|
|
Post by Strummerman on Nov 17, 2003 20:38:02 GMT -5
I keep reading about Red Fisher gloating that Gaborik didn't get the money he wanted. Im sure Red is smiling every day when he thinks of Lafleur The Rocket Boomer all had to have firesales of their mementoes for things like sending their kids and grandkids to school. Oh yeah the same Red Fisher who made a good living writing about these guys.
I saw Red recently in the new Gazette offices. This guy is a Hall of Famer sports journalist. He should act like one and Not like Alan Eagleson.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Nov 18, 2003 7:47:58 GMT -5
Gonna have to disagree with you there. Fisher is well respected in all circles. He's one of the most down to Earth, non BS, people out there. He doesn't beat around the bush.
Red was right to criticize Gaborik. Holding out for $9 million per year in your second contract is ridiculous. Check that ... $9 million per year is ridiculous at any time. Players were vastly undercompensated until the 70's and the WHA. After that player salaries escalated to respectable levels. The 90's brought on an obscene amount of greed. I have no quams with players making 6 or 7 figures, but keep it within reason. Guys on a third or fourth line shouldn't be making over $1 million.
I'm not going to debate who's to blame for salaries getting to where they are. It's the preverbial chicken and egg. Suffice to say Gaborik's demands were unfounded, and without merit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Nov 18, 2003 19:08:58 GMT -5
Gonna have to disagree with you there. Fisher is well respected in all circles. He's one of the most down to Earth, non BS, people out there. He doesn't beat around the bush. Red was right to criticize Gaborik. Holding out for $9 million per year in your second contract is ridiculous. Check that ... $9 million per year is ridiculous at any time. Players were vastly undercompensated until the 70's and the WHA. After that player salaries escalated to respectable levels. The 90's brought on an obscene amount of greed. I have no quams with players making 6 or 7 figures, but keep it within reason. Guys on a third or fourth line shouldn't be making over $1 million. I'm not going to debate who's to blame for salaries getting to where they are. It's the preverbial chicken and egg. Suffice to say Gaborik's demands were unfounded, and without merit. I dont think Gaborik was asking 9 million per year, I think your figures are wrong. However , look at Red's articles week after week. He has not sided with the players once including Bertuzzi Giguere etc. He doesnt think any players should make over a million. That is my dispute with Red. I think its the players that entertain me not the owners. Does anyone really believe if contracts go down that ticket prices will go down as well. The best contract Bobby Orr ever made was 1 million for 5 years! After the Alan Eagleson era where he screwed the players royally I think it would be fair that players made as much as possible or as the market dictates. Hockey players dont make as much as football players in the NFL or Baseball players or NBA players. So what is the problem?  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 20, 2003 18:44:24 GMT -5
What's wrong with this league? Five words:
"TIE DOMI IS A MILLIONAIRE" ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Nov 21, 2003 13:25:29 GMT -5
I just noticed this thread. Let's look at the facts for a sec. -Gaborik is a young player who has an excellent season worthy of a new contract for about 3 million a year. -Gaborik's agent demands 6.5 million a year. -Minnesota says no! -Press asks agent. -Agent says, "I didn't ask for 6.5 million a year, I asked for 19.5 million for three years!" -Minnesota laughs at agent. -Gaborik holds out. Agent spews nonsense on a daily basis about the team. -Gaborik fires agent. -Gaborik hires new agent. -New agent immediately comes to terms with team at about teams' original offer. Yeah, Red is soooooo wrong on this one.  Red is Alan Eagleson resurrected? Another roll-of-my-eyes for you! |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Nov 23, 2003 21:11:34 GMT -5
I just noticed this thread. Let's look at the facts for a sec. -Gaborik is a young player who has an excellent season worthy of a new contract for about 3 million a year. -Gaborik's agent demands 6.5 million a year. -Minnesota says no! -Press asks agent. -Agent says, "I didn't ask for 6.5 million a year, I asked for 19.5 million for three years!" -Minnesota laughs at agent. -Gaborik holds out. Agent spews nonsense on a daily basis about the team. -Gaborik fires agent. -Gaborik hires new agent. -New agent immediately comes to terms with team at about teams' original offer. Yeah, Red is soooooo wrong on this one. Red is Alan Eagleson resurrected? Another roll-of-my-eyes for you! Yeah right I guess when you negotiate with a team you should start off with your lowest bid and then raise it -yeah good negotiating stance. Anyways if Gaborik was a free agent what do you think he would get? 3 million??? I don't think so. Do you think Gaborik is a franchise player. I do and I think the Habs have no one that even comes close to Gaborik's talent including Koivu. So if Koivu makes 4.5 million what should Gaborik make. As for Red Fisher, like I said if this was the sole case of him siding with management I would not make a big fuss about it, but he goes against every player that wants a salary increase look at his columns. There you should roll your eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Nov 23, 2003 21:13:10 GMT -5
What's wrong with this league? Five words: "TIE DOMI IS A MILLIONAIRE" ;D Now if you had said Donald Audette is a millionaire I would ask why??? At least Tie Domi has spilled blood for every team he has been on. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Nov 24, 2003 14:34:24 GMT -5
Yeah right I guess when you negotiate with a team you should start off with your lowest bid and then raise it -yeah good negotiating stance. Anyways if Gaborik was a free agent what do you think he would get? 3 million??? I don't think so. Do you think Gaborik is a franchise player. I do and I think the Habs have no one that even comes close to Gaborik's talent including Koivu. So if Koivu makes 4.5 million what should Gaborik make. As for Red Fisher, like I said if this was the sole case of him siding with management I would not make a big fuss about it, but he goes against every player that wants a salary increase look at his columns. There you should roll your eyes. Yeah, you're right. The poor players are sooooooo underpaid. I weep for them nightly. Notice I don't mind what they get as salary - if the owners sign the contract then it's their problem if they don't like the results. However, I'm not going to waste my time worrying that someone in their early twenties is making $3.5 million instead of $5 million a year. I think it's a good thing that Minnesota won this one, considering we need to have a proper CBA that will allow salaries as a whole to come down a good 15-20% if the league is going to survive. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Nov 24, 2003 19:40:53 GMT -5
Yeah, you're right. The poor players are sooooooo underpaid. I weep for them nightly. Notice I don't mind what they get as salary - if the owners sign the contract then it's their problem if they don't like the results. However, I'm not going to waste my time worrying that someone in their early twenties is making $3.5 million instead of $5 million a year. I think it's a good thing that Minnesota won this one, considering we need to have a proper CBA that will allow salaries as a whole to come down a good 15-20% if the league is going to survive. Im glad your worried about the league surviving or else what could we do if teams like Nashville Florida or Columbus cant survive. Yeah well maybe you should lose sleep if Boom Geoffrion has to sell his memorabilia in order to send his grandkids to school or Guy lafleur has to open a restaurant with his son in order to survive. These guys and many others that were screwed by Alan Eagleson deserved better with all the thrills they brought us. Yeah its okay for a crusty filthy rich owner who doesnt know what to do with money to make money and screw talented players, it's not okay for 23 year olds who were born with natural talent and who may I add entertain us unlike owners to make money I wont lose sleep if a crusty old moneybags loses a few millions of his hundreds of millions to buy a kid with talent. See Guy Lafleur for a reference |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Nov 26, 2003 18:00:19 GMT -5
Im glad your worried about the league surviving or else what could we do if teams like Nashville Florida or Columbus cant survive. Yeah well maybe you should lose sleep if Boom Geoffrion has to sell his memorabilia in order to send his grandkids to school or Guy lafleur has to open a restaurant with his son in order to survive. These guys and many others that were screwed by Alan Eagleson deserved better with all the thrills they brought us. Yeah its okay for a crusty filthy rich owner who doesnt know what to do with money to make money and screw talented players, it's not okay for 23 year olds who were born with natural talent and who may I add entertain us unlike owners to make money I wont lose sleep if a crusty old moneybags loses a few millions of his hundreds of millions to buy a kid with talent. See Guy Lafleur for a reference I hate the fact Maurice Richard* had to sell heating oil after he retired. You are ranting without listening to what I'm saying. A complete waste of time. *-There's a BIG difference in the salaries players got in the fifties and sixties (and indeed into the seventies) and what they make today. In the fifties they made about what an average skilled labourer made. By the seventies they were making about what a successful lawyer would have made. Today they make roughly what a successful Chief Executive Officer makes. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Nov 26, 2003 21:30:35 GMT -5
I hate the fact Maurice Richard* had to sell heating oil after he retired. You are ranting without listening to what I'm saying. A complete waste of time. *-There's a BIG difference in the salaries players got in the fifties and sixties (and indeed into the seventies) and what they make today. In the fifties they made about what an average skilled labourer made. By the seventies they were making about what a successful lawyer would have made. Today they make roughly what a successful Chief Executive Officer makes. Yes and there is a big difference in what revenues are coming in nowadays with television and corporate boxes etc. Do not kid yourself a successful lawyer could make millions. As well a lawyer's career last 20-30 years unlike hockey player's who on average last 6 years. Now getting back to the Rocket why is it he could not negotiate anything better. Because the system was draconian, the player's rights were trampled upon, and the owners had the players by the youknowwhat. SO who got rich in that era? The Wirtz's, the Adams, the Molsons, The Smythes and Ballards, etc etc. Then came Alan Eagleson and he screwed the players even more. Bobby Orr in his prime made 1 million for 5 years. Ken Dryden quit the Habs for one year in order to squeeze out more money. Players had to play with all sorts of injuries. So now the situation has been corrected. I have no problem with a player making as much as a CEO. If Sylvester Stallone can make 20 million for a movie why can't a hockey player make 10 million for a year. Who is the more entertaining? Frankly if there was no money to pay the players they would not be signed to these big contracts. Do I care if Gaborik makes 10 million a year rather than some owner. I would prefer that the person that entertained me got the money then the financial backer. Now if the market dictates the salaries are too high then what will happen is the fans will not pay the ticket prices , teams will go under and then salaries will be retracted. Let the market dictate this. There are always doomsayers but I am still waiting to see a hockey franchise go under. However after the history of what has been done to hockey players I will defend the player's rights to earn any salary they can and screw the owners. Why should Gaborik be the Maurice Richard of his day. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Nov 30, 2003 17:28:42 GMT -5
Wow I cant believe it Red Fisher actually said Bill Guerin is earning his salary on Saturday. Guess I was wrong about the old Redhead ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Dec 3, 2003 14:53:54 GMT -5
Hockey players dont make as much as football players in the NFL or Baseball players or NBA players. So what is the problem? Those leagues also have considerably higher revenues than NHL teams have. For example, each NHL team gets about $5M (U.S.) from TV revenue. Now compare that with the fact that each NBA team gets $34M and each NFL team gets $75M. To top it all off, the average salary in the NHL is higher than the average salary in the NFL. That shows you why the league is in so much trouble, and why guys like Red Fisher usually don't have any simpathy for these multi-millionaire crybabies. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Dec 3, 2003 15:51:40 GMT -5
Those leagues also have considerably higher revenues than NHL teams have. For example, each NHL team gets about $5M (U.S.) from TV revenue. Now compare that with the fact that each NBA team gets $34M and each NFL team gets $75M. To top it all off, the average salary in the NHL is higher than the average salary in the NFL. That shows you why the league is in so much trouble, and why guys like Red Fisher usually don't have any simpathy for these multi-millionaire crybabies. And neither the NFL or NBA have to support minor league affiliates. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 3, 2003 23:42:02 GMT -5
Those leagues also have considerably higher revenues than NHL teams have. For example, each NHL team gets about $5M (U.S.) from TV revenue. Now compare that with the fact that each NBA team gets $34M and each NFL team gets $75M. To top it all off, the average salary in the NHL is higher than the average salary in the NFL. That shows you why the league is in so much trouble, and why guys like Red Fisher usually don't have any simpathy for these multi-millionaire crybabies. You know basketball players are signed to 10 years 100 million dollar contracts and basbeall players well there is AROD and football has free agency- so they make more money and get paid more money what is the point? Hockey players dont come close to these contracts. The NFL rosters are 40 man rosters and they only play 16 weeks. The NHL rosters are 25. Obviously the NFL has players who rarely play and wont get paid much as a third string lineman who never plays. Everytime there is a CBA agreement about to be negotiated, the journalists who are in the owner's pockets start braying about the impending demise of the league. I state again when the teams go under let me know about it. There have been franchises transferred left and right over time- the Kansas City Scouts, the Celevland Barons, the Minnesota North Stars.Quebec Winnipeg, Do not be surprised if some existing teams go to cities like Kansas City Houston et al. I dont believe an NHL franchise has gone under yet in modern times. To reiterate, if the teams cant afford to sign these players, they wont. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 3, 2003 23:47:51 GMT -5
And neither the NFL or NBA have to support minor league affiliates. The NFL has supported European football for years. The NBA has summer leagues as well. As well prove to me the minor league teams are losing money. It is funny how the year before the CBA agreement is to be negotiated teams like Dallas, the Islanders, and even Toronto cant afford those big salaries. It was just a year ago these teams were throwing money at players. I cant believe the general public is so gullible. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Dec 4, 2003 1:07:31 GMT -5
I dont believe an NHL franchise has gone under yet in modern times. A team relocating is the same as going under because the team cannot financially survive in its current surroundings. The NHL had two of its teams file for bankruptcy last year. The Buffalo Sabres were being run by the league until they were lucky enough to find an owner. Our very beloved Montreal Canadiens were worth $250M (U.S.) according to Forbes magazine the same year that Georgie bought the team AND the arena for a cool $150M. The Pittsburgh Penguins, nowadays, are a very good AHL team. The Edmonton Oilers have lost star after star due to financial restraints. Look at how much turnover there has been in the NHL throughout the 90s. In a span of three years the league had four of its teams relocate (Minnesota, Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford). Even today, teams like Calgary cannot financially compete anywhere close to teams like the Rangers or Stars. All of this doesn't make you question that the owners are getting the short end of the stick? You still think that they're crying poor? Maybe some of them are, but I would bet that 2/3 of the NHL's owners are losing money and half the teams won't survive long-term in the NHL if the CBA is not done properly. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 4, 2003 12:21:06 GMT -5
The threat of a lockout has made some owners and players a bit more reasonable. But not Bob Goodenow, whose income is enhanced by inflated salaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 6, 2003 18:34:48 GMT -5
A team relocating is the same as going under because the team cannot financially survive in its current surroundings. The NHL had two of its teams file for bankruptcy last year. The Buffalo Sabres were being run by the league until they were lucky enough to find an owner. Our very beloved Montreal Canadiens were worth $250M (U.S.) according to Forbes magazine the same year that Georgie bought the team AND the arena for a cool $150M. The Pittsburgh Penguins, nowadays, are a very good AHL team. The Edmonton Oilers have lost star after star due to financial restraints. Look at how much turnover there has been in the NHL throughout the 90s. In a span of three years the league had four of its teams relocate (Minnesota, Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford). Even today, teams like Calgary cannot financially compete anywhere close to teams like the Rangers or Stars. All of this doesn't make you question that the owners are getting the short end of the stick? You still think that they're crying poor? Maybe some of them are, but I would bet that 2/3 of the NHL's owners are losing money and half the teams won't survive long-term in the NHL if the CBA is not done properly. The Buffalo Sabres had a Billionaire owner who had been arrested for bilking money from his corporations. This had absolutely nothing to do with hockey. Pittsburgh does not even have an NBA franchise, and their baseball franchise is not doing that great either. Pittsburgh is a blue collar city and pure and simple a football town. Quebec and Winnipeg are small North American towns and the only reason they ever got a franchise was because they were bought out of the WHA. They should have never gotten franchises. Dont forget baseball teams like Washington Senators et al have been relocated, basketball teams like Vancouver have been relocated, football teams like Los Angeles Rams have been relocated. In fact, LA the biggest city in the USA has no NFL franchise. Is the NFL losing money according to what your saying??? Owners of sports franchises are rarely in the game to make money. They are in it for the prestige and to have a winning team. I doubt Tom Hicks who owns the Stars and paid AROD 250 million is crying poor because he is paying Modano 8 million. Give me a break. As for the Habs, many factors were involved in them not selling at the going rate, the most important of which was the fact the team sucked and still sucks. As well the currency problem and tax problem and political problem did not help. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 6, 2003 18:36:56 GMT -5
The threat of a lockout has made some owners and players a bit more reasonable. But not Bob Goodenow, whose income is enhanced by inflated salaries. Bob Goodenow?? Sheesh maybe you should say the Gary Bettman's salary is enhanced as well as tag alongs like Red Fisher and Glen Sather and coaches etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Dec 7, 2003 15:35:07 GMT -5
Bob Goodenow?? Sheesh maybe you should say the Gary Bettman's salary is enhanced as well as tag alongs like Red Fisher and Glen Sather and coaches etc. Red Fisher is employed by the Montreal Gazette. What does his salary have anything to do with Gary Bettman or Glen Sather's income? The Buffalo Sabres had a Billionaire owner who had been arrested for bilking money from his corporations. This had absolutely nothing to do with hockey. That's true, but look at how long the league had to run the team. Finding an owner took a lot longer than expected because people are leery of investing in the NHL nowadays. Green Bay is also a small North American town but they seem to survive just fine because the league they're in is more efficiently run. These are singular cases where one team moves every once in a while. My point was that the NHL had four of its teams move in a span of three years. Find me a league that had that high of a turnover rate in such a short span. These were teams in the 90s. In previous decades there were teams that relocated from Kansas City, Atlanta, California and Colorado. Even nowadays there are another handful of teams that could possible relocate if the CBA is not done properly. The NHL has probably been the least stable out of the four professional sports leagues in recent history. So according to you the owners buy teams for the prestige and not to make money. If that's the case then why should it matter if the city has a tax problem or that the province has a political problem and that the country has a currency problem? This is the most storied team in hockey history. Shouldn't that be enough? No Canadian company made a serious pitch for the Habs-the winningest team in NHL history? Why do you think that is? Obviously because investing in the NHL is not considered a smart business decision. The Habs and their arena were sold for a song because there was no competition from other bidders. When a team like the Montreal Canadiens are sold for peanuts, I find it hard to believe that the NHL is in strong financial shape. George Gillett even said that one of the reasons that he decided to purchase the Habs is because Gary Bettman told him that the NHL's salary structure would be fixed. Don't you find it odd that a franchise such as the Montreal Canadiens was sold for a "garage sale" type of price, and on top of that Gillett still needed convincing from the league commissioner? |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 7, 2003 20:06:58 GMT -5
Red Fisher is employed by the Montreal Gazette. What does his salary have anything to do with Gary Bettman or Glen Sather's income? Red Fisher has written about hockey and he has written books about hockey. Hockey is Red's life and for some reason he has a hard time accepting that hockey players make millions of dollars? That's true, but look at how long the league had to run the team. Finding an owner took a lot longer than expected because people are leery of investing in the NHL nowadays. [/quote] In fact this may not be the case for Buffalo. There was more than one suitor. The league wanted to be sure they didnt get stuck with another flim flam artist like the previous owner. Green Bay is also a small North American town but they seem to survive just fine because the league they're in is more efficiently run. [/quote] And Los Angeles is the biggest city in North America and it does not have an NFL franchise. The point is that Green Bay has had a franchise since near the NFL inception and is a state supported team. If the Quebec province or the Manitoba province had supported their teams they would still be there. Anyways we all know Quebec and Winnipeg dont have the population to support an NHL franchise. These are singular cases where one team moves every once in a while. My point was that the NHL had four of its teams move in a span of three years. Find me a league that had that high of a turnover rate in such a short span. These were teams in the 90s. In previous decades there were teams that relocated from Kansas City, Atlanta, California and Colorado. Even nowadays there are another handful of teams that could possible relocate if the CBA is not done properly. The NHL has probably been the least stable out of the four professional sports leagues in recent history. [/quote] No untrue. Look at the NFL- The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore, the Los Angeles Rams moved to St Louis, The St Louis Cardinals moved to Arizona, The Houston team moved to Tennesee, the Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis etc etc etc. Now for Baseball, the Milwaukee Braves moved to Atlanta, The Kansas City A's moved to Oakland, The Washington Senators moved to Texas, the New York Giants moved to San Francisco, The Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angelese, etc etc etc. So according to you the owners buy teams for the prestige and not to make money. If that's the case then why should it matter if the city has a tax problem or that the province has a political problem and that the country has a currency problem? This is the most storied team in hockey history. Shouldn't that be enough? [/quote] Yes and an American bought the club for that specific reason. No Canadian company made a serious pitch for the Habs-the winningest team in NHL history? Why do you think that is? Obviously because investing in the NHL is not considered a smart business decision. The Habs and their arena were sold for a song because there was no competition from other bidders. When a team like the Montreal Canadiens are sold for peanuts, I find it hard to believe that the NHL is in strong financial shape. [/quote] I dont know if you work for Molsons but how do you know no Canadian company made a serious pitch. I think Bell did and probably the fact its involved in many communication ventures may have stopped it. George Gillett even said that one of the reasons that he decided to purchase the Habs is because Gary Bettman told him that the NHL's salary structure would be fixed. Don't you find it odd that a franchise such as the Montreal Canadiens was sold for a "garage sale" type of price, and on top of that Gillett still needed convincing from the league commissioner? [/quote] I seriously doubt George Gillett who has contacts with the Colorado ownership and sees how Colorado throws money at players thinks Bettman has enough clout to stop the Rangers or Avalanche or other money bag teams from throwing money at players. The issue for me is still this- Why were free agents signed to exorbitant contracts 2 years ago and now all of a sudden there is no more money. Has attendance declined that badly in one year? Frankly I think the attempts of hockey owners to mimic baseball owners and basketball owners in tightening purse strings is nauseating. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Dec 7, 2003 23:56:47 GMT -5
I dont know if you work for Molsons but how do you know no Canadian company made a serious pitch. I think Bell did and probably the fact its involved in many communication ventures may have stopped it. I don't work for Molson's but I saved various press clippings from when the Habs were sold to GG and those articles said that no Canadian company made a serious pitch for the Habs. Dan O'Neil (CEO of Molson) even said that Molson wanted to sell it someone Canadian but there was nobody seriously interested. Obviously Bettman alone doesn't have the clout to do this, but that's what the CBA is about. The fact that teams like the Rangers and Avalanche can throw around money and teams like the Flames and Penguins can't is what is wrong with the league. The free agents that were signed to lucrative deals two years ago went to rich teams. Every summer the same teams are involved in all of the bidding wars. The Rangers, Stars, Red Wings, Avs, Blues, Flyers and Leafs are the only teams that can afford the NHL's biggest superstars. The problem with the league is that 2/3 of the teams in the league are unable to even attempt to go for one of these players because they don't have the financial clout to do so. Why should the rich get richer? There should be more of an even playing field so that a successful team like the Ottawa Senators can jump in to the bidding war once in a while as well. Have the Ottawa Senators ever made a bid for a high-priced free agent? No. The reason isn't because the owner is crying poor, it's because the team can't afford to pay many of the players who become free agents. The reason the owners are saying that they don't have money is because their budget is maxed out and also, because if there's a salary cap in the next CBA, teams like the Stars don't want to be in a position where they are $30M over the cap. It's not the owners of the big-money teams that are crying poor. It's the rest of the league. Why is there so much of a disparity between the top spending teams and the low spending teams? The New York Rangers sign Bobby Holik to a $45M deal and the Pittsburgh Penguins trade Martin Straka because at $4M he is too expensive to keep on the roster. Professional athletes are getting a ridiculous amount of money nowadays. Revenues in the NHL have gone up but player salaries have sky-rocketed at a faster pace. The owners would like the players on their team to earn 50% of the team's revenue. Right now there are some teams where players are making 75% of the team's revenue. I don't understand why you think that the NHL owner's are "crying poor." The league is one big economic mess. Case in point; the New Jersey Devils despite winning the Stanley Cup, still managed to lose money last year. The Vancouver Canucks sell out their building every night and are one of the elite teams in the league, yet they needed atleast 4 home playoff dates last year just so they could break even. The Buffalo Sabres in 1999 despite making it to the sixth game of the Stanley Cup finals, still managed to lose money. These are the reasons why the NHL is in so much trouble and why I think that the owners have a case come September 2004. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 8, 2003 18:13:32 GMT -5
I don't work for Molson's but I saved various press clippings from when the Habs were sold to GG and those articles said that no Canadian company made a serious pitch for the Habs. Dan O'Neil (CEO of Molson) even said that Molson wanted to sell it someone Canadian but there was nobody seriously interested. . Clearly the fact that the Habs are not a publicly owned team does not help. I think the problem with the Habs is that the previous owner the Molson company was a public company and had to sell because of its own financial problems. As well, they wanted to retain some marketing rights. Frankly that stopped other breweries or alcohol related companies like Seagrams from purchasing the Habs. Therefore the timing was not good. As I previously noted the Habs team was in a downward spiral the tax the currency and the political situation did not help. A lot of things depend on timing. Steinbrenner purchased the Yankees at a discount because of the timing. Gillett is gambling he purchased the Habs at a discount and will make bundles in the future. Obviously Bettman alone doesn't have the clout to do this, but that's what the CBA is about. The fact that teams like the Rangers and Avalanche can throw around money and teams like the Flames and Penguins can't is what is wrong with the league. .[/quote] So who do you think has more clout? The teams that have huge financial resources and sell out all games and have big televison contracts or the smaller teams. Guess who is gonna win? The free agents that were signed to lucrative deals two years ago went to rich teams. Every summer the same teams are involved in all of the bidding wars. The Rangers, Stars, Red Wings, Avs, Blues, Flyers and Leafs are the only teams that can afford the NHL's biggest superstars. .[/quote] However there is also an issue of where players want to play. Why did Martin Lapointe sign with Boston and not Montreal? Why did Kariya sign with COlorado? You are ignoring who players prefer playing for. And it isnt always money. Lapointe was offered virtually the same money by the Habs. And Kariya could have gotten much more anywhere else. The problem with the league is that 2/3 of the teams in the league are unable to even attempt to go for one of these players because they don't have the financial clout to do so. Why should the rich get richer? There should be more of an even playing field so that a successful team like the Ottawa Senators can jump in to the bidding war once in a while as well. Have the Ottawa Senators ever made a bid for a high-priced free agent? No. The reason isn't because the owner is crying poor, it's because the team can't afford to pay many of the players who become free agents. .[/quote] Show me the difference with hockey and baseball where the Yankees Dodgers Mets and Red Sox sign who they want or basketball where the Lakers Knicks etc sign who they want. The reason the owners are saying that they don't have money is because their budget is maxed out and also, because if there's a salary cap in the next CBA, teams like the Stars don't want to be in a position where they are $30M over the cap. .[/quote] And who has decided there will be a salary cap. Not the players. The owners are colluding to screw the players once again. So you agree the players are being shafted cause teams can afford to pay them but are pretending they are being paid too much for the convenienc eof a draconian CBA. It's not the owners of the big-money teams that are crying poor. It's the rest of the league. Why is there so much of a disparity between the top spending teams and the low spending teams? The New York Rangers sign Bobby Holik to a $45M deal and the Pittsburgh Penguins trade Martin Straka because at $4M he is too expensive to keep on the roster. .[/quote] You very well know Pittsburgh is a special case see my previous posts. All you need is Pittsburgh to be transferred to Hamilton or Houston and it becomes a viable entity. Professional athletes are getting a ridiculous amount of money nowadays. Revenues in the NHL have gone up but player salaries have sky-rocketed at a faster pace. The owners would like the players on their team to earn 50% of the team's revenue. Right now there are some teams where players are making 75% of the team's revenue. .[/quote] And you dont think Jean Beliveau or Bobby Hull or Bobby Orr made 75% of the salary structure in their hey day. Anyways, what is happening now is that players have agents that are savvy and know what revenues teams make and know how to negotiate. The days of giving Gordie Howe a contract with no dollar amount and having him sign it are over thank God. I don't understand why you think that the NHL owner's are "crying poor." The league is one big economic mess. Case in point; the New Jersey Devils despite winning the Stanley Cup, still managed to lose money last year. .[/quote] The Devils lose money because of their television deal which has been rectified. The Vancouver Canucks sell out their building every night and are one of the elite teams in the league, yet they needed atleast 4 home playoff dates last year just so they could break even. .[/quote] You know what there are many intangibles to accounting. They are talking about operating income, which may not include many revenue items such as interest marketing rights etc which may make a team much more profit than what is shown on the operating line. The Buffalo Sabres in 1999 despite making it to the sixth game of the Stanley Cup finals, still managed to lose money. .[/quote] See above These are the reasons why the NHL is in so much trouble and why I think that the owners have a case come September 2004.[/quote] The NHL is in so much trouble - same old whine by BS reporters working for owners(Pierre Maguire Red Fisher lead the list). To repeat for the last time companies in trouble go under- waiting for even one team to go under when that happens give me a call. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Dec 8, 2003 23:23:01 GMT -5
So who do you think has more clout? The teams that have huge financial resources and sell out all games and have big televison contracts or the smaller teams. Guess who is gonna win? There are only a handful of teams that have huge financial resources, sell out their games and have big television contracts. Like I previously stated, the problem with the league is that 2/3 of the teams don't have the financial wherewithal to earn revenues. That is what I have been saying all along. The problem isn't with MSG and the Rangers or Ilitch and the Red Wings. The problem is with teams like the Flames and Coyotes. Who has more clout? I'll put my money on the majority of the league. The owners are trying to screw the players? Bobby Holik gets $45M to score 50 pts. Martin Lapointe gets $5M per season to be a checker. You don't see how this affects the small market teams? Excuse me? Hamilton? You think that an NHL team will fail to survive in Pittsburgh, which has a greater population and U.S. dollars, and be able to survive in Hamilton? Weren't you the same guy saying that Winnipeg and Quebec City are small market teams? Then how do you justify Hamilton getting an NHL team? They can hardly sell out their AHL games! Those were the superstars of the league. They were hockey legends! Did players like Tie Domi, an over-the-hill vet, get paid the equivalent of $1M + in those days? Anyways, this argument seems like it's just going to keep going back-and-forth. You think the players are still getting screwed and I think that the majority of the owners are getting the shaft. Let's agree to disagree, and wait until September of 2004 to see which side the CBA favours. This is my last post on this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 9, 2003 21:10:28 GMT -5
There are only a handful of teams that have huge financial resources, sell out their games and have big television contracts. Like I previously stated, the problem with the league is that 2/3 of the teams don't have the financial wherewithal to earn revenues. That is what I have been saying all along. The problem isn't with MSG and the Rangers or Ilitch and the Red Wings. The problem is with teams like the Flames and Coyotes. Who has more clout? I'll put my money on the majority of the league. [/quote] I would suggest to you in all professional sports 1/3 or even less have clout. And they control the leagues. The Yankees the Dodgers the Red Sox and a few other teams control baseball. If you think the NHL is inequitable you should see soccer where like in Italy 4-5 teams out of 16 win every year and buy up all the good players. In fact they have such an abundance of players they loan out their younger players to weaker financially strapped teams. And if these players play well the Big team brings them back. The only way we have a CBA that owners want is if Illitch and MSG and the Walton family wants it. Even then as we see in basketball that has a salary cap, there will be a way around it. Look at the Lakers, they had Kobe and Shaq and even with a salary cap they were able to get the Mailman and Gary Payton- 4 out of 5 starters are superstars. As well as an aside I would suggest to you if the NHL had a few teams that won consistently and had great superstars the league would be much more popular and get big television contracts. The era of Lemieux and Grets brought out ESPN contracts. The era of Bobby Orr brought NBC to televise games. Dont be surprised if Crosbie turns out to be another Grets the league turns around fast. The owners are trying to screw the players? Bobby Holik gets $45M to score 50 pts. Martin Lapointe gets $5M per season to be a checker. [/quote] Bobby Holik is coveted by many teams and he is not there because of his goal scoring. The Rangers did not sign him because they expected him to score 100 points which he has never done. As for Martin Lapointe the signing never made sense to me especially with the Bruins track record. I would suggest if the Bruins had signed Guerin to 9 million a year rather than Lapointe then there would be no issue. Even Red Fisher agrees with this. Of course I think Sinden just tried to keep Lapointe from going to Montreal. Now for screwing the players. I think Gaborik got screwed. Is he worth more than Martin Lapointe? I think Martin Havlat got screwed. Is he worth than Martin Lapointe? I think Richard Zednik got screwed. Is he worth more than Martin Lapointe? etc etc etc., You don't see how this affects the small market teams? [/quote] Small market teams should not exist if they cant survive. Capitalism means supply and demand. What you are suggesting is a form of socialism. Not that Im against it but the only winners will be the weasel owners who will get a bigger piece of the pie and screw players once again. Excuse me? Hamilton? You think that an NHL team will fail to survive in Pittsburgh, which has a greater population and U.S. dollars, and be able to survive in Hamilton? Weren't you the same guy saying that Winnipeg and Quebec City are small market teams? Then how do you justify Hamilton getting an NHL team? They can hardly sell out their AHL games! [/quote] Umm I lived in Toronto Hamilton is less than 50 miles from Toronto and Mississauga has over 2 million people. If New York can support 3 teams, the Toronto area can support 2 teams in a hockey mad city unlike New York. Those were the superstars of the league. They were hockey legends! Did players like Tie Domi, an over-the-hill vet, get paid the equivalent of $1M + in those days? [/quote] And you know why- the players had no rights and no union at that time, or they had Alan Eagleson. People like John Ferguson and Eddie Shack bled for their teams like Domi and they were never compensated for their deeds as they should have been. And beware if they ever lost a fight badly. Their career was over. Anyways, this argument seems like it's just going to keep going back-and-forth. You think the players are still getting screwed and I think that the majority of the owners are getting the shaft. Let's agree to disagree, and wait until September of 2004 to see which side the CBA favours. [/quote] I think its irrelevant what the CBA is like in terms of this discussion. I have already stated there is collusion going on among owners to screw the players. And reporters like Red Fisher and Pierre Maguire are in the owner's camp. I say this whole nonsense is brought on to make the fatcats richer not the poorer teams to survive. In fact besides just playing on a team intangibles like marketing rights etc will always have players choosing big market teams over small market teams, CBA or no CBA. This is my last post on this topic.[/quote] Fine I was about to say the same thing. For me the argument is still analogous to the entertainment industry. SHould Johnny Carson have been paid 20 million a year or should his producer Freddie De Cordoba have made the money? Should Marlon Brando get 20 million for the movie or should his producer get it? I think the owners colluding bring back a famous line"I'll make them an offer they can't refuse" |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Dec 10, 2003 12:12:23 GMT -5
This should sum up any reasonable person's position on the matter:
If the players don't give in a little, franchises will fail.
If franchises fail, there will be less jobs for them.
If there are less jobs for them, there will be less money for them (glut of supply + lack of demand = smaller prices).
If the entire league fails, they will all be out of work.
If people who work in the auto industry, for example, can grasp this concept, I'm sure NHL players will be able to as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 10, 2003 22:03:26 GMT -5
This should sum up any reasonable person's position on the matter: If the players don't give in a little, franchises will fail. If franchises fail, there will be less jobs for them. If there are less jobs for them, there will be less money for them (glut of supply + lack of demand = smaller prices). If the entire league fails, they will all be out of work. If people who work in the auto industry, for example, can grasp this concept, I'm sure NHL players will be able to as well. Ok so let me sum this up in one sentence. When a franchise fails let me know about it, Im still waiting. And Im not talking about franchises that are transferred to other cities. Ciao |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Dec 10, 2003 23:37:08 GMT -5
Ok so let me sum this up in one sentence. When a franchise fails let me know about it, Im still waiting. And Im not talking about franchises that are transferred to other cities. Ciao The only reason some franchise haven't failed is because of the bigger fool theory. There has always been a bigger fool to buy the franchise. Some of the owners have huge egos and buy a pro sports franchise to satisfy that ego. So they bought a franchise at an inflated price and that made it look like a profitable investment for the previous owner. But that doesn't mean the franchises have been profitable on an ongoing basis. If there wasn't a greater fool out there to buy them, the system would collapse like a house of cards. You will notice that franchise values have soared in the past 15 years as the US economy exploded upward and new billionaires were created every day. And many of these new billionaires probably felt financially invincible and a loss of a few million on their new plaything was nothing to worry about. But times are changing. The new billionaires (and the greater fools) are fewer and farther between. Owners now want the franchise to be profitable on an ongoing basis. I suppose there will always be someone with too much money burning a hole in his pocket willing to pay too much for a franchise.... but when the music stops playing there isn't going to be enough chairs for everyone to sit on. That means NHL franchises will disappear and along with that, jobs for many NHL players. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 14, 2003 21:29:02 GMT -5
The only reason some franchise haven't failed is because of the bigger fool theory. There has always been a bigger fool to buy the franchise. Some of the owners have huge egos and buy a pro sports franchise to satisfy that ego. So they bought a franchise at an inflated price and that made it look like a profitable investment for the previous owner. But that doesn't mean the franchises have been profitable on an ongoing basis. If there wasn't a greater fool out there to buy them, the system would collapse like a house of cards. You will notice that franchise values have soared in the past 15 years as the US economy exploded upward and new billionaires were created every day. And many of these new billionaires probably felt financially invincible and a loss of a few million on their new plaything was nothing to worry about. But times are changing. The new billionaires (and the greater fools) are fewer and farther between. Owners now want the franchise to be profitable on an ongoing basis. I suppose there will always be someone with too much money burning a hole in his pocket willing to pay too much for a franchise.... but when the music stops playing there isn't going to be enough chairs for everyone to sit on. That means NHL franchises will disappear and along with that, jobs for many NHL players. Well if you haven't noticed most sports franchises are bought by people with money to burn. There are rare cases that someone invests in a sports frnachise because of a business reason. Obviously they dont want to lose so much money that they start to feel the crunch financially. Do you really think that George Gillett's primary reason to buy the Habs was business? |
|
