Jump to content
You are a guest user Click to join the site

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL
Guest aziz

Rant

Recommended Posts

Your assets can appreciate in value over time, even if your operations are losing money.

EXACTLY!! It is a numbers game that the Owners play very well......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you're asking people not to 'act' in a way that they're almost forced to act in order to attract the best talent to their team and win championships. I know that top talent and payroll != championships, but owners competing for the services of these players drives up salaries exponentially.

And you're asking the Flyers to seriously back off from trying to land the best defenseman in hockey using a rule that exists under the CBA agreed to by the players??? It might be a '****' move, but it's in the CBA, and business isn't about being nicey nicey.

I'm still not convinced that there's any other (read: sane) way for 30 DIFFERENT owners to act in such an economic model.

I am saying that the Weber deal (and the Pronger deal and the Bryzgalov deal) are deliberate attempts to circumvent (ddespite what the LEAGUE (run by the OWNERS) approved).

Again, I am in favor of furrther restricting these shenanigans.

The owners have a salary cap. We lost a year of hockey so they could have that. Then the OWNERS diid everything they could to raise and circuumvent the cap (aided by the players on occasion).

I go back to the Wild - how is Leipold "losing money" while agreeing to $196M in contracts (for two pllayers) and $50M in bonuses to be paid in the next three years.

Neither Parise nor Suter forced him into those deals. He did them all by himself.

And now the market for players of Parise and Suter caliber are "worth" that in the NHL - by the owners own actioons.

Is that "good business" for a company "losing money" that now claims that there is no possible way that they could ever recoup that amount through revenue without the players who JUST SIGNED THE DEAL agree to a 20% reduction off the top PLUS the threat of additionall withholding through escrow?

I'm going out on a limb here and saying "no."

So the OWNERS need to be fiscally responsible and, yes,, put in place restrictions to stop ONE irresponsible owner from blowing up the salary structure of the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am saying that the Weber deal (and the Pronger deal and the Bryzgalov deal) are deliberate attempts to circumvent (ddespite what the LEAGUE (run by the OWNERS) approved).

Again, I am in favor of furrther restricting these shenanigans.

The owners have a salary cap. We lost a year of hockey so they could have that. Then the OWNERS diid everything they could to raise and circuumvent the cap (aided by the players on occasion).

Ok, let's put non-guaranteed contracts and 5-year term maximum on the table. What? The players would rather poke their eyes out than agree to that? I figured as much...

As much as the 'owners' are giving out these contracts, the players have no interest whatsoever in agreeing to any mechanism which restricts their ability to EXTRACT THE MAXIMUM amount of money from an owner. And when I say 'player', what I really mean is the weasel agents who are driving up salaries in their own self-interest. It's the entire model - all of the actors involved - that breeds the sort of cut-throat environment under which the NHL lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's put non-guaranteed contracts and 5-year term maximum on the table. What? The players would rather poke their eyes out than agree to that? I figured as much...

As much as the 'owners' are giving out these contracts, the players have no interest whatsoever in agreeing to any mechanism which restricts their ability to EXTRACT THE MAXIMUM amount of money from an owner. And when I say 'player', what I really mean is the weasel agents who are driving up salaries in their own self-interest. It's the entire model - all of the actors involved - that breeds the sort of cut-throat environment under which the NHL lives.

Why non-guaranteed?

Term limit on contract, limits/elimination of "signing bonus" money, maximum salary level (already established) should "fix" the problem nicely. The only thing the players have been against is the non-guarantee (which would require signing bonuses, etc. to address as the NFL has).

Still, if Leipold can't afford to pay the Parise/Suter deals, why did he offer and sign them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL is already a weak sport in the US, and this certainly won't help the image.

I think this is a misconception and probably needs to be clarified on what you call a "weak" sport in the US.

1) Only 4 teams in the NHL are below 95% of capacity for attendance as compared to 18 teams in the NBA that are below 90%.

2) Youth hockey has never been stronger in the US.

I whole heartily agree that the NBA garners more popularity overall and revenue, but it is not because hockey is "weak" in the US. The reality is that Hockey is a very expensive sport to play (regardless of where you live). That exempts ALLOT of kids from playing. A basketball, baseball glove / bat or even a football cost a nominal amount of money to get started as compared to hockey. Used skates alone to just go to your local rink or pond to skate cost more than all of the aforementioned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a misconception and probably needs to be clarified on what you call a "weak" sport in the US.

1) Only 4 teams in the NHL are below 95% of capacity for attendance as compared to 18 teams in the NBA that are below 90%.

2) Youth hockey has never been stronger in the US.

I whole heartily agree that the NBA garners more popularity overall and revenue, but it is not because hockey is "weak" in the US. The reality is that Hockey is a very expensive sport to play (regardless of where you live). That exempts ALLOT of kids from playing. A basketball, baseball glove / bat or even a football cost a nominal amount of money to get started as compared to hockey. Used skates alone to just go to your local rink or pond to skate cost more than all of the aforementioned.

What I meant was 'weak' in terms of viewership and 'presence of mind'. NASCAR, Golf, college football, and some other sports still rank higher in terms of popularity. But, I remember this from about 5-6 years ago, so maybe things have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant was 'weak' in terms of viewership and 'presence of mind'. NASCAR, Golf, college football, and some other sports still rank higher in terms of popularity. But, I remember this from about 5-6 years ago, so maybe things have changed.

They haven't. I posted an article a little while ago that listed the most viewed sports events. Hockey (I think it was one of the finals games from 2011) was below almost everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant was 'weak' in terms of viewership and 'presence of mind'. NASCAR, Golf, college football, and some other sports still rank higher in terms of popularity. But, I remember this from about 5-6 years ago, so maybe things have changed.

Ah, okay. I interpreted what you meant as weak in the US as a lessor compared to Canada. It would be interesting to see what the viewership numbers are in Canada v. USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a misconception and probably needs to be clarified on what you call a "weak" sport in the US.

1) Only 4 teams in the NHL are below 95% of capacity for attendance as compared to 18 teams in the NBA that are below 90%.

2) Youth hockey has never been stronger in the US.

I whole heartily agree that the NBA garners more popularity overall and revenue, but it is not because hockey is "weak" in the US. The reality is that Hockey is a very expensive sport to play (regardless of where you live). That exempts ALLOT of kids from playing. A basketball, baseball glove / bat or even a football cost a nominal amount of money to get started as compared to hockey. Used skates alone to just go to your local rink or pond to skate cost more than all of the aforementioned.

Even roller blade hockey or street hockey costs more. And if on ice or roller blades let's face it. It's just a harder sport to play. All the others at least start with your two feet on the ground...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a matter of principle the players probably have the moral high ground, but in practice their league is dissolving around them while they cling to their rights.

Hostess pie anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you're asking people not to 'act' in a way that they're almost forced to act in order to attract the best talent to their team and win championships. I know that top talent and payroll != championships, but owners competing for the services of these players drives up salaries exponentially.

Brelic, that fact of the matter is you have a pro union point of view that is still fighting the last CBA and the CBA before that even though they were making the most money ever in player salaries. Coupled with that is a view that the owners are completly fudging the books (I can't prove it but am confident it's not true knowing just all the differnt models that can be used to file your tax info) and a puzzling expectation that all is fair. It's a recipe for disaster in my books, whether in a personal life, Hostess, car companies or the NHL. The arguement was OVER when the union heard "salary rollback". As fortune would have it for the sake of the NHLPA the average folks are not in charge of the daily negotiations, Fehr is, for the time being... Unless they pull a Twinkie (that's what I call the Hostess outcome)...

What REALLY puzzles me is how the PA can't see how they lost the last CBA and wound up making out better than ever! If they would just go with the 50/50 in 2 years they would be making oodles of money... Couple that with new contract modifications and closing loopholes and walla, everyone wins...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I can't help it. A nice moist pile of chemicals, artificial flavors and something white in the middle... To darn tasty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the Players Union capitulates and signs up for what the NHL is pushing for, its just a matter of time (end of the next CBA), before its back to the same situation. There is nothing that can stop bad management from ruining anything. I know that the following analysis about Hostess is typically viewed as coming from a leftist point of view, but I feel that it would apply broadly to the path that Bettman is leading.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20121125,0,966735.column

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brelic, that fact of the matter is you have a pro union point of view that is still fighting the last CBA and the CBA before that even though they were making the most money ever in player salaries. Coupled with that is a view that the owners are completly fudging the books (I can't prove it but am confident it's not true knowing just all the differnt models that can be used to file your tax info) and a puzzling expectation that all is fair. It's a recipe for disaster in my books, whether in a personal life, Hostess, car companies or the NHL. The arguement was OVER when the union heard "salary rollback". As fortune would have it for the sake of the NHLPA the average folks are not in charge of the daily negotiations, Fehr is, for the time being... Unless they pull a Twinkie (that's what I call the Hostess outcome)...

What REALLY puzzles me is how the PA can't see how they lost the last CBA and wound up making out better than ever! If they would just go with the 50/50 in 2 years they would be making oodles of money... Couple that with new contract modifications and closing loopholes and walla, everyone wins...

Exactly. Average salaries are higher than before the lockout, the spread between team payrolls was immediately cut in half, and within 2 years, team payrolls matched pre-lockout levels, and just took off since then at a 7% clip per year.

If players were fighting for pension benefits, injury insurance protection, sport safety, travelling conditions, and so on, then it would be easier to sympathize with them because those are all (or mostly) off-ice concerns not related to salary. It just seems that salary is the last thing they should be all bent out of shape over.

And, as we've already been over, yes, owners should respect current contracts. No doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hostess pie anyone?

Actually, this is a better analogy than you think.

The owners, like the private equity firm, want to artificially increase their revenue despite their rampant mismanagement, demand concessions from their employees, not reinvest it into the company, continue to mismanage with impunity and expect that this will somehow result in a better overall situation for the League.

And there are some suckers that buy that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting article, from the Forbes website:

http://www.forbes.co...esnt-have-them/

"MLB has the heftiest supplemental revenue sharing system with roughly $400 million changing hands last season from the high revenue teams to the low revenue ones. The Yankees alone kicked in $110 million in revenue sharing in 2011.

The NHL is not in dire financial straits as it was in 2004 when a lockout caused the cancellation of an entire season. It does need the top teams to share more of the wealth if it wants to be healthier financially. The league currently shares about $150 million of its revenue and the league has proposed bumping that up to $190 million. The players association is looking for revenue sharing closer to $250 million. We know why the Maple Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens do not want that much revenue sharing. What about the other 27 teams?"

Edited by JackStraw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting article, from the Forbes website:

http://www.forbes.co...esnt-have-them/

"MLB has the heftiest supplemental revenue sharing system with roughly $400 million changing hands last season from the high revenue teams to the low revenue ones. The Yankees alone kicked in $110 million in revenue sharing in 2011.

The NHL is not in dire financial straits as it was in 2004 when a lockout caused the cancellation of an entire season. It does need the top teams to share more of the wealth if it wants to be healthier financially. The league currently shares about $150 million of its revenue and the league has proposed bumping that up to $190 million. The players association is looking for revenue sharing closer to $250 million. We know why the Maple Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens do not want that much revenue sharing. What about the other 27 teams?"

NOT IN DIRE FINANCIAL STRAITS!?!?!?!

Quick! Lock the players out because the economic model doesn't work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOT IN DIRE FINANCIAL STRAITS!?!?!?!

Quick! Lock the players out because the economic model doesn't work!

All of this is assuming of course, that you believe that socialist rag Forbes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this is assuming of course, that you believe that socialist rag Forbes.

Mark Knopfler was in Dire Straits and he seems to be doing fine.

He actually played the Big Bank Building recently, which is more than the Flyers managed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Knopfler was in Dire Straits and he seems to be doing fine

I'm not going to dignify that with a response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to dignify that with a response

Fine, then I'm not going to reply to your lack of a reply.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 2
      Post
      "Stop me, before I spend again!" Right? Do you really think that stopping the Pens from paying Crosby $9 million a year (and other similar contracts) is gong to save hockey in Phoenix or Columbus? Doesn't the question of whether or not those struggling franchises should even be where they are come into play? The league should be able to blithely go ahead and put franchises wherever it pleases, and then expect the players to pay for their bad decisions? If you haven't already, read this: http://
    • 2
      Post
      All I can say is that this must the stupidest work stoppage in the history of the professional sports. And please someone, shoot that worthless piece of dogcrap Gary Betman now. He has not contributed anything constructive since he became a commishioner of the league.
    • 2
      Post
      I have no problem with that. Columbus should fail. The people who work the concession stands and in the front office should, unfortunately, have to go find new jobs. That's not the same as saying that NHL salaries in general should be cut to make sure that the Jackets make a profit. I used to live in the Cleveland Park neighborhood of Washington, DC. If you've ever been to DC, it's the area where the National Zoo is located. Very nice, "leafy", neighborhood. Lots of educated professionals (lawy
    • 2
      Post
      Wait... I never said that the players were the problem. The owners are being petulant and dirty. The problem, at least from my perspective, is that I care for neither side. I think the owners are being dirty, and the players are spoiled brats who don't know how incredible they have it. I cannot relate to players or their situation. I can't relate to billionaire business owners either. So there you have it. They've made me not care about them or their product. Well done!
    • 2
      Post
      That's the tightrope they have to walk. Usually in these situations I feel pretty much the same, with probably some sympathy for the players (since they're the ones I pay to watch). But this time, I think the owners are so wrong that I would actually rather see the season lost than to see the players give in. And it's not even because I hate the owners or love the players, it's because I think forcing the owners to deal directly with the problems they themselves created is what's best for the le
    • 1
      Post
      Clearly the owners are guilty. How else to explain Jody Shelley's contract if not some sort of conspiracy? It makes no sense otherwise.

Game Room 1

Please enter your display name

×
×
  • Create New...