WHA resurrection

Status
Not open for further replies.

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
I would be very suprised if fans came out in numbers to support NHL players in the WHA or the WHA tournament unless they made at least a full year commitment to the league.

Fans are tired of supporting the current breed of NHL players both emotionally and financially only to get slapped in the face like they have done these past few months.

I say the tournament never takes place.
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
FLYLine4LIFE said:
The players are the product

I see this statement all the time and this appears to be the nhlpa's mentality as well.

How many others are involved in the product?

coaches
gm's
officials (on ice and off)
trainers
scouts
marketing staff
arena workers (ice, maintenance, etc.)
the vendors (tickets, concessions, etc.)
announcers

Alot of these people are out of work right now.

and then there are all of the other people that have helped players make it to the NHL

coaches
volunteers
families billeting players
moms and dads

and countless others I haven't mentioned. Listen to a player make their hall of fame speech next time and the long list of people that they thank.

'The players are the game' is a statement which is an insult to everyone else involved in the game right down to the player's family, in my honest opinion.
 
Last edited:

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The "game" is the product. The players "play" the game, but as so eloquently pointed out by another poster, are just one cog in the production of the game. The players come and go, but the game remains. All the NHLPA members could go over the cliff (they are pretty well there now as it is) and the they could all be replaced in a heartbeat. The fans would soon forget the players of recent memory as new players become stars and fan favorites. Stardom is granted by the fans, not earned by the player. Fans will happily find new stars. The NHLPA players will sadly find new jobs.
 

X8oD

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,619
138
612 Warf Ave.
FLYLine4LIFE said:
Im pretty sure our Taxes go to the garbage mans paycheck.

no, our taxes goto the government, which divies them off on various expenses.

we, as consumers cannot say "we do no tlike the actions of our garbage man, there for we refuse to pay taxes"

but we, as fans, can say "We do not like the money grubbing players who wear my teams jersey only because they paid him the most, im not going to goto thier games"
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
FLYLine4LIFE said:
Im pretty sure our Taxes go to the garbage mans paycheck.
Mine don't. My city is not in the garbage collection business. I pay a private company to pick up my trash and I have a choice of 4 or 5 different companies. Competition keeps the price down.
 

CoolburnIsGone

Guest
vadardog said:
Weary what you don't understand is that NHL clubs only compete on the ice. They are not competing in business. The NHL essentially is one business not 30. People go to the games in their home town, its not like they are deciding weather to go to MacDonalds or Burger King down the block. Because of this the teams have different budgets. I kind of wish the owners would sell the entire NHL to one entity so that they could just call each franchise a branch of the business and tell each branch manager that they have 30 million to work with. Thats what most companies do. Then NHL teams could get back to competing fairly on the ice instead of stealing each others players.

An unrestricted free agent system could work if all the teams had the same revenue, but they don't. Now one could argue that the owners should revenue share, but why should they.
In my company, we have over 40 branches but not all 40 branches take in the same amount of revenue partially due to their locations. As a result, the branches that make $30 million/year in revenue have higher expenses (most expensive are employee costs) than the branches that make $15 million/year in revenue. Maybe we're not most companies but we are the largest company in the US in our sector. But the NHL would be in the same type of boat. A few "branches" would be making more revenue but you want them to only spend the same amount. I have no problem where its a single entity (that would be better for the sport and particularly in marketing the game correctly) because then the revenue would go to one place and the single entity could set budgets for each branches yearly expenses based on the revenue. Thus you would have built-in revenue sharing and salary limitations as a result of having a single entity. The part that everyone would get pissed about is the salary limitations wouldn't be the same across the board...not every team would have the same budget for salaries.
 

Mr Sakich

Registered User
Mar 8, 2002
9,641
1,279
Motel 35
vimeo.com
me2 said:
The owners have admitted a problem, accepted responsibility and are now correcting it.



The players aren't doing anything but taking money. How are the players correcting it? They aren't.

The owners are a fat guy with an admitted overeating problem.

The players are a McDonalds restaurant who milk the fat guy for all of his money and don't care about his health in doing so.

The fat guy finally does something about being obese and goes on a healthy diet and gets some exercise and less of his money goes to McDonalds.

Saying the responsbility for correcting it to falls upon the players is like saying the responsbility for correcting the fat guys diet is falling upon the McDonalds. Its does not. The owners, just like the fat guy are correcting themselves.

the problem is that the owners can't fix the problem without the union's consent, it is called collusion. MacDonalds has to approve any diet the owners dream up.
 

puckhead42

Registered User
Dec 27, 2004
4
0
O.K.......lets say the NHL players and owners dont come to an agreement before next season......the players now have an alternative.....the WHA with no salary cap......yes this is just a tournament.....will it make NHL owners take notice and think...hey...these guys might be serious?....I dont side with either on this issue....I just feel dumped on after spending hard earned dough on games merchandise etc. over the years ....one thing though...if im a garbage collector, sandwich maker or whatever...if the company down the street will pay me more...thats where Im going.....IMO ;)
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
puckhead42 said:
O.K.......lets say the NHL players and owners dont come to an agreement before next season......the players now have an alternative.....the WHA with no salary cap......yes this is just a tournament.....will it make NHL owners take notice and think...hey...these guys might be serious?....I dont side with either on this issue....I just feel dumped on after spending hard earned dough on games merchandise etc. over the years ....one thing though...if im a garbage collector, sandwich maker or whatever...if the company down the street will pay me more...thats where Im going.....IMO ;)

The WHA (the latest incarnation, anyway) won't be going head-to-head with the NHL, but they certainly can be a significant burr in the saddle to the way things are done in the business.

The original WHA's raiding of NHL stars like Bobby Hull and Gerry Cheevers helped them more than hurt the NHL. The NHL just kept ticking along like nothing happened. What hurt the NHL (and accelerated the WHA-NHL merger) was the upstart league's latter-day strategy of snapping up the yearly crops of junior stars; the Gretzkys, the Messiers, the Ramages, etc.

The new WHA would certainly be wiser to adopt this strategy. Especially, when the NHL has a rookie salary cap and AHL salaries being what they are.
 
Last edited:

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,461
2,512
Edmonton
when

FLYLine4LIFE said:
Does the garbage man say...I clean up the trash to make everyone happy there streets dont smell of crap" No he saids he cleans up the trash to get his paycheck. Does the deli worker say..I do my job because I love to see the happy faces on the customers faces when they walk out with some meat? No..they do there job for the paycheck(though im sure people do there jobs for reasons like that...example a Police officer). You people find any little thing and jump down the players throat...funny how you didnt mention this line: " "People are dying to see some hockey in Canada." Right there hes talking about the fans..but you left that out. If your going to post something post ALL the facts not just the ones you want people to read. And BTW..even if he didnt say we want to put money back into the players and said..."We are doing this just for the fans...you would have jumped down his throat and said..BS! BS!" What a liar!...but when he tells the truth you still yell and scream. So sad.

hes getting 1.8million a year to clean up the trash, he says its for the fans.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
puckhead42 said:
O.K.......lets say the NHL players and owners dont come to an agreement before next season......the players now have an alternative.....the WHA with no salary cap......yes this is just a tournament.....will it make NHL owners take notice and think...hey...these guys might be serious?....I dont side with either on this issue....I just feel dumped on after spending hard earned dough on games merchandise etc. over the years ....one thing though...if im a garbage collector, sandwich maker or whatever...if the company down the street will pay me more...thats where Im going.....IMO ;)


Unfortunately the players don't see things as clearly as you. The NHL pays many times market value yet the players refuse to work for 10 times as much pay as the guy down the street is offering. They passed up 55% of $2.1B and $42.5m unlinked to go work for market value of $100K per player in Europe. :dunno:
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Crosbyfan said:
The Fatties are being accused of dieting collusion. This may force them back to the "table" to eat in good faith.


The fatties may legally collude during negotiations. Maybe McGoodenows will lower its demand that the fatties buy only their product and pay 10x market value? Maybe McGoodenows will deal in good faith instead of delaying and wasting time. Maybe McGoodenows with settle for 7x market value?
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,815
10,380
Charlotte, NC
me2 said:
Unfortunately the players don't see things as clearly as you. The NHL pays many times market value yet the players refuse to work for 10 times as much pay as the guy down the street is offering. They passed up 55% of $2.1B and $42.5m unlinked to go work for market value of $100K per player in Europe. :dunno:

This argument never fails to make me chuckle. People cried when they union offered the rollback because it wasn't a long-term fix.. but they expect the players to go for the short-term money everytime. You think that the players consider their current lesser salaries to be permanent? They are thinking short term for their salary in Europe, long term for the NHL. If the owners you support are willing to take a hit this season to try to get their system, how do you criticize the players for doing the same?

The players are not going to play under a system that hurts them in the long run and they're trying to force the owners into not having a detrimental system. In the meantime, they still have to earn a living and if it's for 100k in Europe, that's much more than they'd make not playing at all. Again, this is temporary money coming in. I don't see you criticizing Melnyk for making his money in pharmecuticals or Dolan for making money with Cablevision while his hockey team isn't in business.
 

vadardog

Registered User
May 29, 2004
53
0
Coolburn said:
In my company, we have over 40 branches but not all 40 branches take in the same amount of revenue partially due to their locations. As a result, the branches that make $30 million/year in revenue have higher expenses (most expensive are employee costs) than the branches that make $15 million/year in revenue. Maybe we're not most companies but we are the largest company in the US in our sector. But the NHL would be in the same type of boat. A few "branches" would be making more revenue but you want them to only spend the same amount. I have no problem where its a single entity (that would be better for the sport and particularly in marketing the game correctly) because then the revenue would go to one place and the single entity could set budgets for each branches yearly expenses based on the revenue. Thus you would have built-in revenue sharing and salary limitations as a result of having a single entity. The part that everyone would get pissed about is the salary limitations wouldn't be the same across the board...not every team would have the same budget for salaries.

But in your company it doesn't hurt Branch A's revenue or product if Branch B spends alot does it. If Branch B's spending made Branch A unprofitable they would close Branch A. It hurts Nashville when the NYR spend 70+ million, they can't compete. You can make an arguement that their are too many teams. But if you went to a completely free agent system the league would eventually be 8 to 10 teams. Thats not good for players, owners or fans. There needs to be restrictions on salaries or significant revenue sharing. My last post detailed why I think restrictions (Linkage being the best idea) on salaries is more fair. Lets see players share revenue or take a loss if they are stinking.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,428
29,169
St. OILbert, AB
Tawnos said:
This argument never fails to make me chuckle. People cried when they union offered the rollback because it wasn't a long-term fix.. but they expect the players to go for the short-term money everytime. You think that the players consider their current lesser salaries to be permanent? They are thinking short term for their salary in Europe, long term for the NHL. If the owners you support are willing to take a hit this season to try to get their system, how do you criticize the players for doing the same?

The players are not going to play under a system that hurts them in the long run and they're trying to force the owners into not having a detrimental system. In the meantime, they still have to earn a living and if it's for 100k in Europe, that's much more than they'd make not playing at all. Again, this is temporary money coming in. I don't see you criticizing Melnyk for making his money in pharmecuticals or Dolan for making money with Cablevision while his hockey team isn't in business.

how is being a scab in Europe helping the cause? the owners are trying to get salaries under control because the game is in trouble.

The players want somewhat the same system as before with some rollbacks. And how is the owners system detrimental to the players? they'll still make 1.3mil
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,815
10,380
Charlotte, NC
Well for one, everything is relative. You see 1.3m as a high number, but the players don't, nor should they. It's not even a quarter of many players salaries. That's called detrimental, any way you slice it.

The players offers were not the same system as before... and the players were the only ones making concessions until 3 days before the cancellation. The disagreement doesn't come from one side not wanting to fix the limping game, the disagreement comes with how to go about it. Owner fanboys never seem to get that.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Tawnos said:
This argument never fails to make me chuckle. People cried when they union offered the rollback because it wasn't a long-term fix.. but they expect the players to go for the short-term money everytime. You think that the players consider their current lesser salaries to be permanent? They are thinking short term for their salary in Europe, long term for the NHL. If the owners you support are willing to take a hit this season to try to get their system, how do you criticize the players for doing the same?

He said he'd go to the employer paying the most money. The NHL offered the most money. He clearly thinks differently from the players.

The players are not going to play under a system that hurts them in the long run and they're trying to force the owners into not having a detrimental system. In the meantime, they still have to earn a living and if it's for 100k in Europe, that's much more than they'd make not playing at all. Again, this is temporary money coming in. I don't see you criticizing Melnyk for making his money in pharmecuticals or Dolan for making money with Cablevision while his hockey team isn't in business.

I thought Goodenow was all about market value. What is the market value of these players? $100K/year as show by what they could earn this year? They are being offer 10x market value and yet they refuse to accept.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
eye said:
I say the tournament never takes place.

No, I think it'll take place.

It'll be a massive failure though. Empty stands, they'll lose a bundle with the guaranteed money they're promising.

Tawnos said:
This argument never fails to make me chuckle. People cried when they union offered the rollback because it wasn't a long-term fix.. but they expect the players to go for the short-term money everytime.

The problem with your theory is there is no such thing as "short term money" and "long term money" for the players in this. Especially now, with $1.5 billion dollars of the players money down the toilet.

The next CBA, even if it's better than the offers the players refused already, will *not* be $1.5 billion better for the players over the duration of the contract.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,428
29,169
St. OILbert, AB
Tawnos said:
Well for one, everything is relative. You see 1.3m as a high number, but the players don't, nor should they. It's not even a quarter of many players salaries. That's called detrimental, any way you slice it.
ok, so a player making 800,000 is making 750,000...if it stops the bleeding, couldn't the players be happy. I mean, they say its for the love of the game right?maybe at the right price...

Tawnos said:
The players offers were not the same system as before... and the players were the only ones making concessions until 3 days before the cancellation. The disagreement doesn't come from one side not wanting to fix the limping game, the disagreement comes with how to go about it. Owner fanboys never seem to get that.
the players were the only ones making concessions? what are talking about? both sides wouldn't get off their stances until 3 days before the cancellation...
one side is dictating this lockout yes, but this is their league and they're tired of losing money...Goodnow refuses to believe their in big trouble...I think cancelling the season should show the PA that their serious

guess what Bob, anyway you slice the pie, it's gonna be small...whose got more to lose here?
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
e-townchamps said:
the players were the only ones making concessions? what are talking about? both sides wouldn't get off their stances until 3 days before the cancellation...
The players offered the 24% rollback, teams allowed to call for arbitration, a hard cap on entry level contracts, and a rework of the qualifying offer system.

The owners conceded nothing that even came close to that.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,428
29,169
St. OILbert, AB
Weary said:
The players offered the 24% rollback, teams allowed to call for arbitration, a hard cap on entry level contracts, and a rework of the qualifying offer system.

The owners conceded nothing that even came close to that.

again, how does this stop the bleeding? nothing here that limits the top 6 owners from their own stupidity and raising market value...it's like a band-aid for a severed leg
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
e-townchamps said:
again, how does this stop the bleeding? nothing here that limits the top 6 owners from their own stupidity and raising market value...it's like a band-aid for a severed leg
To stop that requires no concessions from the players. The owners should take all "defined hockey revenues," put them in a big pile, and split it thirty ways.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,428
29,169
St. OILbert, AB
Weary said:
To stop that requires no concessions from the players. The owners should take all "defined hockey revenues," put them in a big pile, and split it thirty ways.
I agree that there should be revenue sharing, it gives my Oilers a better chance at signing free agents. We can certainly live with a 45 mil cap with revenue sharing but teams like Philly and Toronto will not share with the poorer teams.

Unfortunatly that ship has sailed and the "linked" cap will be more like 35 mil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->