-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gary Bettman and his cronies can go pound sand
- Thread starter bishoptl
- Start date
- Status
Spectral Glider
Member
darscot said:
1. I never understand why people want to relate sports to their day jobs. The day thousands of people show up and pay good money to watch you work, that's the day you can compare the two. Otherwise, there's no real correlation between the two.
2. How could small market teams get the ability to sign all the good players with a cap? Cap means there's a limit, it means a select few teams won't be able to sign all the talent which means the high skilled players get more evenly distributed throughout the league. Small market teams will have a shot of some of those, but they won't magically just be able to get them all with a cap. It doesn't mean a capfull of money goes to teams that don't already have it.
3. How could you possibly know whether or not the small market Canadian teams couldn't have survived with a cap? There's no history to base that on. And when those teams folded up I remember lots of crying, and I'm in the US and even heard it. Hell, I heard alot of it when Hartford had to move even. Baseball has no cap and they are starting to suffer through much of the same.....goodbye Expos.....and teams like the Brewers, Twins and Marlins are yearly candidates for being moved or sold or contracted even. And teams like the Pirates are annual losers without legitimate shots at marquee players.
Please, I can see it now. My boss coming to me and saying sorry we spent all our money on Fred two cubicles over we can't give you any more were at our cap. This is were I start to giggle and never work for them again. I'm good at what I do, good enough that there is a fair market system and people will compete for my skills. The only difference is, in the software biz we call them recruiters and hockey players call them agents.
The reason the cap supports shitty teams is simple. Take Vancouver, which will be over the cap the league is offering. When they try and resign Markus Naslund, they will not even be able to make him an offer. There at there cap already. So some crap team that has dumped all their talent and is under the cap gets to sign him just like that.
i dont want an nfl style hard cap in the nhl...because that would make it impossiblie for teams to keep a group of players together for any length of time.
i think a 45-55 million dollar softcap with a luxury tax and atleast a 25-30 million dollar floor, would be perfect..
and they need to change the free agency system.
i think a 45-55 million dollar softcap with a luxury tax and atleast a 25-30 million dollar floor, would be perfect..
and they need to change the free agency system.
Carries over just fine from my side of the argument. It doesn't matter what the business is as long as your good at what you do. If your good at what you do people are willing to compete for your skills. As long as we remain capitalist this is going to be life.
The whole point is I don't need to go on strike. It's a free market, I'm worth exactly what someone is willing to pay me. I would never accept what the NHL owners are proposing at my job. Therefore I would not expect an NHL player to do so either. One day you guys will be in a position where some one is willing to pay you allot of money. And every one of you will jump at it.
The whole point is I don't need to go on strike. It's a free market, I'm worth exactly what someone is willing to pay me. I would never accept what the NHL owners are proposing at my job. Therefore I would not expect an NHL player to do so either. One day you guys will be in a position where some one is willing to pay you allot of money. And every one of you will jump at it.
dem
Member
darscot said:
No.. it doesnt carry over. Its not a free market and it never was a free market. Do you think the last cba was a free market? Fuck no it wasnt. Does your company belong to a league? Does your company trade workers between companies in said leauge? Does your company draft workers? Does your business need every business thats competing with you to be healthy?
Sorry. It doesnt carry over.
Something tells me you wouldnt accept being drafted in your teens and being owned until youre 31 at your job either. Hockey players dream of it.
Stupid argument.
Small market teams don't have as much money because they're in a SMALL MARKET, not because they have a crappy business model. Duh.
And you really can't compare your own job to the NHL.
It's not just the fact that their salaries are much higher, there's a lot more to it.
Why would your employer cap you anyway? It's not like there's other firms out there that are willing to lure you to their company with more money.
dem said:
Agreed with dem...it's two completely different worlds. And as someone said earlier, no one's paying dick to watch you type out BASIC code. It's really apples and oranges.
I think I'd be looking at a $40 million non-tax limit, with 50% spent on every dollar over it. Something in that range anyway. Maybe go to 75% or 100% at 50 mill. I don't side with the owners cause I have the same basic issue that the players do...I simply don't trust them. Not to mention they're completely full of shit (not that the players aren't either, I just think the owners are even more full of it). But having said that, anyone can tell the NHL is in piss poor shape at the moment, so it defintely needs a reset of some sort. Of course I also want to see six teams flushed the fuck out of the league as well, along with a bigger ice surface, mandatory visors, ZERO clutching and grabbing and smaller goalie equipment. And arbitration needs to be completely re-altered or shredded...that's what's really fucked the NHL up.
dem said:
Preach it. Every time ppl try to make analogies between pro sports and normal jobs it's shaky at best, even in the most minor and specific examples. To make direct comparisons is damn near impossible. Pro sports are such a unique animal it exists uneasily with centuries of established common law by it's very nature, and as a result the owners cannot legally do many of the "common sense" things that fans yell at them to do to run their business "like a business". So you have things like the draft, free agency, hold-outs and so on that would be flat-out illegal in any other industry.
Dammit Shin, why the hell did you have to post.
Add another 50 replies to this thread. Again, a lockout followed by hard negotiating on a much different CBA IS the owners being responsible for their own actions.
I think the whole concept of a pro sports CBA negotiation is so complex and multifaceted obviously the arguments are endless. Probably the best example of how confusing it can be is how you'll have ppl arguing opposite viewpoints (like in this thread) but when you break down the posts everyone seems to agree on most points.
I'm not sold on the luxury cap process -- but if they're to implement one (my guess is we won't have a season, and we'll have replacement players before it happens), I'd only be satisfied if it was very harsh. 20 cents on the dollar is nothing... especially when it's intended to offer balance.
The flaws, IMO are:
1: Even in an impossible scenario of a perfect league where almost everyone follows the rules (let's say the pre-tax limit is $40M and the tax is 100% -- dollar for dollar, way over any proposal to date), you've got 29 teams making $40M payrolls. The Rangers go crazy and spend $100M. The luxury tax redistributes a whopping $2M to every other team. Big freaking whoop.
Which brings me to a point that is never discussed when talking about the viability of "sports as business." Part of the problem with the NHL as a whole (and sports teams as a whole) is that in some markets, teams are an owner's vanity project. Not every owner cares if the team makes a nickel or loses millions. And that's a systemic problem, because if they're willing to open up the pocket book, incur a loss and buy a team they hope will win, they fuck up the market.
This isn't specific to the NHL -- it's everywhere. Look at the European hockey leagues right now. There are teams playing in 7,000-person barns offering huge contracts to NHL stars so they can have a storied, championship season.
Ahem.
Flaw 2: I don't know how it's possible to plan based on tax revenue. If I'm the Flames/Oilers and I want to set a long-term plan, do I really know how much extra revenue the luxury tax is going to bring in? I think it would be really hard to plan for... given that the tax is based on all sorts of individual contracts that expire here and there, never mind who will sign in the next couple of years and for how much, who will be traded, and what impact that might create...
The flaws, IMO are:
1: Even in an impossible scenario of a perfect league where almost everyone follows the rules (let's say the pre-tax limit is $40M and the tax is 100% -- dollar for dollar, way over any proposal to date), you've got 29 teams making $40M payrolls. The Rangers go crazy and spend $100M. The luxury tax redistributes a whopping $2M to every other team. Big freaking whoop.
Which brings me to a point that is never discussed when talking about the viability of "sports as business." Part of the problem with the NHL as a whole (and sports teams as a whole) is that in some markets, teams are an owner's vanity project. Not every owner cares if the team makes a nickel or loses millions. And that's a systemic problem, because if they're willing to open up the pocket book, incur a loss and buy a team they hope will win, they fuck up the market.
This isn't specific to the NHL -- it's everywhere. Look at the European hockey leagues right now. There are teams playing in 7,000-person barns offering huge contracts to NHL stars so they can have a storied, championship season.
Ahem.
Flaw 2: I don't know how it's possible to plan based on tax revenue. If I'm the Flames/Oilers and I want to set a long-term plan, do I really know how much extra revenue the luxury tax is going to bring in? I think it would be really hard to plan for... given that the tax is based on all sorts of individual contracts that expire here and there, never mind who will sign in the next couple of years and for how much, who will be traded, and what impact that might create...
calder said:Dammit Shin, why the hell did you have to post.
Again, a lockout followed by hard negotiating on a much different CBA IS the owners being responsible for their own actions.
I think the whole concept of a pro sports CBA negotiation is so complex and multifaceted obviously the arguments are endless. Probably the best example of how confusing it can be is how you'll have ppl arguing opposite viewpoints (like in this thread) but when you break down the posts everyone seems to agree on most points.
Hehe, yeah it's true...as anti-owner as I am, I do think the players need to give back a lot to ensure the health of the league. Thing is I'm not sure the owners even care about negotiating a fair deal, or any sort of deal...they give me the impression that they wanna bust the PA to pieces. I don't like that method at all.
I agree it's not exactly the same as normal business but there is some common ground.
Also for those of you that believe no one is trying to lure people away by offering more money. Then answer me this, when I negotiated my last salary why did my boss insist on a clause that my name would never appear in the manual or credits of the product I develop. Nor would I be listed in the company telephone directory. It's to make it more difficult for the recruiters to find me.
Also for those of you that believe no one is trying to lure people away by offering more money. Then answer me this, when I negotiated my last salary why did my boss insist on a clause that my name would never appear in the manual or credits of the product I develop. Nor would I be listed in the company telephone directory. It's to make it more difficult for the recruiters to find me.
There was an interesting stat mentioned today on TV regarding the NHL. They said the last time the Stanley Cup wasn't awarded was 1919, the year after the Boston Red Sox won the World Series. The Stanley Cup might not be awarded this year, the year after the Boston Red Sox won the world series again...funny coincidence
Yes but your company is free to fire you at two weeks notice as well. Not the same with the NHL so don't try to equate the two scenarios. Completely different.
Edit: Also
See the difference between software development and the NHL is that if Microsoft decided to pay a million dollar salary for programmers and poached all the talent from all the other software houses, then that's fine. But the same isn't true for the Rangers doing the same thing because sports are BASED on exciting competition and software development isn't.
Edit: Also
But it *does* matter if your business can't afford to pay you.
See the difference between software development and the NHL is that if Microsoft decided to pay a million dollar salary for programmers and poached all the talent from all the other software houses, then that's fine. But the same isn't true for the Rangers doing the same thing because sports are BASED on exciting competition and software development isn't.
Donkeypuncher
Banned
Does anyone else think that Gary Bettman looks like The Count from Sesame Street?
I see sports as being a compitition both on and off the ice. If the team A can build a better business then team B and afford to spend more that's all part of the game. If team A has better people to run there business it all part of the Sport. That's the love of pro sports. Are the Yankees good for Baseball. Man U for soccer? The Red Wings for Hockey? I say hell yes they are. You have to build a Pro Sports team in the office and on the ice. Why the hell would anyone want to watch 30 teams all perfectly even. Where is the fun in that?
Gary Bettman is destroying hockey! There has to be David and Goliath thats the whole idea!
PS I know there is a difference I tried to make that clear. But there are portions of the two businesses that are similar.
Gary Bettman is destroying hockey! There has to be David and Goliath thats the whole idea!
PS I know there is a difference I tried to make that clear. But there are portions of the two businesses that are similar.
Azih said:
To be fair, there's nothing stopping a team from releasing a player at anytime. Save for the fact that they'd have to pay them like 66% of the remaining contract value as a buyout.
Still, that's picking hairs...for the most part, pro sports and real life are two different worlds (three if you include the mafia known as the NCAA).
Donkeypuncher
Banned
I don't really see how this ties into a salary cap arguement...I will agree that it's a problem that ties into salaries if you look at the last 10 years. Teams like Detroit and Colorado will always make the playoffs and into the second round, and that's directly tied into thier payroll. I don't think it was like that 30 or 20 years ago.
I think you hit the nail on the head as far as blaming both parties, but stating that the NHL needs an overhaul (that disfavours the players) to remain a viable league.
Shinobi, I agree that the rules have to be looked at to get rid of the clutching and grabbing. It's ruining the game big time.
True dat. I'd make a hockey > all other sports thread...but I'm annoying enough as it is, and that kinda post would probably get me banned.
I don't mean to derail this thread by introducing another topic, but I think it ties into the profitability aspect of the league...One thing I'd blame Bettman for is the lack or inneffectiveness of the league's marketing itself to the American audience. Eh...I can rant on this with my own theories, but I'll leave it at that. It's another topic for another thread...but I just want to say that I blame him for that, and IMO he should be accountable for it.
I was thinking that people like Gretzky should be able to mediate the talks, since he's reputable, a former player and now an owner. GRETZKY CAN SAVE THE NHL!!11
Anyways, maybe this link was posted earlier...I didn't see it. http://www.nhlcbanews.com It's a pro-owner's site...made by the NHL. *LOL* Some interesting articles such as this: http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/nflpa100804.html The NHLPA's site isn't nearly as convincing in their arguments.
I've definitely been more pro-owner through the lockout, but I think it bears mentioning that one player who really deserves praise for what he's done in the absence of league action is Brendon Shanahan, who hosted a summit to discuss how to fix the game...
As for the players' arguments, I think at times, they just spout stuff (i.e.: the CBA News site article quoting NFL players)
Also, this quote talking about the health of the league got me:
"The Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames were among the most profitable teams in the NHL last year." -Ted Saskin, NHLPA senior director
...last year. Thanks to their playoff run, the Flames posted their first season in the black in several years last year (EDIT: after seven consecutive years of losses). It was also done with a payroll below the league average. Otherwise, I don't think they're really the poster team for NHL prosperity. The Oilers haven't exactly been raking it in either, so far as I can tell (and they're another team with a small payroll -- who, IMO, have had general success making the playoffs on the strength of really strong scouting over the last 10 years).
As for the players' arguments, I think at times, they just spout stuff (i.e.: the CBA News site article quoting NFL players)
Also, this quote talking about the health of the league got me:
"The Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames were among the most profitable teams in the NHL last year." -Ted Saskin, NHLPA senior director
...last year. Thanks to their playoff run, the Flames posted their first season in the black in several years last year (EDIT: after seven consecutive years of losses). It was also done with a payroll below the league average. Otherwise, I don't think they're really the poster team for NHL prosperity. The Oilers haven't exactly been raking it in either, so far as I can tell (and they're another team with a small payroll -- who, IMO, have had general success making the playoffs on the strength of really strong scouting over the last 10 years).
SickBoy said:
That's a good point. The NHLPA wants to have it both ways. They mention Calgary and Edmonton as being healthy franchises since they made profits, but fail to neglect their team payrolls of around $30 million. I think the NHL would be fine if all teams had a $30 million payroll.
Kabuki Waq
Member
its simple really compare the salaries for players in the NHL NFL NBA MLB and then compare revenues(tv contract, attendance etc...)
The answer is obvious.
The answer is obvious.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked