Will you support an NHL with replacement players?

[Go Flames Go*]

You're the reason why Bettman says what he says. I knwe some people out there had to buy what he's selling.


Quick question for you, did you enjoy how competitive the NHL was during the 1970's and 80's ???

I wasnt even born inthe 70's, im a 84 baby, it was good in the 80's but I don't want a goals galore game back either, a increase in scoring by 2 goals is enough, I hate watching 8-4, 7-3 games. The Ideal game for me would be 5-4 games or 4-3 thats exciting, and more shots, not just the 19 and 20 some teams get.

The Cap will let teams keep there stars, and the starts will be evely spread so even crapbucket teams like the Oilers can compete. I want the Oilers to survive so we can continue to kick there ass :lol

The Cap is needed it works every, and that is a fact, the NFL is so competitve, and even **** teams like Arizona make money, and they can pay there players good money.

 

[petrobruin]

You're the reason why Bettman says what he says. I knwe some people out there had to buy what he's selling.


Quick question for you, did you enjoy how competitive the NHL was during the 1970's and 80's ???

QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU do you enjoy the NHL today with the have and the have-nots or do you really believe the spin the NHLPA feeds you on the competetive balance the league enjoys today.

what a load of crap that is.

Petr

 

[John Flyers Fan]

QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU do you enjoy the NHL today with the have and the have-nots or do you really believe the spin on the NHLPA feeds you on the competetive balance the league enjoys today.

what a load of crap that is.

Petr

#1. I think some things need to be done to help fix the game, things that have nothing to due with salaries, revenues etc.

The skill of the players needs to be able to shine through.

#2. Does the league have NFL like parity ??? No, it doesn't.

Is the NHL, like MLB where $$$$ primarily rules all ??? No.

More than half on the NHL teams have been in the semi-finals over the short term.

The league currently has far more parity than it did in the 70's and 80's.

Is it perfect ??? No

Are there ways to make it better ??? Yes.

Does it have to be a salary cap ??? No, there are other alternatives (luxury tax).

 

[mcphee]

You're the reason why Bettman says what he says. I knwe some people out there had to buy what he's selling.


Quick question for you, did you enjoy how competitive the NHL was during the 1970's and 80's ???

John, being a Flyer fan, you didn't have too many down years. During the 70's and 80's, more often than not, we both would have to give odds to bet on our teams. There were a lot of teams that were usually fodder for a select few. Pointing at Bettman is interesting though ? Do you actually blame him for a lot of this ? My own conspiracy theory world sees him expanding at a ridiculous rate into impossible long term markets because owners couldn't face up to the piss poor way they had run their businesses and needed a cash infusion. His idea or what he was instructed to do ? Ask him any question and the party line was how Gretzky popularized hockey in the mainstream US. Geez, I guess maybe it wasn't true. NHL hockey will always sell in Canada and in selected US markets . I think the issue discussed in this thread regarding whether we would support replacement players touches lightly on what the NHL will eventually end up being. In the end, why force feed it to markets that don't want it ? When businesses are in trouble, they re-group an dtry and re-focus on what they do best. I'm rambling here but, if I understand Bettman's mission, it was to bring hockey to the level of the big 3 sports, along with establishing a compensation system that would prevent owners from screwing each other. He can't do #1, and will go down fighting for #2.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The Cap is needed it works every, and that is a fact, the NFL is so competitve, and even **** teams like Arizona make money, and they can pay there players good money.

Yes, in the NFL all owners make money by the bucketful, and yet you still have teams like the Cardinals, Bengals, etc. that suck year after year, after year.

Take a look at my proposal and tell me that it wouldn't help your Flames in a big way.




I'll be back to argue more after lunch

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Yes, in the NFL all owners make money by the bucketful, and yet you still have teams like the Cardinals, Bengals, etc. that suck year after year, after year.

Take a look at my proposal and tell me that it wouldn't help your Flames in a big way.




I'll be back to argue more after lunch

Where is your proposal, mine was great it will help the Flyers be competitve.

The Begnals where 8-8 after last year, they are turning things around, there team sucks because they drafted Akili Smith, and bad drafting, not because of they can sign good free agents, and retain there good players.
The Cardinals can't compete because they drafted bad too, but there headed in the right direction under Denny Green, and solid drafting.

Detroit Lions sucked, but now there gonna be one of the most explosive offensive teams in the NFL, through good hirings, and drafting, not because they can't afford to keep good players.

The cap is coming.

 

[petrobruin]

#1. I think some things need to be done to help fix the game, things that have nothing to due with salaries, revenues etc.

The skill of the players needs to be able to shine through.

#2. Does the league have NFL like parity ??? No, it doesn't.

Is the NHL, like MLB where $$$$ primarily rules all ??? No.

More than half on the NHL teams have been in the semi-finals over the short term.

The league currently has far more parity than it did in the 70's and 80's.

Is it perfect ??? No

Are there ways to make it better ??? Yes.

Does it have to be a salary cap ??? No, there are other alternatives (luxury tax).

OK i see that you believe the spin the NHLPA has fed you about parity.

How about a league where the big spenders make the playoffs year in and year out and the have nots make it 25% of the time and when they do realise a good team through great or luckey drafting that player/players must be traded because the market for a player has been determined by teams with money,effectively creating a so called paruty as you like to call it

Petr

 

[PecaFan]

Well Said. Owners are looking out for their own bank accounts, all this "for the good of the game/fans/etc., etc." is just PR to get the fans on their side.

The thing you're missing is, what's good for the owners bank accounts is good for the game and for the fans.

Pockets overflowing with cash means the franchise is stable, and in no threat of moving to a new city. It means labour peace. It means the ability to pay the salaries of your best players, and not having to trade them in their prime. It means being able to acquire a talented high priced player to make a Cup run, instead of adding a Brad May and hoping a miracle happens.

Being a Flyer fan, you've never had to worry about *any* of that.

Quick question for you, did you enjoy how competitive the NHL was during the 1970's and 80's ???

Explained this one a million times, but here we go again. Yes, absolutely. There were dynasties, and the league was dominated by the Canadiens, Isles and Oilers, but it wasn't because of money. They kicked our asses because they had better teams, better coaching, better management, and better scouting. Anyone in the league could have become a great team, even us hapless Canucks and Whalers, if they'd put all those ingredients together.

Nowadays, that simply isn't true. The majority of the league are locked into perpetual "also-ran" status.

 

[Papadice]

#2. I'm not "for" the NHLPA. I'm for getting a deal done, and having NHL hockey again, soon.

And therein lies the reason why you're logic is always flawed in the minds of people like myself... You are for getting a deal done... I'M for the getting the RIGHT deal done... A deal for the sake of getting the players playing again is not going to fix anything... That's what happened in 1994 and look at the mess we are in...

 

[Papadice]

My proposal:

5 % rollback on player salaries
A true rookie pay scale/cap ... without loopholes that generate ridiculous bonuses

A luxury tax that would work as follows:

Under $40 million - no tax

$40-45 million - $0.25 on the dollar

$45-50 million - $.50 on the dollar

$50-55 million - $1.00 per dollar

Over $55 million - $2.00 per dollar

Therefore a team with a $51 million payroll would pay $4.75 million in luxury tax.

A team with a $58 million payroll would pay $14.75 million in luxury tax.

I think you'd see the top end payrolls drop, as well as a boost in revenue for the lower end teams.


Take the Flyers for example, lets say ownership decides they we can operate successfully spending $58 million on player costs (salaries + tax).

That means the Flyers could spend $52,125,000.00 on payroll and would pay $5,875,000 in luxury tax. That money would go to the Edmonton/Calgary/Carolina's of the world to better help them compete.

Hi Mr. Goodenough! I didn't realize it was you on here.... Just kidding... but seriously, I have to wonder if you work for the NHLPA because that isn't very far off from their first offer...

Plain and simple, not NEARLY enough bite in that tax... a 5% rollback is basically useless... after a year or two that rollback will disappear and we'll be back to square one with salaries... a 5% rollback means Jagr makes $10,450,000 instead of $11,000,000... yeah, that fixes things...

and that nearly $6 million that Philly ends up spending in your proposal... basically teams like Philly have no problem spending that much on payroll and in return teams like Nashville get what, about $500,000 from the tax after it's spread out... problem solved I guess...

If a tax ends up being the answer instead of a cap, it will have to be pretty close to a dollar for dollar tax starting at $40,000,000.... or maybe a $0.50 on the dollar tax starting at $35,000,000 and it can go up to a dollar for dollar tax at $45,000,000... it has to have enough bite to scare of teams from going over the limit unless it's a rare circumstance where a key player would give them a great shot at the cup so they are willing to pay the extra... it can't be so lenient that a rich team laughs it off... look at the Yankees in baseball... the luxury tax limit is a joke to them... and because of it, nobody can compete with them...

 

[Go Flames Go*]

If that is your plan it is one of the worst, it will make it even worse then it is now.

Screw the tax issue all together, a hard cap is needed, no ands or buts the Hard Cap is on its way.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

John, being a Flyer fan, you didn't have too many down years. During the 70's and 80's, more often than not, we both would have to give odds to bet on our teams. There were a lot of teams that were usually fodder for a select few. Pointing at Bettman is interesting though ? Do you actually blame him for a lot of this ? My own conspiracy theory world sees him expanding at a ridiculous rate into impossible long term markets because owners couldn't face up to the piss poor way they had run their businesses and needed a cash infusion. His idea or what he was instructed to do ? Ask him any question and the party line was how Gretzky popularized hockey in the mainstream US. Geez, I guess maybe it wasn't true. NHL hockey will always sell in Canada and in selected US markets . I think the issue discussed in this thread regarding whether we would support replacement players touches lightly on what the NHL will eventually end up being. In the end, why force feed it to markets that don't want it ? When businesses are in trouble, they re-group an dtry and re-focus on what they do best. I'm rambling here but, if I understand Bettman's mission, it was to bring hockey to the level of the big 3 sports, along with establishing a compensation system that would prevent owners from screwing each other. He can't do #1, and will go down fighting for #2.

I agree with quite a bit of your argument.

There are a ton of cities that the NHL is currently in that I believe will only get support while they put a winning product on the ice.

Problem is that with 30 teams it's much harder to put a winner on the ice than it was in the 12, 16, 21 team league that came before it.

I do think if a patience and a great organization is built, that most big US markets can become hockey cities. Philadelphia wasn't a hockey town, but the Flyers were the only one of the original expansion teams to do it right, and build a consistant winner.

Winning breeds popularity . It's much tougher however for a team like Nashville to do what the Flyers did in the 1970's.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

OK i see that you believe the spin the NHLPA has fed you about parity.

How about a league where the big spenders make the playoffs year in and year out and the have nots make it 25% of the time and when they do realise a good team through great or luckey drafting that player/players must be traded because the market for a player has been determined by teams with money,effectively creating a so called paruty as you like to call it

Petr

Tell me what's wrong with the Rangers (biggest spender) and the Blackhawks & Bruins (2 of the 5 or 6 largest markets in the NHL).

I seem to have missed their continued playoff success over the past decade.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

And therein lies the reason why you're logic is always flawed in the minds of people like myself... You are for getting a deal done... I'M for the getting the RIGHT deal done... A deal for the sake of getting the players playing again is not going to fix anything... That's what happened in 1994 and look at the mess we are in...

Why can't the "right" deal be done soon ??? why must we wait 6, 12 or 18 months for it ???

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Hi Mr. Goodenough! I didn't realize it was you on here.... Just kidding... but seriously, I have to wonder if you work for the NHLPA because that isn't very far off from their first offer...

Plain and simple, not NEARLY enough bite in that tax... a 5% rollback is basically useless... after a year or two that rollback will disappear and we'll be back to square one with salaries... a 5% rollback means Jagr makes $10,450,000 instead of $11,000,000... yeah, that fixes things...

and that nearly $6 million that Philly ends up spending in your proposal... basically teams like Philly have no problem spending that much on payroll and in return teams like Nashville get what, about $500,000 from the tax after it's spread out... problem solved I guess...

If a tax ends up being the answer instead of a cap, it will have to be pretty close to a dollar for dollar tax starting at $40,000,000.... or maybe a $0.50 on the dollar tax starting at $35,000,000 and it can go up to a dollar for dollar tax at $45,000,000... it has to have enough bite to scare of teams from going over the limit unless it's a rare circumstance where a key player would give them a great shot at the cup so they are willing to pay the extra... it can't be so lenient that a rich team laughs it off... look at the Yankees in baseball... the luxury tax limit is a joke to them... and because of it, nobody can compete with them...

In the proposal above. The Flyers end up spending $10 million less on players than they did last year, and they contribute $6 million to the smaller market teams.

Sicne the Flyers wouldn't be the only ones paying the tax, each of the lowest 8 teams would likely receive $5-7 million more in revenue fron the bigger market teams.

Under my proposal the 8 biggest spenders would spend an average of about $8-10 million less on players, and the bottom 8 would receive an extra $5 million in revenue.

That would be a pretty substantial difference.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

If that is your plan it is one of the worst, it will make it even worse then it is now.

Screw the tax issue all together, a hard cap is needed, no ands or buts the Hard Cap is on its way.

#1. A hard cap is NOT on the way.

#2. I'd love to hear your thoughts on my proposal. If you were born in 84, you should be able to come up with some rational reasons why giving the small market teams an additional $5 million in revenue and chopping $8 million in payroll from the large market teams would make the situation worse.

There are more than two sides to this negotiation.

It's not just players vs. owners.

The owners all have different agendas as well. No one solution is going to make everyone happy.

Also a salary cap does nothing to address revenue sharing. All a hard cap of $31 million means is that the Flyers ownership group would be making money hand over fist, while the Predators would be just squeking by.

 

[mcphee]

I agree with quite a bit of your argument.

There are a ton of cities that the NHL is currently in that I believe will only get support while they put a winning product on the ice.

Problem is that with 30 teams it's much harder to put a winner on the ice than it was in the 12, 16, 21 team league that came before it.

I do think if a patience and a great organization is built, that most big US markets can become hockey cities. Philadelphia wasn't a hockey town, but the Flyers were the only one of the original expansion teams to do it right, and build a consistant winner.

Winning breeds popularity . It's much tougher however for a team like Nashville to do what the Flyers did in the 1970's.

Agreed, a well run team can be competitive and draw in any market. By draw, though, I mean that the league revenue remains chiefly from attendance and doesn't become a major TV vehicle. Without that capital earned and shared, I don't see a long term future for a lot of teams. I can see a CFL style existance wherein most years 25% of the league is in a precarious position. [not that I expect you to know anything about Canadian football finances.]

 

[hunter1909*]

oilers can draw 57,000 to an outdoor game, where the fans stand outdoors for 8 hours in freezing temperatures, and edmonton is considered to be a second rate hockey market...yet a boom times gone bad dallas is considered today, to be a far superior hockey city financially?????????...

you dont need a mathematics degree from MIT to figure out whats wrong with this equation...

the sooner hockey goes back to being a nordic(thats northern located to you people who will read this and dont understand what that word means LOL)...sport...like its always been...the better...

the sooner that foul NHLPA is smashed the better for everyone(that is, the 700 flakes who belong to it)...

hahahahahahahaha

 

[John Flyers Fan]

oilers can draw 57,000 to an outdoor game, where the fans stand outdoors for 8 hours in freezing temperatures, and edmonton is considered to be a second rate hockey market...yet a boom times gone bad dallas is considered today, to be a far superior hockey city financially?????????...

you dont need a mathematics degree from MIT to figure out whats wrong with this equation...

the sooner hockey goes back to being a nordic(thats northern located to you people who will read this and dont understand what that word means LOL)...sport...like its always been...the better...

the sooner that foul NHLPA is smashed the better for everyone(that is, the 700 flakes who belong to it)...

hahahahahahahaha

Give that dream up, it's long gone.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

#1. A hard cap is NOT on the way.

#2. I'd love to hear your thoughts on my proposal. If you were born in 84, you should be able to come up with some rational reasons why giving the small market teams an additional $5 million in revenue and chopping $8 million in payroll from the large market teams would make the situation worse.

There are more than two sides to this negotiation.

It's not just players vs. owners.

The owners all have different agendas as well. No one solution is going to make everyone happy.

Also a salary cap does nothing to address revenue sharing. All a hard cap of $31 million means is that the Flyers ownership group would be making money hand over fist, while the Predators would be just squeking by.

How many times do the NHL have to repeat themselves a new type of revenue sharing is going to be a main point in the new hard cap system.

You proposal taxing teams is pointless what is 450K per team gonna do nothing, wont pay for the janitors.

Its needs a cap, and the cap is coming.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

How many times do the NHL have to repeat themselves a new type of revenue sharing is going to be a main point in the new hard cap system.

You proposal taxing teams is pointless what is 450K per team gonna do nothing, wont pay for the janitors.

Its needs a cap, and the cap is coming.

Try $5 million, not $450 K.

 

[thinkwild]

Agreed, a well run team can be competitive and draw in any market. By draw, though, I mean that the league revenue remains chiefly from attendance and doesn't become a major TV vehicle. Without that capital earned and shared, I don't see a long term future for a lot of teams. I can see a CFL style existance wherein most years 25% of the league is in a precarious position. [not that I expect you to know anything about Canadian football finances.]

Ahh the CFL. Where they have hard cap, but noone abides by it because its not in their best interests.

If by draw, you mean they can charge better than league average ticket prices and have full attendance when they have winner with extra playoff revenue, then all the markets should be able to draw.

IF they couldnt, does it make more sense to ensure all teams pay expenses at a level they can afford, or that all teams share revenue to a level where they all can afford the same, or allow the teams that have proven to not be NHL calibre to fold? The first option seems the least philisophically logical to me in real business.

Maybe I should adopt your pessimism for the long term future of some of those teams but I still think they have all the tools at their disposal to achieve success, and like happened in Colorado, Ottawa once they have success, they will be in a different financial position. If Denver and Dallas can do it, why cant Nashville and Atlanta?

 

[Jovo Cop]

When guys like Ricky ray make 34000 canadian ..thats some hard cap .The CFL ..thats a league where guys play for the love of the game .

 

[TOO]

I'm not sure why the players currently earning some money in Europe would suddenly come back to the NHL at the drop of a hat when replacement players come back. I can think of 2 reasons for someone like Kovalchuk to come to the NHL, better competition and better pay. These advantages are counter-balanced by the advantages that playing in Europe might offer, mainly having to do with being close to home, speaking your native tongue, and so on.

Even someone like Tanguay or Heatley, if he's making decent money in Europe (I have no idea what they're making over there), might well choose to stay rather than cross the picket line. How much will coming back to the replacement NHL be worth to them? I've got no idea, especially since replacement salaries are totally up in the air.

Basically, I think bringing in replacement players would keep a lot of players in Europe, and would probably lead to a situation much more like soccer in Europe, with three or four leagues that are similar in quality, say the NHL, the Swedish league, and the Russian league. I guess I just don't see much reason for European players to cross the Atlantic except for money or competition, neither of which the replacement NHL would offer.

 

[mr gib]

I'm not sure why the players currently earning some money in Europe would suddenly come back to the NHL at the drop of a hat when replacement players come back. I can think of 2 reasons for someone like Kovalchuk to come to the NHL, better competition and better pay. These advantages are counter-balanced by the advantages that playing in Europe might offer, mainly having to do with being close to home, speaking your native tongue, and so on.

Even someone like Tanguay or Heatley, if he's making decent money in Europe (I have no idea what they're making over there), might well choose to stay rather than cross the picket line. How much will coming back to the replacement NHL be worth to them? I've got no idea, especially since replacement salaries are totally up in the air.

Basically, I think bringing in replacement players would keep a lot of players in Europe, and would probably lead to a situation much more like soccer in Europe, with three or four leagues that are similar in quality, say the NHL, the Swedish league, and the Russian league. I guess I just don't see much reason for European players to cross the Atlantic except for money or competition, neither of which the replacement NHL would offer.

really good point - someone had suggested that if the nhl really had its s**t together - europe is the logical expansion territory - look at yao ming - the nba playing in china right now - these nhl people are just plain dumb -