding players. If I follow a team that is based in a large market, which I do, then I want my money being put back into my investment.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, it doesn't make it any more of an accurate argument. If your team makes more money, then it deserves to have the right to choose if it wants that money invested back into the team. No one should be punished for being successful. That's common sense.

The league's health is not as dire as you make it out to be.

They're not the product at all. You're paying to watch the game, by whichever players happen to be out there. There's no guarantees anyone will play. Guys get injured, or scratched etc. You don't get a refund, do you?

In theory, there could be not a single player on your team this year that played for you last year. Some retire, some get traded, some get let go, some prospects make the team etc.

Would you stop being a fan? Hardly. You just pick new favourites. Did Leaf fans stop being Leaf fans when Wendel Clark or Felix Potvin or Doug Gilmour left?

Again, wrong. The players are the product. So please, don't tell me what I'm paying for because I know very well what I'm investing my time and money into. If I was paying the watch the game, I'd watch any and all levels. But I'm not. I'm paying to see these players play. The NHL is the business, the players are the product and the ones whose trade I'm interested in watching.

And yes, a lot of Leaf fans stopped being fans once Clark and Gilmour left.

 

[no13matssundin]

And yes, a lot of Leaf fans stopped being fans once Clark and Gilmour left.

As a Leaf fan, I can say youre wrong...

So I will.

You're WRONG.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I wouldn't go as far as to say the league is in trouble (minus the lockout). I also wouldn't go as far as to say that everyone has stated that revenue sharing as to be part of the deal. The pro-owners side has said revenue sharing must be a part of it.

Ironically, the Bettman poodles applaud Bill Daly when he says the owners propose significant revenue sharing. Apparently $65 million is significant. It is the players who want it higher.

Again, I'll ask since it hasn't been answered yet. I'm hoping someone will respond with a legitimate answer, however, I doubt anyone will since they know that ultimately revenue sharing is wrong: Why should the fans of rich teams waste their money by helping a team they hate win the cup? That is what revenue sharing will do.

While I am more or less solidly on the side of the players, on this one I agree with the owners. I'm against all revenue sharing in the NHL. Either you do real revenue sharing - pool it all - and talk about a player share or you do neither. For hockey, neither is best in my opinion as long as the CBA restricts free agency as tightly as it was restricted in the last agreement.

One reason the owners won't seriously revenue share is because they don't trust each other. It is one thing to put forward a revenue number when it is being shared with the players. Can you imagine the fights among owners if everyone had to put up 75% of their revenues for a common pool? They'd never agree to a definition of revenue among themselves!

Tom

 

[IWD]

As a Leaf fan, I can say youre wrong...

So I will.

You're WRONG.

You can say it, but it won't make it true. A lot of Leaf fans did stop being fans after those two players were traded. Potvin not so much. In fact, I can think of half a dozen people off the top of my head that I knew who stopped being fans after those players were traded. If I, by myself, can think of six people, then it's only logical to assume that many more stopped being fans. Hence the term "a lot".

But for arguments sake, how am I wrong?