why am i against a cap ?

[thinkwild]

Edmonton is such a great investment they have 37 people who invested in it. Hardly an owner shortage.

 

[dawgbone]

Edmonton is such a great investment they have 37 people who invested in it. Hardly an owner shortage.

If it was such a great investment, one of the true Alberta billionaires would have invested in the team solely, in order to make this great investment their's exclusively.

The fact it took until the 11th hour to keep the team in Edmonton speaks volumes of how wrong you really are.

The fact that the Oilers will be solid if there isn't a new CBA condusive to helping small market franchises speaks volumes to how long the 37 owners think this investment will show a decent return.

The Oilers make money because they practically sell out the building, and they have a low payroll... if the roster turnover continues on and on, it becomes less and less likely that they will continue to have 98% capacity if the team continually is a 7-9th place team.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The Oilers make money because they practically sell out the building, and they have a low payroll... if the roster turnover continues on and on, it becomes less and less likely that they will continue to have 98% capacity if the team continually is a 7-9th place team.

Since the Oilers make money they would be idiotic to sell on an "if" and a "becomes less and less likely" instead of the reality. Why wouldn't they wait until the fans actually do bail on them and they start losing money? Why would they fold before that?

Relocation? Relocation won't improve the team. Where can they go where they will get 98% attendance with a 7-9th place team? And the fact is that if there is a better spot for an NHL franchise, the Oilers will move. A new CBA won't change that. A new CBA affects all teams. The Kansas City Oilers would gain as much from from lower salaries in a new CBA as the Edmonton Oilers. If the grass is greener there under the old CBA, it would be greener under the new CBA.

Tom

 

[dawgbone]

Since the Oilers make money they would be idiotic to sell on an "if" and a "becomes less and less likely" instead of the reality. Why wouldn't they wait until the fans actually do bail on them and they start losing money? Why would they fold before that?

No they wouldn't. It's only idiotic to sell once the business venture starts losing money? Gee, I'd figure that if you could realistically predict that it would start losing money in the near future, you'd be better off selling while you could.

The Oilers make most of their money through gate receipts (like most teams)... if people stop coming to the games, it's a guarantee they will lose revenues. The EIG is insanely close to even the average seasons ticket holder, and has a pretty good grasp of what they are thinking.

If the future is mediocrity and the continual loss of the teams best players, the fans aren't going to keep coming. The EIG knows this.

Relocation? Relocation won't improve the team. Where can they go where they will get 98% attendance with a 7-9th place team? And the fact is that if there is a better spot for an NHL franchise, the Oilers will move. A new CBA won't change that. A new CBA affects all teams. The Kansas City Oilers would gain as much from from lower salaries in a new CBA as the Edmonton Oilers. If the grass is greener there under the old CBA, it would be greener under the new CBA.

Tom

But the owners would have to want to move the team... which you are ignoring. The EIG came together to buy the Oilers to A). Keep the Oilers in Edmonton, and B). Make some money. If it was just B, the team would have been sold forever ago.

Seeing it's A and B, it's irrelevant what the Kansas City Oilers would do, because the team won't move there if it gets an agreement in their favour. Regardless of whether or not there is a better spot for the franchise is irrelevant, because for the time being the EIG wants it in Edmonton. The grass may have been greener, but for the time being, they could keep the team in Edmonton and make some money off of it. Greener grass has nothing to do with it.

As I said, the goal was 2-fold... keep the team in Edmonton, and make some money. If the team can do A, and a even a little of B, it's going to stay. If the team can do A without doing B, it isn't going to stay.

 

[helicecopter]

I'd rather the NHL without the cap for three reasons:

1-it's (at least theoretically) unfair, because it would penalize an eventual perfect drafting team. In the eventuality a team enjoys a couple of outstanding drafts, a cap would prevent it from building a deserved leadership and would force it to trade some of the best players for an under-the market value to stay under the cap. For example the Oilers could have not do what they did.

2-No one can assure me every team will really respect a cap. And the cap, as a limitation difficult to check, will encourage illegal moves.

3-As Demented Reality said, i FEAR a cap would mean a substantially younger age for UFA. Without the cap the UFA age would probably get younger nonetheless, but one thing is one year younger, another one is a three or four years younger age. I would HATE a UFA age younger than 30.


Even if they suck, i could live with the first two consequences. What i could not stand is an UFA age of 28,27 or an even younger one that would seriously hurt the importance of the draft and the chances to build teams on long terms. That would probably result in at least one less real NHL fan.


Personally what i would like is a LARGE minimum fee, PROPORTIONAL to the new offered contract, to be paid to the owner team if the dealt player is not an UFA. It would be in addition to the players offered WHENEVER the owner team is not satisfied with the players they would got. That would assure the owner team to receive at least that large fee whenever they can’t get the players they like in exchange (for example Washington should have paid huge money, not some money, to Pittsburgh along with those prospects to get Jagr). And that would mean richest teams would have to give some of the big money to poor teams instead of to the players, so they could afford to offer lower contracts to the players they want and these players would be more satisfied with their current contracts.

 

[dawgbone]

I'd rather the NHL without the cap for three reasons:

1-it's (at least theoretically) unfair, because it would penalize an eventual perfect drafting team. In the eventuality a team enjoys a couple of outstanding drafts, a cap would prevent it from building a deserved leadership and would force it to trade some of the best players for an under-the market value to stay under the cap. For example the Oilers could have not do what they did.

The exact same thing happens now anyways. You could draft perfectly and the salary structure of the league could force it to trade it's best players for under market value because only a few teams can sign the player for the money they want, as well as said player wanting to sign there. Do you think the Oilers could have done what they did in this economic system?

2-No one can assure me every team will really respect a cap. And the cap, as a limitation difficult to check, will encourage illegal moves.

Then you put insanely heavy fines in place for the player, the team, the agent and the NHLPA (if they are aware of the infraction). You nail these guys with heavy fines, or worse, and it will be very rare. I am not sure how many illegal moves are made in the NFL or NBA... but I'll guess not many, and they can't be very drastic.

3-As Demented Reality said, i FEAR a cap would mean a substantially younger age for UFA. Without the cap the UFA age would probably get younger nonetheless, but one thing is one year younger, another one is a three or four years younger age. I would HATE a UFA age younger than 30.

Even if they suck, i could live with the first two consequences. What i could not stand is an UFA age of 28,27 or an even younger one that would seriously hurt the importance of the draft and the chances to build teams on long terms. That would probably result in at least one less real NHL fan.

Not at all. Just because a player is a free agent at 27 it doesn't mean he is going anywhere. UFA's go where the money is, and if everything is capped, chances are there isn't going to be enough money laying around for all kinds of free agents to move around all over the place.

Look at Basketball... yes they have a lot of free agent movement, but not significantly more than Hockey does... and they have free agency well before 27.

Personally what i would like is a LARGE minimum fee, PROPORTIONAL to the new offered contract, to be paid to the owner team if the dealt player is not an UFA. It would be in addition to the players offered WHENEVER the owner team is not satisfied with the players they would got. That would assure the owner team to receive at least that large fee whenever they can’t get the players they like in exchange (for example Washington should have paid huge money, not some money, to Pittsburgh along with those prospects to get Jagr). And that would mean richest teams would have to give some of the big money to poor teams instead of to the players, so they could afford to offer lower contracts to the players they want and these players would be more satisfied with their current contracts.

I don't think that would work at all... now instead of 3 or 4 prospects in return for Jagr, the Pens get nothing because no one wants to fork over a % of the money they just signed the guy they traded for. They suck it up for a year and wait till he becomes a UFA, thereby really messing the Penguins up.

The problem with your theory is 2-fold... if the monetary value is too low, it doesn't change anything. If it's too high, no team will do it leaving teams stuck with soon to be UFA's with no return in sight. Or teams sign these guys to a one year deal, then sign him to an extension, thereby completely circumventing it.

Your solution is simply a bandaid... and not a very good one. The money you are talking about isn't enough to do anything.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

No they wouldn't. It's only idiotic to sell once the business venture starts losing money? Gee, I'd figure that if you could realistically predict that it would start losing money in the near future, you'd be better off selling while you could.

I wouldn't have any faith in Oiler fans either but I still wouldn't bail until the handwriting was on the wall. Maybe the Oiler ownership doesn't think much of the fanbase either. When do you figure Oiler fans will quit going to the games?

If they do stop, nobody will be able to complain if they fold, will they? Where else is the team threatened because the fans are about to stop coming to the games? At some point. In the future. Maybe.

As I said, the goal was 2-fold... keep the team in Edmonton, and make some money. If the team can do A, and a even a little of B, it's going to stay. If the team can do A without doing B, it isn't going to stay.

Do you ever doubt anything that the Oiler owners say? Ever? Didn't Aubut say exactly the same thing in Quebec?

Oh, and did you catch Healy on TSN last night? The players apparently went through the team by team reports that make up the league"s URO. Five of the six most profitable teams were Canadian last season. And the Oilers made money. So much for Bettman's claim that this dispute is about saving small market teams in Canada, eh?

I hope you are right and Edmonton folds but I think I will be disappointed no matter what CBA they eventually sign.

Tom

 

[helicecopter]

The exact same thing happens now anyways. You could draft perfectly and the salary structure of the league could force it to trade it's best players for under market value because only a few teams can sign the player for the money they want, as well as said player wanting to sign there. Do you think the Oilers could have done what they did in this economic system?

Right! That's why i would like a new CBA that improves things instead of fixing as legal the same things i hate now.

Now i'm leaving so i will answer the other points tomorrow....

 

[dawgbone]

I wouldn't have any faith in Oiler fans either but I still wouldn't bail until the handwriting was on the wall. Maybe the Oiler ownership doesn't think much of the fanbase either. When do you figure Oiler fans will quit going to the games?

Man you are ignorant. The handwriting is on the wall. The ticket prices are about as high as the market in Edmonton can handle, while current NHL salaries are showing no signs for reaching a peak.

Guess what that means? The Oilers are only going to be able to max out their payroll at $35-38 mil (with a good cdn $, and still making some money). With the current meteoric rise (with no slowdown in sight) of salaries, that $35-38 million is going to be able to afford less and less quality NHL talent.

How long do you expect fans in a city to pay to watch a team not go anywhere year after year?

If they do stop, nobody will be able to complain if they fold, will they? Where else is the team threatened because the fans are about to stop coming to the games? At some point. In the future. Maybe.

It's called using common sense... try it. The current league economics are not condusive to a team like Edmonton building up their franchise and competing for any length of time. We've seen it once, when Guerin, Cujo, Weight, etc... were all dealt because of economics. How long do you sit and wait, expecting fans to come out to a team who loses it's best players year after year, while continually spinning it's wheels. The fans have been coming out because they are waiting for something to allow their team a chance to compete with the Leafs, and Avalanche. If that doesn't happen, are they going to sellout 98% of the building? No, of course not. Why do you watch your team play? To be entertained and for them to win. If your team will never be able to win (the odd cinderella season aside), why would you continue to pay high prices (for your market) to do so?

No, of couse you wouldn't.

So the Oilers either need to either lower their ticket prices, or play in front of 15k fans, then 14k, etc... which means their revenue drops, which means their max payroll drops, which means their ability to keep their star players drops, which means the team gets worse, which means less fans go to the game. The problem is, in Edmonton, there won't be a way out of that spiral.

Do you ever doubt anything that the Oiler owners say? Ever? Didn't Aubut say exactly the same thing in Quebec?

Oh, and did you catch Healy on TSN last night? The players apparently went through the team by team reports that make up the league"s URO. Five of the six most profitable teams were Canadian last season. And the Oilers made money. So much for Bettman's claim that this dispute is about saving small market teams in Canada, eh?

Once again... ignorance must be a way of life for you. I know the Oilers made money last year... and as for 5 of the 6 Canadian teams being the most profitable, if you are getting your information from Healy, you are an idiot (duh duh ... even with a $31mil cap 10 team still lose money... duh duh, I goalie, I make save...).

The Oilers made about $3mil last season... Calgary didn't make much more than that (despite their cup run). So if $4million is one of the 6 most profitable showings, isn't that a sign something is wrong?

Yes the Oilers made money, but it's because they are well run. They have a fantastic marketing team, an ownership in touch with the community, they have maximized their revenue, and they spend within their means. And they still have lost one of their top 3 scorers every year since 1999 because of finances. Just because they are well run and live within their means doesn't mean they don't need help. To expect a team who has essentially maximized it's revenues to compete in a league where salary is rising at an incredible speed is just ridiculous. And to expect fans in a city to continue to maximize the revenues while watching a 7th-9th place team for the next 10 years is simply ridiculous, especially when the fan base knows there is little to no hope.

It's not wrong for fans to want a winning team... and it doesn't make the fans less loyal to no longer support a team that is stuck in a league that only supports the rich. Look at baseball... America's pass-time... struggling in a lot of major markets (even traditional baseball markets), because fans know if you aren't a Red Sock or a Yankee in the American League, you aren't anything.

I hope you are right and Edmonton folds but I think I will be disappointed no matter what CBA they eventually sign.

Tom

I didn't say fold, did I?

And I hope you are disappointed, and I hope it pisses you off so much you never watch another game again... just as long as it puts a stop to your whining.

Funny you should talk about Oiler fans whining... the Canucks did their fair share in the mid-late 90's too... but I guess you weren't part of that.

It doesn't matter, they still won't win a cup.

 

[Seachd]

I don't apolgise for calling Oiler fans the biggest whiners in the league. Contraction would be great just to stop the caterwauling. It's embarrasing to the real Canadian hockey fans.

For someone who seems to be at least a little intelligent, you sure make some odd, ignorant, and classless comments.

Anyway, it's quite obvious who the biggest whiners in the leauge are: the players.

 

[YellHockey*]

For someone who seems to be at least a little intelligent, you sure make some odd, ignorant, and classless comments.

Anyway, it's quite obvious who the biggest whiners in the leauge are: the players.

The players have nothing on the whining from Alberta.

 

[Seachd]

The players have nothing on the whining from Alberta.

If you want to think that way, fine. But just remember the "whining" from Alberta is coming from fans who want to watch their NHL teams, and pay good money to do so.

The players are whining because their multi-million dollar salaries aren't enough, and aren't willing to give up a small percentage of it. Not for the fans, not for the Cup, not for the sport, not for anything.

It's disappointing to see you feel that way too.

 

[dawgbone]

The players have nothing on the whining from Alberta.

Which isn't even comparable to the crap that comes out of the Nations Capital...

 

[dawgbone]

For someone who seems to be at least a little intelligent, you sure make some odd, ignorant, and classless comments.

Anyway, it's quite obvious who the biggest whiners in the leauge are: the players.

He's a Nucks fan... have you ever met one that didn't have a hard-on hatred for the Oilers?

 

[YellHockey*]

If you want to think that way, fine. But just remember the "whining" from Alberta is coming from fans who want to watch their NHL teams, and pay good money to do so.

And the fans in other NHL cities don't?

How come the majority of people whining about the unfairness of the old CBA are from Alberta?

The only other place that seems to whine about the state of the NHL as much as Alberta is Winnipeg and at least they have a reason to be bitter.

The players are whining because their multi-million dollar salaries aren't enough, and aren't willing to give up a small percentage of it. Not for the fans, not for the Cup, not for the sport, not for anything.

That's a statement that even Bettman would have a hard time keeping a straight face while saying it.

The players aren't asking for any guarantees other then having an artificial limit placed on what they can collectively earn. They've shown a willingness to deal except on one key issue. The owners have decided to issue ultimatums instead.

The owners want an idiot-proof system. Why can't they just get rid of the idiots instead and let the game be played?

 

[YellHockey*]

Which isn't even comparable to the crap that comes out of the Nations Capital...

Yeah... but most of that crap is from politicians from Quebec or the GTA.

 

[windowlicker]

And the fans in other NHL cities don't?

How come the majority of people whining about the unfairness of the old CBA are from Alberta?

The only other place that seems to whine about the state of the NHL as much as Alberta is Winnipeg and at least they have a reason to be bitter.



That's a statement that even Bettman would have a hard time keeping a straight face while saying it.

The players aren't asking for any guarantees other then having an artificial limit placed on what they can collectively earn. They've shown a willingness to deal except on one key issue. The owners have decided to issue ultimatums instead.

The owners want an idiot-proof system. Why can't they just get rid of the idiots instead and let the game be played?

Hypothetical question: The NHLPA walks away from this lockout with an outright win. What positive changes would an NHLPA win bring to the NHL?

 

[Seachd]

And the fans in other NHL cities don't?

How come the majority of people whining about the unfairness of the old CBA are from Alberta?

Last I checked, the Rangers aren't one more bad CBA away from losing their team. That much should be obvious.

That's a statement that even Bettman would have a hard time keeping a straight face while saying it.

The players aren't asking for any guarantees other then having an artificial limit placed on what they can collectively earn. They've shown a willingness to deal except on one key issue. The owners have decided to issue ultimatums instead.

The owners want an idiot-proof system. Why can't they just get rid of the idiots instead and let the game be played?

The players have shot down not only a cap, but the other 5 proposals put forward by the league. They've shot down non-guaranteed contracts. They've shot down any connection between revenue and salaries, which is ridiculous. If they put a product on the ice that would bring in more revenue, maybe they can keep their outlandish salaries. But no, that wouldn't happen, because it would mean the players' salaries wouldn't be able to climb exponentially in the future. So I guess that's out.

Players are in it for greed. The league's in it to keep its head above water. The players will be in for a giant surprise since they've now created the potential to earn next to nothing in the next few years. And I don't feel sorry for them in the least.

 

[dawgbone]

Yeah... but most of that crap is from politicians from Quebec or the GTA.

Actually, I meant from sens fans everytime they get their rears handed to them by the Leafs in the playoffs.

 

[dawgbone]

And the fans in other NHL cities don't?

How come the majority of people whining about the unfairness of the old CBA are from Alberta?

The only other place that seems to whine about the state of the NHL as much as Alberta is Winnipeg and at least they have a reason to be bitter.

A). You're wrong. I live in Toronto, and I hear a tonne of complaints from fans of all kinds of teams about the state of the CBA.

Alberta doesn't have enough people for them to be the majority of the whiners! It may be true on here, but look at the popularity of the Oilers board at this site!

That's a statement that even Bettman would have a hard time keeping a straight face while saying it.

The players aren't asking for any guarantees other then having an artificial limit placed on what they can collectively earn. They've shown a willingness to deal except on one key issue. The owners have decided to issue ultimatums instead.

And that is the key issue. The owners want to tie expenses to revenues, and the players don't want that.

Why?

Because they won't make as much money as they are now. That is the sole reason. They want money, and they don't care how they get it.

They don't want an average Salary of $1.3 million, the want $1.8 million or more.

They don't care if your favorite team exists, as long as they make money.

The owners want an idiot-proof system. Why can't they just get rid of the idiots instead and let the game be played?

Because these so called idiots invested millions of dollars... and most of these idiots aren't idiots because they don't know how to count... they are trying to compete on the ice and in the bank with teams who bring in significantly more revenue than they do.

These idiot owners are the only reason the NHL isn't in the same boat as MLB... sure playoffs are exciting, but god is that 162 game season terribly boring! Of course playoffs are exciting... you've got the best teams playing against each other! But during the season, the best teams, who have most of the talent, are beating up on the weak sisters all year long... each of the top teams has maybe 40 meaningful games all season long.

 

[YellHockey*]

Hypothetical question: The NHLPA walks away from this lockout with an outright win. What positive changes would an NHLPA win bring to the NHL?

Positive changes? Not much. But I don't think there's much wrong with the previous CBA for the fan.

I don't have a financial interest in the league so I don't really care about the owners' cries of poverty. There's nothing that suggests the league is really that bad off financially when there are plenty of people who still seem to want to buy into the league.

I'm more worried about negative changes that can happen if the owners get what they want. I'm not so concerned about the players winning as I am concerned about the owners getting their way.

Right now the league is in a pretty good state because every team has a chance to win if they are well run. It might take several years of excellent management to get there but it can be done by every team in the league. The big markets cannot dominate the league by spending their way to a championship. Teams that do well are able to keep their core player together for a lengthy period of time and there isn't heavy player movement in the league.

But if the owners move away from the present system we could have a situation where certain markets, through no fault of their own, can't compete with other markets. Or there could a situation where big markets dominate the smaller markets. Or rosters could see over 50% turnover each year.

It just seems to me that the owners are selling false hope to a lot of fans. They want the fans to think that a new CBA will bring them lower ticket prices and a Stanley Cup for their team. But neither one of those things are going to change with a radically different CBA.

 

[YellHockey*]

Actually, I meant from sens fans everytime they get their rears handed to them by the Leafs in the playoffs.

When have you heard Sens fans claim that the Leafs beat them in the playoffs because of the CBA?

The Leafs victories have been a result of luck more then anything to do with the CBA.

 

[YellHockey*]

Last I checked, the Rangers aren't one more bad CBA away from losing their team. That much should be obvious.

Why aren't Rangers fans afraid of losing their team? After all, according to reports, the Rangers lost more money then anyone in the NHL last year.

 

[dawgbone]

When have you heard Sens fans claim that the Leafs beat them in the playoffs because of the CBA?

The Leafs victories have been a result of luck more then anything to do with the CBA.

It's still whining... whether Jupiter and Mars weren't properly aligned, it doesn't matter.

If Sens fans are allowed to pollute the airwaves with their whining about losing to the leafs, why can't Oiler fans whine about the CBA... whining is whining.

 

[dawgbone]

Why aren't Rangers fans afraid of losing their team? After all, according to reports, the Rangers lost more money then anyone in the NHL last year.

Because they have an owner willing to take a financial hit, in order to keep another fulltime tenant in the building.

Now you are just reaching. First your duck arguments, then you come up with this stuff.