Who's greedy now?

[BangOnMeDrumAllDay]

The players offered to take a 24% pay cut. Owners rejected it. Are owners still holding out for a salary cap? I totally disagree with a salary cap. I see it as a crutch for the penny pinchers to make a quick buck on their franchise. Look at the TV contract for the NFL...the share for each team covers the salary cap. Its impossible to lose money. And teams still suck and ticket prices keep going up for teams that suck because the owners dont even spend the full cap amount.

I have to take the players side on this strike even more now. All it takes are owners to run the business like any other and not rely on crutches like a salary cap. They already have a monopoly, why should the players bail out a league that has over-expanded?

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

The players offered to take a 24% pay cut. Owners rejected it. Are owners still holding out for a salary cap? I totally disagree with a salary cap. I see it as a crutch for the penny pinchers to make a quick buck on their franchise. Look at the TV contract for the NFL...the share for each team covers the salary cap. Its impossible to lose money. And teams still suck and ticket prices keep going up for teams that suck because the owners dont even spend the full cap amount.

I have to take the players side on this strike even more now. All it takes are owners to run the business like any other and not rely on crutches like a salary cap. They already have a monopoly, why should the players bail out a league that has over-expanded?


No shit...we need to take out a few teams...mostly southern teams...lets face it..hockey aint catching on down their..... We need more franchises in the hockey "heartland" ...honestly..i think minnesota could support 2 teams well.... Give Duluth a team.... i swear, it would work, you would get a huge draw from north western wisconsin...as well as northeastern minnesota....

[Pitpen]

The owners rejected it because the pay cut is only temporary. It would help out now, but it would do nothing to keep it from happening again. The owners are now profiting, by losing less money, because of this lockout. They have the leverage and will get what they want, in my opinion.

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

The owners rejected it because the pay cut is only temporary. It would help out now, but it would do nothing to keep it from happening again. The owners are now profiting, by losing less money, because of this lockout. They have the leverage and will get what they want, in my opinion.

its the owners fault that salaries are so high, if they don't overpay guys, the salaries will be fine.... obviously the GM's are too stupid to understand it....if you won't pay it, you won't get it....

[Pitpen]

its the owners fault that salaries are so high, if they don't overpay guys, the salaries will be fine.... obviously the GM's are too stupid to understand it....if you won't pay it, you won't get it....
It's not that simple. If a owner thinks he can improve his team by spending a little extra money on a player here and there, he will do so without thinking anything about it. However, as this happens more and more, it becomes a problem. This is what happens in competetive markets with a high demand and low supply--price, or in this case salaries, go up.

If you were the owner and had the capital to overspend on a player, wouldn't you? The ultimate goal of most owners is to win a championship. The easiest way to do this is to sign talented players to your team. The only way to ensure that the player will play on your team and not a rivals is to overpay. These owners and GMs are not stupid, they are just trying to win.

The only way to stop this is a salary cap. A cap will force owners not to overpay for players and will make the league more competetive. I don't know why people are so against a salary cap in the NHL. The most popular sport in America right now if football and they have the best salary cap system. This is not a coincidence.

So, I guess what I'm saying is lay off the coaches. If they didn't take this stand now, it would only result in future lockouts. Sometimes quick fixes and compromises aren't the best solutions in a situation like this.

[desdemona]

I don't know why people are so against a salary cap in the NHL. The most popular sport in America right now if football and they have the best salary cap system. This is not a coincidence.


I don't know much about the NFL or the NBA, but the NHL players seem to believe that a salary cap will take away guaranteed contracts. That is the main reason I've heard given against a salary cap. Bettman was quoted saying, after both meetings, that guaranteed contracts were never discussed with the union. Since he's aware that this is their main problem with accepting his terms why wouldn't he attempt to clear it up for them?..... unless there is some truth to it.

You imply that the most popular sport in America is football which is directly in correlation with the salary cap. Well in Canada, the CFL (Canadian Football League) has enforced a salary cap and STILL the most popular sport is hockey. Is there any coincidence there?

Whatever... at the moment I'm not favouring either side because, the way I see it, they've both forgotten about the most important factor - their fans.

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

The owners could have a salary cap whether the players agree to it anyway.... as a group...set the salary Cap at X # of Dollars...and nobody goes over it.... if the owner's were really so worried about cost certainty...they would make sound investments

[LeftClickHere]

The fact that the players are willing to take a 24% roll back is an admission that the numbers from the NHL audit are true. Many of the teams are losing tons of money. A 24% rollback won't work, its a band aid type solution that will only suppress salaries for a few years before they go through the roof again and the league will be back to square one.


The solution is a salary cap {and keep in mind I'm a Leafs fan who's team could spend lots and easily survive without a cap(like the Yankees in baseball)}. Right now the small market teams that have excellent fan support such as Edmonton and Calgary have to keep payrolls low and expect to go deep into the playoffs just to break even. I understand what Mariners Hockey is saying about putting another team in Minnesota but once again it still won't work without a salary cap in place.


Yes teams do need to be contracted. But that'll cost the league too much money to do unless the teams fold on their own. Expanding teams to Florida, Nashville, North Carolina etc. was the worst thing that the NHL could have done. The quality of play is NOWHERE near as good as what it was even ten-fifteen years ago. The league lacks talent and is currently terribly watered down. To attract more fans they need to get rid of atleast five teams.

I'm on the owners side. This is the way I look at it, put yourself with your job in the player's shoes. If your boss told you that you had to take a pay cut from your $5 million a year salary because the company lost more than $100 million that year, how can you argue that???????????


IMO

[Pitpen]

The owners could have a salary cap whether the players agree to it anyway.... as a group...set the salary Cap at X # of Dollars...and nobody goes over it.... if the owner's were really so worried about cost certainty...they would make sound investments
But all it takes is one person to go over it, and soon they're back at square one. Some of these owners do need a salary cap. It's not that they're stupid, it's that they can over pay and want to over pay to win. The NHL needs a salary cap.

[PaytonPaw]

You imply that the most popular sport in America is football which is directly in correlation with the salary cap. Well in Canada, the CFL (Canadian Football League) has enforced a salary cap and STILL the most popular sport is hockey. Is there any coincidence there?
The cap is a major reason that football has overtaken other sports in the US. It made it where any team, if ran properly can become a champ in a short time.

You can't compare this to Canada, where hockey has been the most popular sport, by a significant margin, for a long time. Besides, the CFL is a bucnh of second rate players. It's closer to a minor league than anything else. Of course nobody is going to get too pumped about that. If hockey institutes a cap it's popularity will grow over time. As it stands right now, the lesser cities have a hard time getting into the game when they know their team will never get anywhere because they can't afford the good players.

[Pitpen]

The cap is a major reason that football has overtaken other sports in the US. It made it where any team, if ran properly can become a champ in a short time.

You can't compare this to Canada, where hockey has been the most popular sport, by a significant margin, for a long time. Besides, the CFL is a bucnh of second rate players. It's closer to a minor league than anything else. Of course nobody is going to get too pumped about that. If hockey institutes a cap it's popularity will grow over time. As it stands right now, the lesser cities have a hard time getting into the game when they know their team will never get anywhere because they can't afford the good players.
That's exactly what I was going to say, had I not forgotten to reply.

[desdemona]

A good comparison of the two offers - put in layman's terms:

http://nhlcbanews.com/news/comparison.html

[BangOnMeDrumAllDay]

I guess I just dont understand, as a fan, why the owners should be bailed out for investing in a franchise that loses money. The players have a legitimate gripe, they are the money makers.

The Pettit family in Milwaukee built the Bradley Center in order to host an NHL team. Then they were told the franchise would cost $100 Million or something ludicrous like that. Then they looked at buying the Whalers and moving them to Milwaukee, but were outbid. So they started the Milwaukee Admirals and do pretty good business, despite losing star players to the NHL year in and year out. They realized the NHL was a bad business decision and stayed away!

These bozos that bought teams and put them in Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, etc. were just making a terrible business decision. There is no ice there! The blue collar hockey crowd they expected are NASCAR and college football fans through and through. Even the NFL franchise doesnt do as well in Atlanta as other markets. Screw'em, no shit they are losing money.

I like the teams in hocky heartland sentiment. Milwaukee should get a team, they are ready made for it. Chicago could have two teams, look at the success of the Wolves in the IHL. In the wake of the Whalers, CT and Western Mass have Bridgeport, Hartford and Springfield IHL teams to pick up the slack. How about a division in Oslo, Prague, Moscow, Vilnius, Stockholm, Berlin? That would open up some serious TV contracts abroad.

[Pitpen]

I guess I just dont understand, as a fan, why the owners should be bailed out for investing in a franchise that loses money. The players have a legitimate gripe, they are the money makers.

The Pettit family in Milwaukee built the Bradley Center in order to host an NHL team. Then they were told the franchise would cost $100 Million or something ludicrous like that. Then they looked at buying the Whalers and moving them to Milwaukee, but were outbid. So they started the Milwaukee Admirals and do pretty good business, despite losing star players to the NHL year in and year out. They realized the NHL was a bad business decision and stayed away!

These bozos that bought teams and put them in Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, etc. were just making a terrible business decision. There is no ice there! The blue collar hockey crowd they expected are NASCAR and college football fans through and through. Even the NFL franchise doesnt do as well in Atlanta as other markets. Screw'em, no shit they are losing money.

I like the teams in hocky heartland sentiment. Milwaukee should get a team, they are ready made for it. Chicago could have two teams, look at the success of the Wolves in the IHL. In the wake of the Whalers, CT and Western Mass have Bridgeport, Hartford and Springfield IHL teams to pick up the slack. How about a division in Oslo, Prague, Moscow, Vilnius, Stockholm, Berlin? That would open up some serious TV contracts abroad.
One of the biggest problems with the NHL is they have too many teams. The last thing they should be thinking about is expansion.

[BangOnMeDrumAllDay]

One of the biggest problems with the NHL is they have too many teams. The last thing they should be thinking about is expansion.
My point is that they have teams in the wrong cities. I wasnt saying expansion teams in those places. When a business is losing money, it goes bankrupt, gets sold, or changes the way it does business (ie locating operations overseas, closing stores in certain locations). If somebody realized it was a bad investment 10 years ago, why should the overpayers get bailed out? They should be forced to have a fire sale like any other non-monopoly business.

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

I agree with a Wisconsin Team....they could support a team on a day's notice.... Milwaukee would be the best place for it... and the only real competition for business would be the Bucks....who aren't really that good.... Florida has 2 teams.... Wisconsin Can't have one?

[Whiskey]

The owners could have a salary cap whether the players agree to it anyway.... as a group...set the salary Cap at X # of Dollars...and nobody goes over it.... if the owner's were really so worried about cost certainty...they would make sound investments
That's collusion, and if the players union ever were able to prove that the owners were doing something like this, it would land people in prison.

[The Greatest Poster Alive]

That's collusion, and if the players union ever were able to prove that the owners were doing something like this, it would land people in prison.

STupid "Laws" ...always ruining my perfect plans.... if it wasn't for the damn laws...hockey would be the #1 sport in the country!

[BangOnMeDrumAllDay]

That's collusion, and if the players union ever were able to prove that the owners were doing something like this, it would land people in prison.
They already have anti-trust law exemption. Where else but sports could competing businesses team up to bargain with a union? Common sense would dictate that they should spend less than they take in revenue...but not when you can leech off decent teams.

Like Gov Jesse said, its funny how a team is losing money on paper, but the selling price of the franchise never goes down.

[Whiskey]

They already have anti-trust law exemption. Where else but sports could competing businesses team up to bargain with a union? Common sense would dictate that they should spend less than they take in revenue...but not when you can leech off decent teams.

Like Gov Jesse said, its funny how a team is losing money on paper, but the selling price of the franchise never goes down.
Baseball has anti-trust exemption as well (IIRC) but the union has threatened to sue the owners for collusion, most recently in the '02-'03 off seasons when the FA prices went down considerably.

And the reason the selling price never goes down on these teams is because that's precisely HOW the owners make their money. The best return on any pro sport franchise is to own it for 5 to 7 years, try to minimize losses, and then sell, usually for a fairly healthy profit. Most owners know it's pretty tough to MAKE money in the day to day operations of a franchise, that's why outside of the uber-rich guys like Cuban in Dallas, Steinbrenner in NY, and a few others, teams just don't stay in the same hands for really long periods of time.

[1957 & Waiting]

The owners rejected it because the pay cut is only temporary. It would help out now, but it would do nothing to keep it from happening again. The owners are now profiting, by losing less money, because of this lockout. They have the leverage and will get what they want, in my opinion.

Thats the problem it owners cant control themselves and thats why they want a cap. They need the players to save them from themselves. So ask yourself this, why should the players have to save the owners? Just because your buddy wants to lose 20 million dollars a year does that mean you have to also? The fact is teams can make a lot of money under the CBA if they ran their franchise the right way. If a Canadian team like Vancouver with a weak dollar can make 20 million dollars a year why cant other teams?

Bettman said a luxury tax is a guesswork inrevenue sharing. So whats the owners plan? They plan to share a portion of playoff revenue. Talk about guesswork. Bettman has worked wonders with the owners. He's giving the small markets the idea they have a chances to spend on an equal funding with the large markets and he's found a way where the big markets dont have to share their money with the little sisters. There's only one problems, if teams like Pitt and Nash cant even afford 20 million dollar payrolls how are they gonna meet the salary floor without and concrete revenue sharing plan?

[manny]

I don't know much about the NFL or the NBA, but the NHL players seem to believe that a salary cap will take away guaranteed contracts. That is the main reason I've heard given against a salary cap. Bettman was quoted saying, after both meetings, that guaranteed contracts were never discussed with the union. Since he's aware that this is their main problem with accepting his terms why wouldn't he attempt to clear it up for them?..... unless there is some truth to it.

You imply that the most popular sport in America is football which is directly in correlation with the salary cap. Well in Canada, the CFL (Canadian Football League) has enforced a salary cap and STILL the most popular sport is hockey. Is there any coincidence there?

Whatever... at the moment I'm not favouring either side because, the way I see it, they've both forgotten about the most important factor - their fans.
the CFL is a vastly inferior league

[manny]

The owners could have a salary cap whether the players agree to it anyway.... as a group...set the salary Cap at X # of Dollars...and nobody goes over it.... if the owner's were really so worried about cost certainty...they would make sound investments

collusion isn't going to help anything

[manny]

These bozos that bought teams and put them in Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, etc. were just making a terrible business decision. There is no ice there! The blue collar hockey crowd they expected are NASCAR and college football fans through and through. Even the NFL franchise doesnt do as well in Atlanta as other markets. Screw'em, no shit they are losing money.

Do you actually do any research before you start rambling? There are ice rinks going up all over the Atlanta area where kids are learning to play hockey. We also have a minor league hockey team that is doing well in the Gladiators. There is ice here and there is hockey taking place on it. Atlanta is a transient city and will not support a loser like other places. The Smith's no longer own the Falcons and every game is a sell out.

[SigEpStyles]

The owners could have a salary cap whether the players agree to it anyway.... as a group...set the salary Cap at X # of Dollars...and nobody goes over it.... if the owner's were really so worried about cost certainty...they would make sound investments
That would be collusion...can't do that.

[SigEpStyles]

The players offered to take a 24% pay cut. Owners rejected it. Are owners still holding out for a salary cap? I totally disagree with a salary cap. I see it as a crutch for the penny pinchers to make a quick buck on their franchise. Look at the TV contract for the NFL...the share for each team covers the salary cap. Its impossible to lose money. And teams still suck and ticket prices keep going up for teams that suck because the owners dont even spend the full cap amount.

I have to take the players side on this strike even more now. All it takes are owners to run the business like any other and not rely on crutches like a salary cap. They already have a monopoly, why should the players bail out a league that has over-expanded?
Funny..I'm more on the owners side than ever now. I'm not excusing the fact that the owners are the one's who caused the problem to begin with...nor am I blind to the fact that the only reason they want this cap is because they don't trust themselves and need something in place so they don't screw it up again...but the players knew FULL WELL their offer couldn't be taken seriously.

On paper, it's a "nice" gesture..."HEY, WE'LL TAKE HUGE PAY CUTS"...but in reality..it just leaves the door open for them to get the salaries right back to where they are now in a few years. The NHLPA knew they weren't giving up much in the long run with their proposal of a 24% cut...if it seemed to good to be true...it's because IT WAS!!!

It would look good for a few years....then the salaries would start to rise again...and BOOM..we're back to an NHL with an economic system that doesn't work.

[GameMisconduct]

Owners pay GMs to WIN, not to turn a profit every year. If GMs were hired to ensure a profit, there would be hockey so poor it would rival that of some high school clubs. That's like saying, "Just because there are good players on the market doesn't mean you have to sign them." If it is in your best interest as a team in terms of victory on the ice, then you sign good players at prices more than rival franchises. Period.

Look at it this way. The NHL is one living entity in the realm of business. The same can be said of McDonald's the fast food chain. Have you ever seen New York's McDonald's hire the head "chef" of Pittsburgh's McDonald's for more than any other franchise can afford? NO! A Franchise of a company is not supposed to inhibit profit of a co-franchise in the business. That is why sports inherently need a salary cap system.