The HFBoards Proposal?

[two out of three*]

I was thinking, and since we have so many arguments on these boards maybe we can elect a group of guys to try and come up with a proposal, and email it to the NHL. I don't know why they would look at it, but TSN came up with theirs, so why not us?

HF doesn't have to elect people, but it would be kind of cool to come up w/ a proposal.. Just throwing it out there even if it does sound stupid..

Hey.. Maybe if HF can come up with a proposal that they can agree on, maybe it can change the fate of the NHL.. Its a shot in the dark I know. Screw Bettman, Screw Goodenow, they haven't helped the situation.. TSN failed.. Why can't HF be the ones to come up with the solution?

Click to read more...

 

[mudcrutch79]

Sure, just break out accurate numbers of revenue. As soon as you do that, we can get started.

If not, everyone who fights about this is talking out of their ass to a certain degree.

 

[Hire Sather]

 

[two out of three*]

Sure, just break out accurate numbers of revenue. As soon as you do that, we can get started.

If not, everyone who fights about this is talking out of their ass to a certain degree.

Is the Levitt Report accurate enough?

 

[Classic Devil]

Is the Levitt Report accurate enough?

Since it's the only thing that's "official" it has to be.

 

[mudcrutch79]

Is the Levitt Report accurate enough?

Sure just grab the breakdowns of the individual revenues for teams out of there and we'll get started.

 

[no13matssundin]

I just wanna say that I commend whoever thought this up. Its a really good idea.

I think the key issues are:

Making a system that a) has cost certainty within 38 Million Dollars for players salaries but b) doesnt have a cap yet c) isnt a luxury tax and d) ensures guarenteed contracts.

Its quite the task, but we have some pretty smart folks on here. Good luck and here here to the Hfboards solution.

 

[two out of three*]

Sure just grab the breakdowns of the individual revenues for teams out of there and we'll get started.

How about the Forbes thing?

 

[mudcrutch79]

How about the Forbes thing?

Those numbers are BS. You can tell by comparing where they place teams in terms of revenues compared to where the NHLPA proposal has them in terms of revenue sharing.

There isn't enough info to really discuss this intelligently.

 

[Leafer4Life]

Well it's worth a try.........

 

[mudcrutch79]

Well it's worth a try.........

How? What profitable end can come from making arbitrary decisions using suspect data?

 

[codswallop]

How? What profitable end can come from making arbitrary decisions using suspect data?

Too bad more people don't take that line into account before making some of the comments that they do.

Interesting how that's only done on a selective scale, instead of all of the time.

Just a thought.

 

[Leafer4Life]

How? What profitable end can come from making arbitrary decisions using suspect data?

All I meant was that it was worth a try for some people to think up a proposal and email it to the NHL. Not that it'll probably do any good, but if anyone wants to try, then more power to them.........

 

[mudcrutch79]

Too bad more people don't take that line into account before making some of the comments that they do.

Interesting how that's only done on a selective scale, instead of all of the time.

Just a thought.

Not sure if you're complaining about anything in particular I've said, but if so, by all means, enlighten me.

 

[codswallop]

Not sure if you're complaining about anything in particular I've said, but if so, by all means, enlighten me.

It was meant as an overall shot.

Wasn't singling you out in this particular case. Though I do believe you fall into the category (with so much bad blood flowing around here, it's hard to keep up with who says what all the time).

We as fans have access to such little relevant data to this issue that much of our arguments are nothing more than speculative. Yet most people seem to have no problem with throwing around those theories and opinions that cannot be realistically proven or disproven, and showcase them as fact. I understand that's the way it will often be around here, part of the burden we bear in this medium. But at times it does get on my nerves; the areas in which I operate in wouldn't tolerate this for a moment, if they even bothered to listen to such speculation in the first place.

That second line about being selective doesn't fit too well with what I was trying to get at (probably should have left that for another time). What I was trying to get at with that was many people take a certain bit of info and use that as reasoning for whatever point they are trying to make, and in almost every case they do not include other relevant info because it would be detrimental to their point. You hear the phrase the "whole truth" for a reason, I haven't heard of the "selective truth".

Anyways, I've probably said this about a dozen times in the past. With few if any responses. Many people just like to argue, this type of thinking would hinder that somewhat. I don't mind in the least that they feel the need to argue (we're all frustrated, we have to vent one way or another). Just wanted to give my perspective.

 

[mudcrutch79]

It was meant as an overall shot.

Wasn't singling you out in this particular case. Though I do believe you fall into the category (with so much bad blood flowing around here, it's hard to keep up with who says what all the time).

I haven't said too much on this subject, for the precise reason that there are too many unknown unknowns, to steal a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld. I certainly haven't phrased what I have said in absolutist terms. I'm inclined to a solution that creates a workable system for the Oilers, but that's about the extent of it.

The one thing I've been a bit nuts about is people who know jack all about law throwing around their particular interpretation of things. It's asinine and it's prevalent.

It's kind of funny/hypocritical that you take a shot that is in part aimed at me, saying that I have a tendency to make absolute pronouncements without info, and then lapse into the position that it's "hard to keep up with who says what all the time." The irony is pretty obvious.

 

[codswallop]

I haven't said too much on this subject, for the precise reason that there are too many unknown unknowns, to steal a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld. I certainly haven't phrased what I have said in absolutist terms. I'm inclined to a solution that creates a workable system for the Oilers, but that's about the extent of it.

The one thing I've been a bit nuts about is people who know jack all about law throwing around their particular interpretation of things. It's asinine and it's prevalent.

It's kind of funny/hypocritical that you take a shot that is in part aimed at me, saying that I have a tendency to make absolute pronouncements without info, and then lapse into the position that it's "hard to keep up with who says what all the time." The irony is pretty obvious.

It's not that ironic to me. I've read so many arguments by so many different people, I can't keep up. I said that I believed that you fell into the category, not that you certainly were. I'm not one to dig through other threads and find out, that's good time wasted. It's not really close to an absolute pronouncement on my part.

If that didn't come through clear enough the first time, I apologize. I'm not trying to be accusatory. My intent is not to start another in the seemingly endless rounds of bashing, too much time and effort has been wasted on that already.

I agree with what you said in the first two paragraphs. My earlier comment was aimed at those who don't feel inclined (for whatever reasons) to include the unknown factors in their comments. Nothing more, nothing less.

And for the record, I'm in favor of a system that brings about the chance for every franchise to be healthy and viable. If they somehow screw it up or their particular market won't sustain them even from there, then so be it. A "chance" is all I'm looking for, after that it's up to the teams and their management.

 

[two out of three*]

Ok.. I'm sorry to bring this old thread back up. But why not just use the Forbes Numbers to create a HF Proposal? What if the NHL reviewed our proposal, and said "hey.. with the accurate numbers (if in fact the Forbes are really innaccurate) they could have a good, reasonable solution."

I dont know, maybe Im just getting too desperate without hockey.. But theres a lot of smart people on these boards.

 

[Sp5618]

Missing the Point

You guys are missing what mudcrutch is saying. Without a breakdown of revenues by every single team, we simply are guessing.

We can make 100 different scenarios here, where we would explicitly have to state what assumptions we are making under each and every scenario, and in the end it is simply guesswork. We are kind of stuck in that we do not have access to "real" data. No need to get emotional about that, is there?

 

[two out of three*]

You guys are missing what mudcrutch is saying. Without a breakdown of revenues by every single team, we simply are guessing.

We can make 100 different scenarios here, where we would explicitly have to state what assumptions we are making under each and every scenario, and in the end it is simply guesswork. We are kind of stuck in that we do not have access to "real" data. No need to get emotional about that, is there?

Sorry.. Im not the most educated person on the whole mess.. But the Forbes Numbers.. I know that isn't CONSIDERED real data, but if HF used that would that be all that is needed besides the Levitt Report to come up with a proposal even if it is guesswork?

 

[Sp5618]

Sorry.. Im not the most educated person on the whole mess.. But the Forbes Numbers.. I know that isn't CONSIDERED real data, but if HF used that would that be all that is needed besides the Levitt Report to come up with a proposal even if it is guesswork?

You can use the Forbes report as a basis for one scenario, we can even call it the "Forbes-based scenario", however we have no idea if those figures reflect 50% of the "real" numbers, or 75% or 90%...I think you know what I mean.

I believe my contribution in terms of offering a solution could vary quite widely if the Forbes numbers were much more accurate than say the Levitt report. If Levitt is closer to the truth, then there is a greater sense of urgency in putting forth a hard cap, perhaps even lower than what the league has proposed. The league's proposal is an average number based on ALL the revenues (as they choose to report revenues)...which does not address individual team situations. A team with $27 million in revenues is not helped by an averaged cap of $34-38 million.

If the Forbes numbers are closer to the "truth", then the NHLPA position is viewed somewhat more favorably and we would ask why the NHL chose the path they did.

My point is w/o the real numbers, we can be all over the board. Knowing these figures accurately shapes the solution with which we all can feel comfortable.

 

[two out of three*]

My point is w/o the real numbers, we can be all over the board. Knowing these figures accurately shapes the solution with which we all can feel comfortable.

I see what your saying here..

What im saying is (and I know what im saying is a shot in the dark).. Ok so we use the Forbes.. we use the Levitt. HF makes a proposal.. sends it in, and the NHL reviews it. And when they review they might send someone on HF the "real numbers." OR, and a big OR.. they like the proposal even with our suspect data.

I just dont think the whole thing is impossible. I think it can be done.

 

[Sp5618]

The only way the NHLPA can get these numbers if by signing a non-disclosure agreement. The NHL does not want these numbers public unless they get something for it. The NHLPA will not sign on because it gives the impression that a cap is potentially under consideration. Given their philosophical opposition to the cap, they do not want to entertain this idea- different argument here.

So I doubt we will get anything real to work with, unless someone in the NHL wanted to leak the revenues for 30 teams? Ummm, not likely if I had to guess.

I know what you are saying...let's just hash through some stuff, but I personally would feel like I might achieve something if I knew it was real, then I could really sink my teeth into it. I admire your determination though to do something!

 

[two out of three*]

The only way the NHLPA can get these numbers if by signing a non-disclosure agreement. The NHL does not want these numbers public unless they get something for it. The NHLPA will not sign on because it gives the impression that a cap is potentially under consideration. Given their philosophical opposition to the cap, they do not want to entertain this idea- different argument here.

So I doubt we will get anything real to work with, unless someone in the NHL wanted to leak the revenues for 30 teams? Ummm, not likely if I had to guess.

I know what you are saying...let's just hash through some stuff, but I personally would feel like I might achieve something if I knew it was real, then I could really sink my teeth into it. I admire your determination though to do something!

Well.. Hey its not impossible.. We can use suspect data such as the Forbes, and still make a proposal. Why not us? What if they liked our proposal?

 

[Slats432]

Again, someone else mentioned this, and I volunteer. Forget discussing specifics unless we are actually going to come up with a proposal.

I am a small market moderate. I don't believe a hard cap is the only way.

Someone needs to take the ball and decide who and what type of people are needed.