|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 30, 2004 19:49:58 GMT -5
The Don Cherry Syndrome ......
The more Canadians that get drafted out of Canadian junior hockey, the stronger the draft.
Oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 30, 2004 22:15:40 GMT -5
Ovechkin and Malkin prbably are better then the first 2 picks in the strong 2003 draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 30, 2004 22:41:25 GMT -5
Leafs not playing the salary cap gameNHL's $31 million proposal doesn't fit DAMIEN COX If you're the NHL Players Association standing back and trying to understand the strategy of the league as a labour showdown looms, you just might look at the business activities of the Maple Leafs and be convinced most of the threats coming out of NHL headquarters in New York are utterly hollow. After all, the Leafs are clearly the most powerful team in Canada, and right now Canada is more influential in the NHL than in any time in recent memory. All the enthusiasm and passionate support for the league is emanating from its Canadian franchises, and that means something. Even on a league-wide basis, the Leafs are a force, perhaps the game's most profitable enterprise. - Starticle Leafs signing of Roberts, Belfour and Joe adds even more credibility to the article... But I would disagree that the Leafs are a good barometer IMO, they're just dumb. Even the Rangers got it beofre them... What's gonna happen tomorrow at UFA hunting season, will actually show us what owners are really set to do... |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 30, 2004 23:51:29 GMT -5
Leafs signing of Roberts, Belfour and Joe adds even more credibility to the article... But I would disagree that the Leafs are a good barometer IMO, they're just dumb. Even the Rangers got it beofre them... What's gonna happen tomorrow at UFA hunting season, will actually show us what owners are really set to do... Yes, but Special Laws apply at the centre of the universe.  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jul 1, 2004 12:02:07 GMT -5
Yes, but Special Laws apply at the centre of the universe. ...boy, do I miss the good 'ole Ballard days... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 1, 2004 12:26:21 GMT -5
The Don Cherry Syndrome ...... The more Canadians that get drafted out of Canadian junior hockey, the stronger the draft. Oh well. Huh? There is not one single person, funny-suit wearing or otherwise, who thinks this year's draft was anywhere close to last year's draft in terms of overall quality or depth. Has nothing to do with bias. Ovechkin and Malkin would have gone 1-2, but aside from that, 2003 wipes the floor with 2004. And it just so happens, a good number of 2003s were Canadian. Indicates to me, anyways, that Canadian hockey isn't quite in the decline some people think it is... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 1, 2004 19:04:21 GMT -5
Huh? There is not one single person, funny-suit wearing or otherwise, who thinks this year's draft was anywhere close to last year's draft in terms of overall quality or depth. Has nothing to do with bias. Ovechkin and Malkin would have gone 1-2, but aside from that, 2003 wipes the floor with 2004. And it just so happens, a good number of 2003s were Canadian. Indicates to me, anyways, that Canadian hockey isn't quite in the decline some people think it is... And I agree with you. I was just stating that it seems that the media base a strong draft/weak draft primarily on the number of Canadians that are drafted. I don't agree with it either, I just labelled it the Don Cherry Syndrome. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 2, 2004 7:52:32 GMT -5
NHL labour woes kill development of golf layoutAgents advise players not to investDAVE PERKINS The first casualty of the impending NHL lockout might have been 36 holes of potential golf heaven outside Stouffville. A deal for a pair of golf courses in Goodwood, named The Great One and The Bull — after Wayne Gretzky and Michael Jordan — and owned by, among others, about a dozen NHL players, has fallen through. Agents for the NHL players involved recommended that their clients not invest money, totalling several million dollars, because of the likelihood of a hockey lockout this summer. - Starticle
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 2, 2004 8:05:30 GMT -5
Mein Herz schwimmt mit Blut (My heart bleeds for them). ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 2, 2004 12:29:15 GMT -5
It will never happen but I would prefer to see a revenue sharing agreement put in place rather than an arbitrary number for a salary cap or luxury tax.
A revenue sharing plan would make sense in that spending limits would move in sync with the changing economic fortunes of the leauge and could remain in place indefinitely. Salaries would be based on a proportional share of total league revenue. In other words, a team with a low revenue stream would not be limited to a percentage of that revenue.
An alternative is some kind of salary cape. An arbitrary value would have to be place on salary caps or luxury tax levels and then a system to adjust those levels would have to be re-visited and re-negotiated on a regular basis. That simply leaves the door open for more conflict.
A major sticking point would be local television revenues. This has to be one of the reasons for major discrepancies in revenues among teams in the league.
Because every team in the league needs an opponent against whom to compete, the opponent should also share in local TV revenues. The league could collect a portion (say 1/3 or 1/2) of local revenues and distribute it equally among the teams in the league.
Those with the largest local revenues would still hold an advantage over the others, but the discrepancy would be reduced and teams would be allowed to compete on a more equitable basis.
Of course a snowball in he11 has a greater chance of survival than this idea... but it does represent some middle ground between players an owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 2, 2004 13:48:42 GMT -5
THis post raises some issues that need clarification.
1) Does a team with a relatively low revenue but a payroll that falls within its bounds receive a reward? What's to keep the owners from pocketing the revenue sharing funds?
2) Sharing local broadcast fees is unfair because the home team may need them to stay in the black. Unless I'm mistaken, it isn't doe in other sports. Why should an out-of-town team be able to cherrypick (no pun intended) your deal. It wuld be a built-in complication in negotiating fees with the broadcast or cable/satellite network. Better confine the sharing to national broadcasts. Besides, since the broadcast fees aren't fantastically generous for hockey, let the small market teams try pay-per-view. What are the ratings locally for Ranger games, for example? They're susbtantially outdrawn by myriad other events.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 2, 2004 14:32:54 GMT -5
THis post raises some issues that need clarification. 1) Does a team with a relatively low revenue but a payroll that falls within its bounds receive a reward? What's to keep the owners from pocketing the revenue sharing funds? For the sake of argument let's assume that the average revenue per team is $60 million. If the player's salaries were based 60% of average team revenue, the soft cap on salaries would be $36 million. If a team has only $45 million in revenue and receives another $5 million in shared revenue, total revenue would be $50 million and the soft salary cap would still be $36 million. That would leave only $14 million to run the team and there would be no money being pocketed by that particular owner. Under a revenue sharing agreement with the players, teams would not be as dependent on local TV revenues to stay in the black. It's not the teams that have solid revenues that are the problem, it's the teams that have only limited revenues. Part of the problem is that teams with large local revenues have significantly more capital to work with and put those with limited revenue opportunities at a disadvantage. Nashville, for example, could never compete with the Leafs on a local revenue basis. In a game of trying to keep up with the opponent, small market teams spend beyond their means and we end up with the situation that exists now... a handful of teams making money and the rest operating in the red. The incentive would also be there for both players and owners to seek improvement in TV contracts. Rather than fighting over who gets the biggest portion of the existing pie, both sides could work to increase the size of the pie being shared. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 2, 2004 16:56:47 GMT -5
For the sake of argument let's assume that the average revenue per team is $60 million. If the player's salaries were based 60% of average team revenue, the soft cap on salaries would be $36 million. If a team has only $45 million in revenue and receives another $5 million in shared revenue, total revenue would be $50 million and the soft salary cap would still be $36 million. That would leave only $14 million to run the team and there would be no money being pocketed by that particular owner. Under a revenue sharing agreement with the players, teams would not be as dependent on local TV revenues to stay in the black. It's not the teams that have solid revenues that are the problem, it's the teams that have only limited revenues. Part of the problem is that teams with large local revenues have significantly more capital to work with and put those with limited revenue opportunities at a disadvantage. Nashville, for example, could never compete with the Leafs on a local revenue basis. In a game of trying to keep up with the opponent, small market teams spend beyond their means and we end up with the situation that exists now... a handful of teams making money and the rest operating in the red. The incentive would also be there for both players and owners to seek improvement in TV contracts. Rather than fighting over who gets the biggest portion of the existing pie, both sides could work to increase the size of the pie being shared. Is it a good idea to subsidize marginal teams in the southern USA? Some would say there shouldn't have been a Nashville Predators or Carolina Hurricanes or Florida Panthers or Tampa Bay Lightning at all. I suppose that with a broad enough subsidy you could theoretically expand the NHL to 40 teams. (Perish the thought!) Some might point out that the same logic applies to the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames, for example. However, if there were only 18-24 teams, the player pool available to each team would be greatly increased, and the displaced players (except for the top stars) would be happy to land any job in the NHL. A buyer's market would result in lower salaries, greater financial stability, and higher average team quality. Each draft round would have 6-12 fewer selections, and the Habs would have done better than the #18 pick this year. If this situation had prevailed in 1998, Houle would have been unlikely to pick Chouinard (although you never can tell with a total cluck). |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 2, 2004 17:32:40 GMT -5
Is it a good idea to subsidize marginal teams in the southern USA? Some would say there shouldn't have been a Nashville Predators or Carolina Hurricanes or Florida Panthers or Tampa Bay Lightning at all. I suppose that with a broad enough subsidy you could theoretically expand the NHL to 40 teams. (Perish the thought!) Some might point out that the same logic applies to the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames, for example. However, if there were only 18-24 teams, the player pool available to each team would be greatly increased, and the displaced players (except for the top stars) would be happy to land any job in the NHL. A buyer's market would result in lower salaries, greater financial stability, and higher average team quality. Each draft round would have 6-12 fewer selections, and the Habs would have done better than the #18 pick this year. If this situation had prevailed in 1998, Houle would have been unlikely to pick Chouinard (although you never can tell with a total cluck). Some very good points indeed. It would be nice to see more skilled players on a team and one way to accomplish that is by having fewer teams. We need to remember that these expansion teams have to a small extent subsidized existing franchise through exhorbitant expansion fees  The least the league could do is give them a chance to survive |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 2, 2004 17:50:09 GMT -5
It was shortsighted of the established teams to admit all those newcomers. The entry fees for the six newest teams, for example, had to be divided among 24 others. In many cases the return wasn't enough to cover a single season's losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 8, 2004 6:24:53 GMT -5
Sabres announce drastic reductions in ticket price
Associated Press
POSTED AT 1:44 PM EDT Wednesday, Jul 7, 2004
Buffalo — Amid the spectre of an NHL labour dispute, the Buffalo Sabres announced Wednesday a series of ticket price reductions that the team hopes will increase attendance for the upcoming season.
The Sabres will reduce the cost of some season tickets 12-28 percent, with seats in the lower bowl of the HSBC Arena costing less than when the arena first opened in 1996.
The average Sabres season ticket will cost about $35, making it the lowest priced in the league.
In addition, the Sabres introduced a variable pricing plan in which certain "marquee" games, such as a Friday night contest against division-rival Toronto, will cost more than a game against a lesser opponent on a weeknight.
"We feel we are making the game of hockey more accessible to those who love it," team owner B. Thomas Golisano said.
Sabres officials said they considered the possibility of a work stoppage that could force the cancellation of some, or even all, of the upcoming NHL season after the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the owners and players association expires Sept. 15. The club is asking for a fully refundable and league-low $50 deposit for each season ticket purchased. No other team in the league is offering such an enticement at this point.
"We wanted to take the labour issues off the table and give season ticket holders a win-win situation," Golisano said.
Golisano said the goal for the organization is to have a season ticket base of 12,000. Last year the team sold approximately 7,000 season tickets.
"It's going to be hard, but quite frankly, if everybody bought just one more ticket we'd have 14,000," said Sabres managing partner Larry Quinn. "Of course, we know not everybody is going to do that, but this game needs to be seen live, and right now it's too expensive."
In other news, defenceman Dmitri Kalinin has joined teammate Maxim Afinogenov in agreeing to play on a Russian pro team if there is a work stoppage. Kalinin will be released from the Russian contract once the NHL season resumes.
|
|
|
|
Post by StickHandler on Jul 8, 2004 20:29:38 GMT -5
Sabres announce drastic reductions in ticket price The average Sabres season ticket will cost about $35, making it the lowest priced in the league. Whoa! At that price, I think I'll get me some! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by StickHandler on Jul 9, 2004 18:47:58 GMT -5
Here's something I find a little strange: The NHL presents a great deal of information about the CBA on their wibe site. They go in details to explain there point of view to the public. www.nhlcbanews.com/I'm not saying that those numbers are 100% representative and accurate (God knows how a good accountant can make figures dance!) but at least they go through the trouble of expressing their side of it. When I look at the NHLPA's site, I find practically nothing on the CBA. No figures, no story, nothing!  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 9, 2004 22:03:45 GMT -5
When I look at the NHLPA's site, I find practically nothing on the CBA. No figures, no story, nothing! What can they say? We want more money for our players and we think the NHL owners are lying? Oh . . . they've already said it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 14, 2004 7:34:39 GMT -5
Isn't that special? : a schedule without a season. How about scheduling an honest meeting between the NHL and the NHLPA? 
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 14, 2004 8:53:33 GMT -5
I'm sure the agents are uneasy over the possibility of losing their commissions. They will try to influence their clients to be flexible, but the players are in no mood to surrender much.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 15, 2004 13:17:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 15, 2004 13:25:43 GMT -5
From SPECTORSHOCKEY
NHL PLAYERS NEED YOUR HELP!
Spector's Note: The following was sent in by Scott Wasilewski,
Director of Hockey Operations for Broadcastmonsters.com's "Faceoff Hockey Show". The author is unknown but it's a funny bit that is worth sharing:
Since September 11, 2001, Americans and Canadians have come together as never before in our generation. We have banded together to overcome tremendous adversity. We have weathered direct attacks on our own soil, wars overseas, corporate/government scandal, layoffs, unemployment, stock price plunges, droughts, fires, mad cow, SARS, high gasoline prices, and a myriad of economic and physical disasters both great and small. But now, we must come together once again to overcome our greatest challenge yet. Hundreds of Professional Hockey players in our very own nation are going to be locked out, living at well below the seven-figure salary level. And as if that weren't bad enough they could be deprived of their life giving pay for several months, possibly longer, as a result of the upcoming lockout situation. But you can help!
For only $20,835 a month, about $694.50 a day (that's less than the cost of a large screen projection TV) you can help an NHL player remain economically viable during his time of need. This contribution by no means solves the problem as it barely covers the annual minimum salary, but it's a start, and every little bit will help!
Although $700 may not seem like a lot of money to you, to a hockey player it could mean the difference between spending the lockout golfing in Florida or on a Mediterranean cruise. For you, seven hundred dollars is nothing more than a month's rent, half a mortgage payment, or a month of medical insurance, but to a hockey player, $700 will partially replace his daily salary.
Your commitment of less than $700 a day will enable a player to buy that home entertainment center, trade in the year-old Lexus for a new Ferrari, or enjoy a weekend in Rio.
HOW WILL I KNOW I'M HELPING?
Each month, you will receive a complete financial report on the player you sponsor. Detailed information about his stocks, bonds, 401(k), real estate, and other investment holdings will be mailed to your home. Plus, upon signing up for this program, you will receive an unsigned photo of the player lounging during the lockout on a beach somewhere in the Caribbean (for a signed photo, please include an additional $150). Put the photo on your refrigerator to remind you of other peoples' suffering.
HOW WILL HE KNOW I'M HELPING?
Your NHL player will be told that he has a SPECIAL FRIEND who just wants to help in a time of need. Although the player won't know your name, he will be able to make collect calls to your home via a special operator in case additional funds are needed for unforeseen expenses.
YES, I WANT TO HELP!
I would like to sponsor a locked out NHL player. My preference is (check below):
[ ] Forward [ ] Defenseman [ ] Goaltender [ ] Entire team (Please call our 900 number to ask for the cost of a specific team - $10 per minute) [ ] Jaromir Jagr (Higher cost: $32,000 per day)
Please charge the account listed below $694.50 per day for the duration of the lockout. Please send me a picture of the player I have sponsored, along with an Jaromir Jagr 2001 Income Statement and my very own Bob Goodenow (Executive Director of the NHLPA player's Union) pin to wear proudly on my hat (include $80 for hat).
Your Name: _______________________
Telephone Number: _______________________
Account Number: _______________________ Exp.Date:_______
[ ] MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Other
Signature: _______________________
Alternate card (when the primary card exceeds its credit limit):
Account Number: _______________________ Exp.Date:_______
[ ] MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Other
Signature: _______________________
|
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Jul 15, 2004 15:41:31 GMT -5
That's excellent!
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jul 15, 2004 18:05:32 GMT -5
Words fail me! Nothing I can possibly utter could express my depth of feelings on the matter. Kidding aside, I think the NHLPA and NHL's nonchalant attitude is turning all of us into cynics. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 23, 2004 7:35:19 GMT -5
I am troubled by the absence of a single constructive suggestion, let alone proposal, by the NHLPA. Their approach is essentially skeptical and negative. I can't imagine what the next meeting will achieve, or the one after that.
|
|
|
|
Post by StickHandler on Jul 24, 2004 8:59:06 GMT -5
I am troubled by the absence of a single constructive suggestion, let alone proposal, by the NHLPA. Their approach is essentially skeptical and negative. I can't imagine what the next meeting will achieve, or the one after that. Not quite true... The NHLPA did indeed propose changes back in October '03: www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=91731&hubName=The NHLPA proposed a system back on Oct. 1 that included revenue sharing, a luxury tax, a one-time five per cent rollback in salaries and some changes to the entry-level system.
``We still believe that our proposal of Oct. 1 remains the best framework in which to address the owners' stated concerns,'' Saskin said.
A luxury tax system would have to have more teeth than the one currently employed in Major League Baseball, which last year only penalized clubs that had a payroll over $117 million. Only the New York Yankees were taxed.
``In the modelling we did with league representatives, it contemplated many more teams being subject to luxury tax,'' Saskin said. I believe the changes to entry level contracts are a big step forward for the owners and I'm really surprized at how they simply rejected these proposals instead of using them as a starting point for further negotiations. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 24, 2004 10:09:41 GMT -5
A luxury tax does not adequately deal with salary creep. This in turn obliges owners to give raises or else forfeit their contractual rights, automatically making the players free agents. The owners have no recourse but to refuse to qualify players and then hope to re-sign them anyway at a lower salary. I sense that at some point the NHLPA will make an issue of the shrinking average salary and institute a law suit in which they accuse the owners of colluding to hold down salaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 24, 2004 10:46:36 GMT -5
Not quite true... The NHLPA did indeed make propose changes back in October '03: www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=91731&hubName=The NHLPA proposed a system back on Oct. 1 that included revenue sharing, a luxury tax, a one-time five per cent rollback in salaries and some changes to the entry-level system.
``We still believe that our proposal of Oct. 1 remains the best framework in which to address the owners' stated concerns,'' Saskin said.
A luxury tax system would have to have more teeth than the one currently employed in Major League Baseball, which last year only penalized clubs that had a payroll over $117 million. Only the New York Yankees were taxed.
``In the modelling we did with league representatives, it contemplated many more teams being subject to luxury tax,'' Saskin said. I believe the changes to entry level contracts are a big step forward for the owners and I'm really surprized at how they simply rejected these proposals instead of using them as a starting point for further negotiations. I I remember correctly, the NHLPA suggested luxury tax only taxed about 5 teams. The average payout to the other 25 teams wouldn't have covered the tuxedo rental for the awards show. This is not a proposal .... although it does give fodder. Revenue sharing = no money taken from players Luxury tax = no money being taken from players 5% rollback = a joke, in essence it means a 5% raise for free-agents requiring a qualifying offer. Entry level contracts = the NHLPA knows this is a losing battle anyway. A salary cap is needed, and we all no it isn't going to happen. To me it is a distorted form of collusion as well if the NHLPA requests their members to reject lower offers. So if the owners can't get a cap then the luxury tax should be applied to all payrolls over 30 million. And another luxury tax should be applied to all salaries over 5 million. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jul 24, 2004 13:59:50 GMT -5
The luxury tax in MLB accomplishes very little. The only thing that sustains some of the small market teams is revenue sharing. The NHL doesn't have a meaningful network income or any sharing of gate proceeds.
The salary cap in the NFL has resulted in a turnover in Superbowl winners. In the NBA it has deterred dunce-owned teams like the Knicks from winning championships.
|
|
