Very great editorial today in La Presse

Status
Not open for further replies.

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Russian Fan said:
WRONG ! The only thing preventing a deal getting done is to the owner realizing that it's not a dictatorship era & that you have 2 sides to make a deal.

Yes it does take two sides to make a deal. But if the side that has to take all the losses decides that the other side will never give them any deal that will give them a reasonable chance to make money, they just shut down the league. That will be great for all the players, wouldn't it? Since they do provide ALL the financial backing for the league, they should have a big say in how it is run.

The options I listed answered most of the major concerns the anti-cap/greedy player side has voiced. I'm sure there are other options as well. If the players are going to outright reject a salary cap without looking at mechanisms such as this to resolve concerns, the only reason for this rejection would be greed. Why else?

Bad management? By some owners yes. If some owners don't mind losing money and that is causing problems with the other owners, a solution to that has to be negotiated in the CBA. The players don't want to give the owners a strong mechanism to control owner spending because of greed. If you think it is other wise, you are just a naive as you claimed everyone else is in your other thread.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
djhn579 said:
Yes it does take two sides to make a deal. But if the side that has to take all the losses decides that the other side will never give them any deal that will give them a reasonable chance to make money, they just shut down the league. That will be great for all the players, wouldn't it? Since they do provide ALL the financial backing for the league, they should have a big say in how it is run. .

Again , stop looking at salaries for 1 second & prove me that EVERY NHL TEAM HAS MADE GOOD DECISIONS ?

Are the SABRES made good decisions ?
Are the Penguins made good decisions ?
Are the NYRangers made good decisions ?
Are the Blues made good decisions ?

You can't prove that ALL THE LOSSES are related to the salaries or the CBA. All you do is do a stupid elementary result : Bobby Holik 9M$ = 9M$ losses.

Can you wake up & realize that there is more to do aside of the contract ? The market is correcting itself & it's not because of the looming lockout but because GM's now can relate that one 9M$ superstar can make that much of a difference between being a cup contender & being out of playoffs.



djhn579 said:
The options I listed answered most of the major concerns the anti-cap/greedy player side has voiced. I'm sure there are other options as well. If the players are going to outright reject a salary cap without looking at mechanisms such as this to resolve concerns, the only reason for this rejection would be greed. Why else?.

Taking a 5% paycut is being GREEDY ?
Taking a rookie entry level adjustment is being GREEDY ?
Offering a luxury tax is being GREEDY ?

Where do you live ?

They know the mechanism of a salary cap, a majority of pro-NFLer will tell you that the guy who accept a hard cap for the NFLPA should be six feet under because they are treated like MEAT.

djhn579 said:
Bad management? By some owners yes. If some owners don't mind losing money and that is causing problems with the other owners, a solution to that has to be negotiated in the CBA. The players don't want to give the owners a strong mechanism to control owner spending because of greed. If you think it is other wise, you are just a naive as you claimed everyone else is in your other thread.

You are looking only to the rich people when BAD DECISIONS & BAD MANAGEMENT is coming from the Sabres, the Penguins, the Oilers, the Canadiens not only from the Blues or the NYRangers. Wake up !

I'm laughing very hard right now.

Let's go to another context.

The public transportation administration & the bus-subway drivers are ending their CBA.

The PT Admin want all drivers to take a 25% paycut because the PT Administration had a 70M$ losses last year.

The drivers association said no because they claim that those 70% losses are mostly due to bad management & bad accountability. They are willing to offer a 5% paycut in order to give the PT Administration more breathe in order for them to get their management & accountant problem.

Are the drivers GREEDY ?
Are the drivers association GREEDY because they don't want the administration to solve all their problems on the back of their drivers ? They understand that they loss money & they are willing to take a paycut but they also see that the problem is not only the drivers salary. Some management & accountability department need a clean up also.

Do you UNDERSTAND what I'm saying ? or is it too hard for you to understand ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Getting back to hockey ?

NHLPA acknowledge that 75% of the NHL franchise are losing money.

The way you are talking, you think that they don't acknowledge that ! but not because they loses money they should cave.

Everything need to be investigate to see what goes wrong with an NHL team.

NHLAPA acknowledge that the NHL loss 224M$ instead of 273M$

Forget for 1 second the 49M$ discrepancy. Is that because the lose 224M$ it's all their fault ?

Everything need to be investigate to see what goes wrong with an NHL team.


NHLPA saw that 75% of that 224M$ was the loss of 6 NHL TEAMS

NYRangers , St-Louis, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, NYIslanders. I still dont know the 6th!

NYRangers dig their own grave, should we blame the CBA for it ?

St-Louis loss 30M$ & told the NHL that everything is fine.

New Jersey does have a poor arena lease so that means POOR MANAGEMENT/POOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Pittsburgh does have a poor arena lease so that means POOR MANAGEMENT/POOR ACCOUNTABILITY

NYIslanders does have a poor arena lease so that means POOR MANAGEMENT/POOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Will you blame the CBA for those 5 teams that we know LOSE MONEY ? Or should they start thinking about getting a NEW ARENA or MOVING the FRANCHISE ???

25% of 224M$ losses is coming from 17 other NHL Franchises

25% of 224M$ = 56M$ divide by 16 NHL teams = 3,29M$

3,29M$ per team do you think it's all about the PLAYERS FAULT ?

Montréal overpaid for Patrice Brisebois 4M$ a year ? Don't tell me that the free market made the Montreal Canadiens paid Brisebois that much !

Boston overpaid for Lapointe 5M$ a year ? This was a market offer because a few teams were ready to pay him that much. But again, was it a GM's decisions to do so ? YES. If the team lose 3,29M$ (average) can they compensate somewhere else ?

Also ASK YOURSELF ?

Do they have the best MARKETING PERSONEL ?
Do they have the best ADMINISTRATION STAFF ?
Do they have the best SCOUTING STAFF ?

Everything outside of the players salary will increase of DECREASE the REVENUES of a NHL franchise ? Are the players RESPONSIBLE for what EVERY OWNER do with their personal by hiring INCOMPETENCY ? Should the NHLPA be there when there a spot open in some NHL TEAM STAFF ?

So the players offer a 5% paycut with means 108M$of savings for NHL. 108M$ = 3,6M$ less in average per team. there a VERY GOOD START !!!

Don't tell me that once the market open the GM's will continue to spend because if they do so , it's up to the NHL Owner of that team to take it's power & do something with that GM's.

The player offer a luxury tax over 40M$ where the money will go directly to the small market needs. MLB shows that a luxury taxe make the salary decrease by 3% the 1st year. Add the 5% (108M$) + 3% (= approximately 60M$) = 160-168M$ in saving !! after 1 year if it goes like the MLB.

Do you think if the owner do their job like every other companies they would be able to be competitive & making money ? I DO THINK SO !!!

Now everything I just talked about is not side with the NHLPA , it's just experience in the financial business world as an intermediate.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Russian Fan said:
Taking a 5% paycut is being GREEDY ?
Taking a rookie entry level adjustment is being GREEDY ?
Offering a luxury tax is being GREEDY ?


5% paycut - This is a joke. They willl make that back the next season.

Rookie entry level adjustment - minor at best and then they just hold out for more money later

Luxury tax - yes any thing but allow the owners to not spend as much money as they are today.

The rest of your post, I must admit, I did not bother reading. Which is most likely what you do with anybody that disagrees with your point of view.

The players are all about greed. High player salaries do nothing for the fans or the teams. The players want to keep making all the money they want, regardless if teams are losing money.

You blame the owners for everything, yet you fight against any mechanism that will correct the problem. The only solution for you is the status quo, which obviously is not working.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
djhn579 said:
The rest of your post, I must admit, I did not bother reading. Which is most likely what you do with anybody that disagrees with your point of view.

Thank you for this disrespectful comment, I won't waste any of my time explaining that I'm on the business side & not the NHLPA side.

If you can't understand that every business is about making decisions & making bad decisions is part of the business evolution then I can't do anything for you.

Last thing : The owners are not there for the love of the fans & the game.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
djhn579 said:
YES. You provided the answer to that in your first post. A few owners are responsible for much of the losses. Those few owners have some of the highest salaries in the league and don't mind losing that money. The rest of the owners have to pay the going rate for players, and the going rate is set by people that don't mind losing money.

The only thing preventing a deal getting done is the players greed.

Then the onus should be on the owners for spending their money wisely. Why should the players care? The owners are the ones who are paying the players the money.


The NHL's losing money problems lie much deeper than giving guys like Martin Lapointe $5 million a year.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Russian Fan said:
NHLPA acknowledge that the NHL loss 224M$ instead of 273M$[/SIZE][/B]

Forget for 1 second the 49M$ discrepancy. Is that because the lose 224M$ it's all their fault ?

I was wondering about that discrepancy too. Daly just said that its because the PA is adding the profits from teams that made money to the total losses of losing teams to come up with a net league loss which is lower than the the just the losses from teams that lost money.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
thinkwild said:
I was wondering about that discrepancy too. Daly just said that its because the PA is adding the profits from teams that made money to the total losses of losing teams to come up with a net league loss which is lower than the the just the losses from teams that lost money.

That would make sense !

Thanks !
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
thinkwild said:
I was wondering about that discrepancy too. Daly just said that its because the PA is adding the profits from teams that made money to the total losses of losing teams to come up with a net league loss which is lower than the the just the losses from teams that lost money.


Take $49 million and divide it among 30 teams.

$1,633,333.33


With proper marketing, that can be made within a week
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
go kim johnsson said:
Then the onus should be on the owners for spending their money wisely. Why should the players care? The owners are the ones who are paying the players the money.


The NHL's losing money problems lie much deeper than giving guys like Martin Lapointe $5 million a year.

That is the problem. Some of the owners just don't care. The rest of the owners have no choice but to try to remain competetive. If they don't try to remain competetive, they lose fans, then they lose their teams (bankruptcy).

As long as there is nothing preventing all owners from spending unwisely, the owners that do spend wisely will need to try to keep up with the handfull of owners that don't spend wisely.

The only way to correct this is to put it in the CBA. The NHLPA will fight anything that significantly controls spending because they will see salary decreases.


If not a cap, how about putting a heavy fine on any team that loses money and their team salary is above the league average, say they are fined $10 for every $1 in losses. That way the owners that don't care about raising salaries and taking losses will need to think twice before doing that. If a team with a $70M payroll lost $30M and had to pay a $300M fine, they would get their spending down very quickly.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Russian Fan said:
NHLPA saw that 75% of that 224M$ was the loss of 6 NHL TEAMS

NYRangers , St-Louis, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, NYIslanders. I still dont know the 6th!

Great work, RF, top to bottom. I don't think the point can be emphasized enough. Some of the things you describe as incompetence may be a deliberate structure in the integrated company. It is common in the entertainment industry. The content loses money but the distribution of the content makes a ton. Almost every business is very complicated, impossible to sort out.

I don't know the source of the information in this case, but a source also told Larry Brooks that the Ranger's were the number one money loser. Goodenow is almost surely describing St. Louis as a second team as you pointed out. I also like New Jersey and the Islanders as members of the top six.

But Pittsburgh? How could the Penguin's lose a lot of money with that payroll? Insurance picked up the tab for Mario. The teams with small payrolls didn't lose a lot of money. The teams that lose money - however they do it - surely have winner's payrolls and loser's revenues. I'd put Washington in that group for sure, probably second to the Rangers.

The whole thing strains the credibility. The Blues lose money unless the players basically play for free? How can that be? The Rangers would lose money if their payroll was about $40 million? On the face of it it seems ridiculous.

Tom
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
djhn579 said:
That is the problem. Some of the owners just don't care. The rest of the owners have no choice but to try to remain competetive. If they don't try to remain competetive, they lose fans, then they lose their teams (bankruptcy).

Nonsense. Ottawa knew Bonk was going to ask for $4mil and probably get it, similarly Lalime. We lost them. Fans are cheering.

As long as there is nothing preventing all owners from spending unwisely, the owners that do spend wisely will need to try to keep up with the handfull of owners that don't spend wisely.

No, teams like Atlanta, Florida, Nashville, Tanpa Bay, Columbus dont have to keep up with the spending of rich teams. That is exactly the wrong strategy.

How can Tampa Bay compete against Colorado when they have $10mil Forsberg and Sakic? How can they compete if they cant buy a similar $10mil player? By developing their own cheaply, and paying for them only after they have earned all the extra playoff revenue.

You cant buy a champ. You have to grow one. You need a system that accomodates starting cheap and growing.

No matter what system, if you accumulate a lot of good players, you have to make choices. More so under a uniform team payroll cap.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
Russian Fan said:
NHLPA saw that 75% of that 224M$ was the loss of 6 NHL TEAMS

NYRangers , St-Louis, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, NYIslanders. I still dont know the 6th!

I would bet the 6th is either Florida, Carolina or Anaheim.

Red flag though should be thrown up. 4 of those teams are in the Atlantic division. Not the south, not the west, a division that is part of the bread and butter of the league. 3 of these teams won the Cup within the past 13 years.

The Blues have made the playoffs 24 straight years.


And people say the Flyers are one of the teams that ruin the league :innocent:
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Top Shelf said:
the NHL ... has the least restrictive CBA.

what ? the NHL restricts their players for the first 13 years of their career. how would you like the NBA style where after the 1st contract, players can leave for no compensation (other than the teams right to match) and then after that, players are completly unrestricted.

in the NHL, TBY will be able to keep LEcavalier for 13 years, Orlando couldnt keep Shaq in the NBA for more than what, 3 years ?

all TBY has to do to keep Vinnie for the first 5 years is offer him a 10% increase and there is nothing Vinnie can do about it except not play in the NHL. some choice huh.

the NHL CBA is the MOST restrictive in all the leagues, not the least.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
djhn579 said:
The rest of your post, I must admit, I did not bother reading. .

how rude... Russian Fan clearly has english as a second language and makes a HUGE effort to explain himself in great detail so that this issue can be debated from both sides and you slap him in the face by telling him you dont bother reading what he has to say ?

as far as i am concerned, until you apologize to him, i will make a great effort to ignore your posts on the issue. you dont deserve any more replies.

dr
 
Last edited:

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Would it be impolite (or straight up derisiveness) to say that any decent economist could obliterate these discussions we are having right now? I mean completely blow away many or all of the theoritical arguments currently taking place about the implications of these CBA negotiations and their possible impacts.

Not that some would actually acknowledge it, but that is unfortunately a fact that we have to endure here.

But the fates have somehow made a space for message boards. Long live the opinion, may it never die!
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Russian Fan said:
Where in my 1st post ? It's all about BAD MANAGEMENT, BAD ACCOUNTABILITY !!

I agree with you, and the first step that a good management will do is get a better CBA for the owners.

Unfortunately, the players can't have it both ways.

Also, by the way, when you invest money, you usually do so wanting a return on what you invest. The NHL, to be healthy, should make profits of $150M+ each year.

Besides, building a rink to increase revenues isn't so simple... First off, you need to pay for the rink. If you're in need of a rink to make profits, you probably don't have the money. Most rinks cost over $200M. Just the interests on the loan to cover that will be over $10M per year. Also, the rink won't last forever. If it is good for 40 years, that $5M in capital per year. Bigger rink = more maintenance, say $1M more. You have more seats to fill, more corporative boxes. You need a bigger/better marketing force, add $1M again. Projected revenues of $25M more probably are counting on maxing out the seats and the boxes, which might not happen (or the team may need to reduce the overall prices to fill the extra seats/boxes). So in the very best case scenario, you increase your financial situation by $8M with the new rink (and probably less since the figures I outlined are VERY conservative). Not that big of a boost, and that's if all conditions turn out for the best.

Btw, the players are playing with the numbers just as much as the owners are. 76% of the $224M net loss were made by 6 teams. However, the team that lost money lost an overall $273M. Which means that a total of 6 teams lost $170M and that the other teams (losing money) lost $103M. If that's 14 teams, it's an average of $7.36M per team, which means that they need to cut expanses by an average of $12M each to make a small return on equity of $5M each (which SHOULD be expected).

Lastly, I think that NHL fans should be wary that the teams making money are those who have lackluster teams (Minessota, Pittsburgh, Carolina, etc). If that's the way to go, then maybe we should become a North American league and leave the top international talent play in their country because our league isn't rich enough to pay for their services.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
x-bob said:
Great article!!!!!! :handclap:

That deal from the NHLPA doesn't sound that bad. :dunno:


"We offer a 5% paycut on every player that are having an NHL contract. This is a 108M$ that we give back to the owners. Also we proposed 5% taxe to every team that goes over 40M$."

I agree, just bump the 5% up to 50-100% and thats about right.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Russian Fan said:
Réjean Tremblay is a french editorialist. He's not the great hockey analyst when it's about the game but he's still one of the most respectful journalist when it comes to get to the source.

maybe it will put some light into the ignorance of the pro-owners or the pro-lockout of this world.

Good article but it passes no real judgement on whether the owners/players are good or bad.

The owners neglect one important aspect in that conflict. The players are educated & used to respect their leader & to sacrify themselves. It starts at 12 years old & they obey to the coach & follow their captain. Older, their are experienced & physical, the fight for their smaller teammated, they go in the corners to pass the puck to the talented players. So if their coach is Goodenow & their captains are Linden & Damphousse told them to fight, they will fight. That's how they made of.

All it tells us is the players are brainwashed from childhood to do as they are told and are very good at it.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
me2 said:
All it tells us is the players are brainwashed from childhood to do as they are told and are very good at it.

That very well may be, but the players are going to stick to their guns longer than the owners will. The NHL might lose less overall if they don't play, but there are a lot of teams that will lose more. Those owners will split from the hardline cap guys and the NHLPA will win, its just a matter of time.

Does anybody know of any pro sports labor impasse that the owners won? I'm guessing some NFL stikes, but I'm not too farmiliar with those. It seems like the players always win.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
DementedReality said:
how rude... Russian Fan clearly has english as a second language and makes a HUGE effort to explain himself in great detail so that this issue can be debated from both sides and you slap him in the face by telling him you dont bother reading what he has to say ?

as far as i am concerned, until you apologize to him, i will make a great effort to ignore your posts on the issue. you dont deserve any more replies.

dr

I don't see much point in apologizing since I'm just a naive socialist and utopian that can't figure out that just because teams lose money, it's not bad management on everyones part. There much more to it than that, but people like you and Russian Fan just don't want to believe that if teams walk away from arbitration rulings or refuse to pay players large amounts when they hold out, that teams will be hurt and even more money will be lost. That has been said time and time again, and has been seen with various teams (Boston, Buffalo are cheap and don't want to pay the price to win, even though paying that price will cause them to lose more money)

My not reading the rest of the post had nothing to do with how much effort he put into explaining his position, it has to do with it being a very long winded discussion with much the same points he has previously stated and still continueing to ignore many other fine points that others have made.

If it was just a simple matter of bad management decisions, I'm sure the best minds in hockey and the CEO's of mutibillion dollar corporations would be able to fix that on thier own. There is more to it than that, but you refuse to see that just because you want there to be hockey this season and you don't care if teams would not be competetive if they consistently walked away from arbitration awards or demands from the best players to be paid what others similar players are being paid, even if other teams don't care if they lose money.

The owners need something to protect themselves from other owners that don't give a dam about anything else. That has to be done in the CBA. The CBA must be agreed to with the players. The players will need to allow this change to happen, or teams will go bankrupt (if things are as bad as they say). Regardless, salaries will come down or jobs will be lost.

P.S. I'll apologize to Russian Fan when he apologizes for calling me naive, a socialist, and a utopian just because I have an opinion different from his. As for you, I have already been trying hard to ignore your posts, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this CBA - we will never see eye to eye on this.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
hockeytown9321 said:
That very well may be, but the players are going to stick to their guns longer than the owners will. The NHL might lose less overall if they don't play, but there are a lot of teams that will lose more. Those owners will split from the hardline cap guys and the NHLPA will win, its just a matter of time.

Does anybody know of any pro sports labor impasse that the owners won? I'm guessing some NFL stikes, but I'm not too farmiliar with those. It seems like the players always win.

For a CBA to be appoved by the owners, they need only 8 owners to agree to a CBA that Bettman recommends, and 16 or 17 owners to agree to a CBA that Bettman does not recommend. ~20 owners are currently losing money. That would make it virtually impossible for a CBA to be signed unless about 4 owners that are losing money can be convinced that the CBA has been changed enough to make them profitable. The players will certainly have to come much closer to what Bettman is asking for than they have yet for any agreement to be reached.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
djhn579 said:
P.S. I'll apologize to Russian Fan when he apologizes for calling me naive, a socialist, and a utopian just because I have an opinion different from his. As for you, I have already been trying hard to ignore your posts, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this CBA - we will never see eye to eye on this.

IMO, you have nothing to apologize about. You see a different view than RF (as well as myself) and that's what these boards are about - sharing views. I see no harm in disagreeing.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Top Shelf said:
IMO, you have nothing to apologize about. You see a different view than RF (as well as myself) and that's what these boards are about - sharing views. I see no harm in disagreeing.

he shouldnt apologize for disagreeing, he should apologize for slapping RF in the face by telling him his post wasnt worthy of readin, which is what he pretty much said.

dr
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
djhn579 said:
I don't see much point in apologizing since I'm just a naive socialist and utopian that can't figure out that just because teams lose money, it's not bad management on everyones part. There much more to it than that, but people like you and Russian Fan just don't want to believe that if teams walk away from arbitration rulings or refuse to pay players large amounts when they hold out, that teams will be hurt and even more money will be lost. That has been said time and time again, and has been seen with various teams (Boston, Buffalo are cheap and don't want to pay the price to win, even though paying that price will cause them to lose more money)

1st - I never ask you to apologize to me because we are disagreeing on the subject. What I think was direspectful was that I took the time to write something NOT TO DEFEND THE PLAYERS but to tell you LOGIC BUSINESS AVENUES. Thing that you don't just see because you are only related the expense to the players salaries without thinking if the franchises are doing ALL IT TAKES to maximize their revenues. I won't do it again to explain.

2nd - I sound like i'm on the players side but i'm not. I'm on the side that 99,9% of the owners & this is not about hockey franchises, lies about what they really make or loss. Just by reading the day to day newspapers or business magazines, you find all sorts of companies changing their mind, saying something completely the opposites of what they said weeks , months ago. This is the case in the NHL also with the Flyers claiming loss when they actually make some profits. Pittsburgh ownership whining they can't pay for their players but not say why they can't ? Because they have one of the worst league revenues from their arena & they are stuck in this arena for X years.

I'm not on the players side but what lies can they tell you ? Everything related to salaries are public notoriety so there's can't be lies.

This is not assumption but it's fact
Players revenues : Open to public, clear in the CBA that it need to be shared to the public.

Owners revenues : NOT OPEN to the public, Owners can decide that every concession stands are conditionnal to the arena which is not related to the hockey operations. Owners can decide that they own an AHL teams to develop their prospects but every AHL franchises revenue is not related to the NHL franchises but the AHL contract are usually paid by the NHL entity.

See I'm not talking about UFA's, RFA's, draft entry level. Simply about accountability & management.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
djhn579 said:
If it was just a simple matter of bad management decisions, I'm sure the best minds in hockey and the CEO's of mutibillion dollar corporations would be able to fix that on thier own. There is more to it than that, but you refuse to see that just because you want there to be hockey this season and you don't care if teams would not be competetive if they consistently walked away from arbitration awards or demands from the best players to be paid what others similar players are being paid, even if other teams don't care if they lose money.

What if for most owners, an NHL franchises is just a toy. They are rich & successfull & when they takeover the team all they want to do is having fun with it & winning. The team would just be a PR showing to show that they can afford a BIG TOY like an NHL team.

Also YOU NAILED IT , if the owners would have put their best managements staff like they did with their ''REAL'' companies, we wouldn't talk about the CBA because it would have been renewed.

RENEWED ARE YOU CRAZY RUSSIAN FAN ?

No i'm not, this CBA has 10 YEARS OLD & the owners in concert with the GM, starting reading it after 8 YEARS !!! Does that sound good management to you ? Does ot sound like the best MINDS of hockey was on it ?

For the first 8 YEARS of the actual CBA, not a single GM's thought about the advantages a franchise is having in that CBA. They start thinking about it when they were in a dangerous financial situations. Does that sound good management to you ? Does ot sound like the best MINDS of hockey was on it ?

While maybe this is where you can blame the PLAYERS for this but the NHLPA took what they had on their side & used it to get good contracts. THIS IS GOOD MANAGEMENTS, THIS IS GOOD ACCOUNTABILITY. NHLPA did their homework with the CBA starting in 1994 while the NHL owners/gm sleep on it until 2002 & manage their with business as usual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->