Jump to content

Why Do Affluent Owners Want This?


Guest idahophilly
 Share

Recommended Posts

It has been argued here, there and everywhere that there is a small group of owners/teams (8 or so) that are controlling the NHL's side of things. Forget the PA's side for just a moment and explain to me why this is good for the owners. Put on your owners cap.

Obviously, I will use Snider and the Flyers in this situation but it could just as well be Toronto or the Rangers ect...

Why would Snider want a smaller salary cap that will, in a years time, means his GM can't replace Timo and others much less resign all of these guys; Giroux, Courts, Schenn and never mind maintain the role players and such. It nearly forces the affluent teams to do 2 things. 1st, force them to blow up their teams in a short period of time. 2nd, by default, teams will have to build a team in one of two ways. They will have to go with a balanced team that is so-so because there isn't enough money to go around for real stars OR they can go with either a power Defence first team with a huge star (ala Nashville) or a power offence team with little regard for the D.

I suppose you could go with a few star signings (ala the Wild with Suter and Parise) but then be potentially thin on the supporting cast. Any way you slice it, the teams who are controlling this are the ones to be hurt the most in icing a championship team.

Why would these owners agree to AHL contracts counting towards the cap? Walker would then count? Come on. Really? Snider wants that? They are fighting FOR THAT? Yes I get it might stop stupid bad contracts if you can't bury them anymore. But the affluent owners WANT that when they are the ones using it to great benefit? There is a dis-connect here in what's really going on. Besides, I'm a free market kind of guy. If a team wants to sign a player to a 10 year deal at huge money then let them. It's either a smart or stupid move and that team will get what it is either way. Tweeking the front loading / cap hit is fine but beyond that, it's up to the team and player as far as I'm concerned regardless of whether i thinks it's stupid or not.

Looking at the poorer teams, they would get their salary reduction but the NHL is saying the current contracts would get paid out anyway, through escrow magic number manipulation. So these "poor" teams still have to come up with the money. Maybe it doesn't count against the cap but it's very real when they have to write the check. Money doesn't care where it's going or how. It's still coming out of the checking account!

I'm not trying to make a conspiracy out of it but there has to be another angle to this. My take is they added enough other stuff to poisen the offer knowing they wouldn't have to have this agreed to it and live under these rules.

The other options are even less appealing. One is the affluent owners really don't care about winning the cup and just want decent playoff runsto make money (except Toronto) OR (this is scary) that Bettman has way more control than we even currently think and is saving his legacy by saving his mistakes (teams like Phoenix).

Anyone have another thought on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, what IN ALL THAT IS HOLY is with the team signing the contract is on the hook for the cap hit if the player retires after he is traded to another team!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You GOTTA FRICKIN' BE KIDDING ME! Yes, I'm screaming at the insanity of why ANY team would go for that. Please, tell me how that benefits Snider???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and one more reply to myself...

The affluent owners are "letting" or "telling" Bettman these are the terms they want???? Bettman after all is working for the owners we have been told over and over again! The owners want this? Again, I need someone to explain this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@idahophilly I'm really trying to wrap my head around why the rich owners would want this....I just don't see why they would want it. Perhaps it's some kind of monumental compromise, but like you siad, the poor teams have to pay anyways...so I realy just don't get it. The one thing I do know, the rich teams are in this for themselves, always have been, always will be....there has to be more than meets the eye here. I'm truly puzzled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of calls into question the whole concept that a small cabal of 8 owners is thwarting the good intentions of the vast majority of them who would really rather being playing hockey if the bad big-money owners weren't stopping them.

Ed Snider is a hawk on this issue. He just offered a 14-year, $110M offer sheet with $26M in bonuses and signed Hartnell and Simmonds to lengthy extensions, not to mention a certain 9-year deal to a goalie that had a $10M signing bonus and a front-loaded seven-year deal to a certain defenseman...

Minnesota's Leipold is a hawk on this issue. He just spent roughly a quarter billion dollars on Gomez Parise and Redden Suter.

Now, they not only don't want to PAY the contracts they JUST SIGNED, they want the players to commit to GIVING MONEY BACK TO THEM.

How does one "negotiate in good faith" with such people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran "Sort of calls into question the whole concept that a small cabal of 8 owners is thwarting the good intentions of the vast majority of them who would really rather being playing hockey if the bad big-money owners weren't stopping them."

It's a working theory of mine, but I'm not the only one. The scenario is believed by many, have read quite a few artlices about the Big 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of calls into question the whole concept that a small cabal of 8 owners is thwarting the good intentions of the vast majority of them who would really rather being playing hockey if the bad big-money owners weren't stopping them.

Ed Snider is a hawk on this issue. He just offered a 14-year, $110M offer sheet with $26M in bonuses and signed Hartnell and Simmonds to lengthy extensions, not to mention a certain 9-year deal to a goalie that had a $10M signing bonus and a front-loaded seven-year deal to a certain defenseman...

Minnesota's Leipold is a hawk on this issue. He just spent roughly a quarter billion dollars on Gomez Parise and Redden Suter.

Now, they not only don't want to PAY the contracts they JUST SIGNED, they want the players to commit to GIVING MONEY BACK TO THEM.

How does one "negotiate in good faith" with such people?

I believe the PA knows they can't. Evidence is todays events. Would you willing sign another CBA knowing that the next time they will try and get even MORE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes we fall into the trap of believing that rich people are smart.

Sometimes they are. But more often than not, they are just lucky or greedy.

Well Blocker, it's as good a theory as I have heard yet! But, unfortunatly it's just to simple in this case. There has to be something not known to the public yet! Numbers or a clause. I don't know but all the affluent owners are dumb just isn't a plausible reason (maybe half of them are stupid.....).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran "Sort of calls into question the whole concept that a small cabal of 8 owners is thwarting the good intentions of the vast majority of them who would really rather being playing hockey if the bad big-money owners weren't stopping them."

It's a working theory of mine, but I'm not the only one. The scenario is believed by many, have read quite a few artlices about the Big 8.

I'm not denying that there are people postulating this; I'm asking: "why?"

Leipold is widely identified as a hard liner in this situation for the owners. In Minneapolis. Hardly a "big money" team, despite his profligate spending in the face of his supposed business concerns.

Are Tampa, Florida, Carolina, Columbus, Nashville, Anaheim, Dallas and Phoenix just chomping at the bit to get back on the ice, but the Big Old Meanines in Philadelphia, Toronto, Chicago, Boston, Montreal, Colorado (profitable!), New York and... Minneapolis(!?) thwarting their fervent desire?

It's simply not that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He

I'm not denying that there are people postulating this; I'm asking: "why?"

Leipold is widely identified as a hard liner in this situation for the owners. In Minneapolis. Hardly a "big money" team, despite his profligate spending in the face of his supposed business concerns.

Are Tampa, Florida, Carolina, Columbus, Nashville, Anaheim, Dallas and Phoenix just chomping at the bit to get back on the ice, but the Big Old Meanines in Philadelphia, Toronto, Chicago, Boston, Montreal, Colorado (profitable!), New York and... Minneapolis(!?) thwarting their fervent desire?

It's simply not that simple.

Yo!!!! Bettman said Colorado is profitable so it's it profitable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran I will try to find more on this topic and post it in this thread, a little research is in order.

I'd be happy to see it, because, for me, any "coalition" that includes Philadelphia's Snider, Boston's Jacobs and Minnesota's Leipold clearly represents more than just the "haves" of the league.

The lockout vote was unanimous.

Again, I do believe there are factions within the owners' ranks. I do believe there are guys who would rather be on the ice.

I just don't believe there are 22 of them being held hostage by 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners are pushing for the lower cap because they expect player salaries to be cut across the board. If everyone on the team is making less, the lower cap doesn't handcuff them as badly as you think.

As for the rule in the NHL proposal about current long term deals counting against the cap of the signing team if/when the player retires, I'm not sure either but I look at it two ways:

1) Bettman hates those deals and is out to punish the teams that attempted to circumvent the old CBA. It's also a way to placate the small market owners.

2) They have no intention of actually having this rule in the new CBA and expect the PA to object, therefore it's an easy concession to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Puck " 2) They have no intention of actually having this rule in the new CBA and expect the PA to object, therefore it's an easy concession to make."

Exactly...I was just about to post this before reading your post. This may indeed be the reason why the rich owners want these rule changes in the new CBA...it's one giant bluff....dreamed up to help the NHL win the media and fans over....but the owners knew this deal, which included another player rollback in salary, would be immediatley dismissed by Fehr, so anything else they throw in is window dressing, or putting lipstick on a pig, whichever you prefer...ha ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran Short article by Coach K, who touchs on the "big 10", how they control things though Bettman and the rift with the poor owners.

http://montrealhocke...-after-bettman/

With respect, I might take this more seriously if it didn't talk about "Philadelphia Flyers owner Dan Snyder."

But it goes on to say that "Snyder" might be tiring of Bettman...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is this Dan guy who owns the Flyers? Will the real Snider please stand up?

And IF Snider is getting tired of bettman then someone should call him up and say" now you know how we all feel".

Do you know what it takes for fans from 30 teams to agree on something??? Well, Bettman made it happen in how much he is despised...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran This article gives a lot of insight into how Bettman operates, who is tight inner circle is and how he accomplishes what he sets out to do. I found it pretty informative, but does not really touch on the big 10 per say....but does show how he manipulates things through league legislation.

http://www.theglobea...article4595797/

Apparetnly, when Bettman was hired, he insisted that a 2/3rds majority was needed to fire him, this masterfully allowed him to do the bidding of the rich and powerful, who would never allow the votes needed to ditch him.

"Bettman keeps the governors in line with a combination of methods.

There is legislation – he introduced a rule that allows him to reject a collective agreement proposal from the NHLPA with only eight votes from the 30 owners. Firing Bettman would require three-quarters of the owners to approve, something he negotiated when he took the job.

Bettman also made sure most of the other owners owed him enough, by naming them to the powerful governors’ executive committee or shepherding their attempts to buy a team or letting them bend the rules, that they will not cause any trouble. Finally, he makes sure he is aligned with the two most powerful owners, Jeremy Jacobs of the Boston Bruins, the chairman of the board of governors, and Ed Snider of the Philadelphia Flyers."

This shows how Bettman has rigged the rules, so the rich and powerful can dictate to the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This shows how Bettman has rigged the rules, so the rich and powerful can dictate to the majority.

Again, I have no doubt that there are factions within the owners.

Nevertheless, the lockout vote was unanimous.

I also simply don't believe there are 22 owners out there who are chomping at the bit to "lose money" on their hockey operations but are being thwarted by eight guys who actually do make money from "hockey operations."

I'd be surprised, nay shocked, if there were 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...