Owners considering a new league...

Sorry if this has been posted....

Link (http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/sports/story.html?id=ba807c05-98d5-4e19-92da-ac11dfe49c67)

:huh:

Wow, that is one well prepared and well thought out and researched article. Its certainly all the information I need to get familiar with the subject.

GEEZ. Anything but actually solve the problem. Just make a new league and let it decay into sadness. :shakehead

Wow, that is one well prepared and well thought out and researched article. Its certainly all the information I need to get familiar with the subject.

Disgustingly true and comical.
:lol :lol :D :shakehead :lol:

New logo, new league, makes sense. :dunno:

GEEZ. Anything but actually solve the problem. Just make a new league and let it decay into sadness. :shakehead

When they formed the new league they would automically institute their desired financial system... much like the WHA did.

This just in......the league will be named the XHL, and the Stanley Cup will be re-named "The Big Shiny Trophy At The End." Bertuzzi has dibs on the name "He Hate Me".

Another scare tactic. NHLPA says it will hold out for a year, owners say screw you we're going somewhere else, and a CBA is signed on September 14th.

NHLPA would never let this happen, because without the NHL the union is null.

So the owners form their own new league and the players form their own new league. Which one has more appeal, the one whose biggest feature is that is owned by the same people who owned the NHL or the one whose biggest feature is that its players are the ones who played in the NHL?

Let them both start their own leagues. It would be the best thing for the fans to have two competitive major pro hockey leagues.

When they formed the new league they would automically institute their desired financial system... much like the WHA did.

No, really?!?!? I had no idea!
:shakehead :lol:

So the owners form their own new league and the players form their own new league. Which one has more appeal, the one whose biggest feature is that is owned by the same people who owned the NHL or the one whose biggest feature is that its players are the ones who played in the NHL?

Let them both start their own leagues. It would be the best thing for the fans to have two competitive major pro hockey leagues.

The owners have the venues, the team names that fans already identify with, & TV contract.

The league that the players would start would have the same problem that the WHA has as far as not being able to find places to play.

The players will eventually go where the money is.

No, really?!?!? I had no idea!
:shakehead :lol:

COOL GUY ALERT!

COOL GUY ALERT!

Sarcasm identification Expert! :D

Wow, that is one well prepared and well thought out and researched article. Its certainly all the information I need to get familiar with the subject.

How true is that! This is pathetic, and why if you are the reporter, would you bother with such a vague article. I mean we could have come up with a much better story ourselves. I think that if the owners were on the same page with eachother, let alone the players, then this CBA would be done by the 15th of September. But, they are not together, and therefore whether they find a common ground in the present NHL or decide to start a new league (RIDICULOUS!) it will only be a matter of time before it started down the same road. How sad it is for all of us fans, to have to be held hostage by greedy owners and players who aren't willing to concede some salary for the greater good or the game that afforded them all of the finer things in life.

Let me get this straight, after over 90 years of NHL hockey, it's all going to come to an end in January????

Let them both start their own leagues. It would be the best thing for the fans to have two competitive major pro hockey leagues.

And let the best league win...

My money is on the owner's league...

The owners have the venues, the team names that fans already identify with, & TV contract.


No. Some of the owners have venues. The NHL has the team names and the TV contracts, not the owners' new league.

Do you think TSN or CBC is going to pay the same for some new unestablished league as it would for a league with decades of history and with another unestablished league offering a similiar product? The owners wouldn't get nearly as much from its contracts.


The league that the players would start would have the same problem that the WHA has as far as not being able to find places to play.

The players will eventually go where the money is.

But the owners are starting a new league to try and prevent the players from getting the money.

There are plenty of arenas around North America that are NHL calibre and aren't owned by an NHL owner. Saddledome, Rexall Centre, Rose Garden, Houston's new arena, and Arrowhead Pond to name some of them. They could also go into arenas are that are almost NHL calibre like the new Winnipeg arena, Copps Coliseum, Ottawa Civic Centre, Toronto's AHL arena, etc.

The fans would rather watch the best players in the less desireable buildings then the less desireable players in the best buildings.

The players also know if they stick together they can beat the owners' new league and get their buildings from them for a song.

If it saves hockey and we keep the same team names, I could live with a new league run by owners. Just call it the NAHL for North American Hockey League. Because if you think about it, National Hockey League doesnt make sense for an international league like it is. Im really sick of the escalating contracts, if this new league gives players the option of continuing their current contracts but installs a cap and eliminates arbitration I will be very happy and the players would stay.

This is ********. The players want to play hockey, the owners want the players to play hockey whats the problem? :shakehead

There are plenty of arenas around North America that are NHL calibre and aren't owned by an NHL owner. Saddledome, Rexall Centre, Rose Garden, Houston's new arena, and Arrowhead Pond to name some of them. They could also go into arenas are that are almost NHL calibre like the new Winnipeg arena, Copps Coliseum, Ottawa Civic Centre, Toronto's AHL arena, etc.

I would be giddy as hell if they returned hockey to the Great Western Forum! I hope Im not the first to say that the atmosphere in Staples Center SUCKS!

If it saves hockey and we keep the same team names, I could live with a new league run by owners. Just call it the NAHL for North American Hockey League. Because if you think about it, National Hockey League doesnt make sense for an international league like it is. Im really sick of the escalating contracts, if this new league gives players the option of continuing their current contracts but installs a cap and eliminates arbitration I will be very happy and the players would stay.

I went to the Canucks.com board and asked why an international league like the NHL was called the National Hockey League and I got harrassed to hell!

Anyway, if the league keeps everything about the NHL the same but change the name and commisioner, I would be fine with it.

Having said that, I believe this will NOT happen to the NHL. The league is not going anywhere.

No. Some of the owners have venues. The NHL has the team names and the TV contracts, not the owners' new league.

err... the NHL could sell (or transfer) the franchise names to the owner's new league... It can be the same individuals involved (at the NHL level), the same franchises, etc... Just operating under a new entity (or 'brand')... and new business model of their choosing...

and with basically the same individuals involved, chances are the majority of the TV contracts would follow...

I dont expect at all for this new league to happen, but I think it would honestly save hockey if it did, at the cost of tradition.

How true is that! This is pathetic, and why if you are the reporter, would you bother with such a vague article. I mean we could have come up with a much better story ourselves. I think that if the owners were on the same page with eachother, let alone the players, then this CBA would be done by the 15th of September. But, they are not together, and therefore whether they find a common ground in the present NHL or decide to start a new league (RIDICULOUS!) it will only be a matter of time before it started down the same road. How sad it is for all of us fans, to have to be held hostage by greedy owners and players who aren't willing to concede some salary for the greater good or the game that afforded them all of the finer things in life.

I have made posts in the "rate the avatar of the user above you thread" that had more substance than that article.

I dont expect at all for this new league to happen, but I think it would honestly save hockey if it did, at the cost of tradition.

I think the cost of tradition would be a big blow IMO. Besides, even if they were to start a new league, can't they sill use the name "NHL", politically incorrect as the name is.

The avatar above my last post is the tops on these boards :D

I think the cost of tradition would be a big blow IMO. Besides, even if they were to start a new league, can't they sill use the name "NHL", politically incorrect as the name is.

Nhl..... NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
The nation of hockey. Not the U.S..
That's how I look at it. :amazed:

err... the NHL could sell (or transfer) the franchise names to the owner's new league... It can be the same individuals involved (at the NHL level), the same franchises, etc... Just operating under a new entity (or 'brand')... and new business model of their choosing...


And you don't think that there would be anti-trust implications about setting something like this up?

Either the owners are serious or it's a bluff. I find this interesting, because we could have two leagues during a lockout(interestin...). The question is though, are these the signs of both sides getting extremely frustrated to the point that they either will never comprimise or will jump to a solution?




What the hell did I just say? :huh: :loony:



EDIT---Owners league would be called the NML(National Moneysaving League) where each city has a name about economics (Winnipeg Moneybags, Detroit Bills..etc).

Yes I know, my attempt at humour failed horribly.

They already got the league. Why don't they just accept the luxury tax and tell the other owners "If any one of you ******** goes over it..... NO IGINLA FOR YOU!!!!"

Even with a salary cap, the Rangers/Leafs/Flyers/Wings, etc of the world will figure a way around it if they need to...

I can't understand why 30 owners can't agree to work descretionarilly within a cap, but can agree to fold a century or so year old business so that they can put a cap in writing and work within it.....

Just accept the luxury tax and be done with it..........

:mad: :banghead: :mad:

And you don't think that there would be anti-trust implications about setting something like this up?

The NHL is a business (a franchisee)... nothing more... The owners can shut down operation - start a new league - and buy, or be transfered, whatever is remnents of the NHL shell at any time... The lawyers will work out the details... The existing obligations outlined by the CBA has been met... The NHLPA and the owners do not have a contract...

It's called how to break a union...

It's called how to break a union...

Yep. And its the most rigid of the posturing yet. :thumbd:

I can't understand why 30 owners can't agree to work descretionarilly within a cap, but can agree to fold a century or so year old business so that they can put a cap in writing and work within it.....
It's called collusion, and it's illegal. Major League Baseball got into troube for doing it many years ago.

No. Some of the owners have venues. The NHL has the team names and the TV contracts, not the owners' new league.

Do you think TSN or CBC is going to pay the same for some new unestablished league as it would for a league with decades of history and with another unestablished league offering a similiar product? The owners wouldn't get nearly as much from its contracts.




But the owners are starting a new league to try and prevent the players from getting the money.

There are plenty of arenas around North America that are NHL calibre and aren't owned by an NHL owner. Saddledome, Rexall Centre, Rose Garden, Houston's new arena, and Arrowhead Pond to name some of them. They could also go into arenas are that are almost NHL calibre like the new Winnipeg arena, Copps Coliseum, Ottawa Civic Centre, Toronto's AHL arena, etc.

The fans would rather watch the best players in the less desireable buildings then the less desireable players in the best buildings.

The players also know if they stick together they can beat the owners' new league and get their buildings from them for a song.


Just one problem with that. There are a lot of players with money. Some of them have done quite well over the years. But they can't compete with the money the owners have at hand. The poorest owner is worth several hundred mil, the richest player is under a hundred mil. They may be able to get some backing, but they would have a hard time with the start up expenses.

Even player pay will be an issue. Will the players league be able to pay as much as the owners league? Probably not. And as much as the players say they are united, most of the players making less than $1M per year will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Europeans? They will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Rookies? They will go to the league that will pay them the most. You will be left with the die hard NHLPA supporters in the players league, and their numbers will slowly dwindle as they see they can still make more money in the owners league.

who cares hockey is going down the toilet. I saw my fav player win the stanley cup last year and I can live without the NHL forever, I'm focusing 100% on international and Junior hockey. Frankly screw the NHL and the stupid stuborn idiots that run things, including the NHLPA! Both sides can kiss my A$$!

It's called collusion, and it's illegal.

din ding ding.

You get a seat at the front of the class!

who cares hockey is going down the toilet. I saw my fav player win the stanley cup last year and I can live without the NHL forever, I'm focusing 100% on international and Junior hockey. Frankly screw the NHL and the stupid stuborn idiots that run things, including the NHLPA! Both sides can kiss my A$$!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why the league cannot afford to have a lockout. Goodbye expansion markets and new fans.

who cares hockey is going down the toilet. I saw my fav player win the stanley cup last year and I can live without the NHL forever, I'm focusing 100% on international and Junior hockey. Frankly screw the NHL and the stupid stuborn idiots that run things, including the NHLPA! Both sides can kiss my A$$!
:shakehead It's all about you isn't who. Who cares about the other fans of hockey, as long as you are happy. :shakehead

I hope the owners do start another league, when the CBA expires...just use the AHLers/young ones...I know a lot of people won't be too happy about it, but I'm sick and tired of these ridiculous arbitration rulings, and if this is the only way to get rid of these rulings, good for the owners/and even better for the league.

The players also know if they stick together they can beat the owners' new league and get their buildings from them for a song.
How much money will the players make in their own league? They would have to incur some of the financial risks. They could actually lose money on venture.

Also, will the players have to turn to an investor to help start the new league? The investor probably would want to turn a profit on the investment.

who cares hockey is going down the toilet. I saw my fav player win the stanley cup last year and I can live without the NHL forever, I'm focusing 100% on international and Junior hockey. Frankly screw the NHL and the stupid stuborn idiots that run things, including the NHLPA! Both sides can kiss my A$$!

You may want to look up the definition of "hockey fan" and try studying it.

no hockey fan should have to deal with this crap.

Hmmm... A SuperLeague maybe? There are probably 10 teams that will say screw you if an attempt to handcuff them with a salary cap is part of the equation. I see 2 leagues forming from the remnants of the NHL-- A superleague with the money teams and better players, and a league that is a step between the AHL and the Super League, kinda like a WHA of the 70s. This league will likely disappear and some teams may be absorbed by the Super league.

who cares hockey is going down the toilet. I saw my fav player win the stanley cup last year and I can live without the NHL forever, I'm focusing 100% on international and Junior hockey. Frankly screw the NHL and the stupid stuborn idiots that run things, including the NHLPA! Both sides can kiss my A$$!

Who cares? i would assume everyone writing on this silly board does....except you, I guess.

BTW, I like Vinny, too.......but I want a season/league/cup, too.

no hockey fan should have to deal with this crap.

I'm curious as to why you have posted over 1800 times on a hockey board if your alleigance is that weak.

Hmmm... A SuperLeague maybe? There are probably 10 teams that will say screw you if an attempt to handcuff them with a salary cap is part of the equation. I see 2 leagues forming from the remnants of the NHL-- A superleague with the money teams and better players, and a league that is a step between the AHL and the Super League, kinda like a WHA of the 70s. This league will likely disappear and some teams may be absorbed by the Super league.

oh boy. :help:

I'm curious as to why you have posted over 1800 times on a hockey board if your alleigance is that weak.
You got him there.

No proclaimed fan of hockey should just give up.

Maybe this new league would be a way to make hockey more exciting and filter out the useless(I know, that's a horrible term to use) players out. :dunno:


I just hope the CBA is resolved soon. :banghead:

I think the cost of tradition would be a big blow IMO. Besides, even if they were to start a new league, can't they sill use the name "NHL", politically incorrect as the name is.

why are you guys so surprised by this? what tradition will be lost should the owners fold the NHL and start a new league?

1. the owners own the team names, logos, histories and so forth for each of their hockey teams. that means the new league would have the leafs, bruins, habs, senators, rangers, islanders and so on. the championship trophy would still be the stanley cup. even most of the players would be the same.

2. if the owners fold the nhl, there will be no arena problems. the contracts for the arenas are with the hockey teams, not the nhl. those leases would remain in effect.

the championship trophy would still be the stanley cup.

Are you sure about that?

The NHL is not the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup.

You may want to look up the definition of "hockey fan" and try studying it.


"Hockey fan" != "NHL fan"

If more people had Vincent the Great's attitude towards the NHL there wouldn't be a lockout.

Hmmm... A SuperLeague maybe? There are probably 10 teams that will say screw you if an attempt to handcuff them with a salary cap is part of the equation. I see 2 leagues forming from the remnants of the NHL-- A superleague with the money teams and better players, and a league that is a step between the AHL and the Super League, kinda like a WHA of the 70s. This league will likely disappear and some teams may be absorbed by the Super league.

a 10 team league would never survive outside of Canada. there would be enough Canadian teams to keep them on TV there and outside of that hockey would be local only in the USA.

the 2nd league you mention would also be only local and would be marginally better than the AHL. that league would not have the financial clout to attract elite european players and would fall much closer to what the AHL looked like a few years ago when there were more veteran players in it. it would be a minor league.
a lot of the current franchises in the NHL that you invision being in that second league would rather fold up shop than participate in a minor league.

Are you sure about that?

The NHL is not the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup.

well...ask yourself, if the toronto maple leafs and montreal canadiens are in this new league who would withhold the stanley cup from competition for them?

Are you sure about that?

The NHL is not the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup.

Are you sure about that? I may be wrong, but I was pretty sure it was in fact NHL property.

why are you guys so surprised by this? what tradition will be lost should the owners fold the NHL and start a new league?


You are serious. :amazed:

Tradition is more than the physics that you listed.
Let's cancel Christmas and revamp it ...calling it Jesusday!!!! And we'll celebrate in the summer, with different families than our own!
No loss of tradition, right?

Uhhh isn't it called the WHA and isn't it failing? Seriously...

Hey! The WHA just started up, why don't we make another league so we have three professional leagues...

Why don't the owners just take over the WHA?

Are you sure about that? I may be wrong, but I was pretty sure it was in fact NHL property.

Here is a thread discussing the ownership of the cup...


http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=82976&highlight=Stanley+cup+possesion+ownership

The NHL is a business (a franchisee)... nothing more... The owners can shut down operation - start a new league - and buy, or be transfered, whatever is remnents of the NHL shell at any time... The lawyers will work out the details... The existing obligations outlined by the CBA has been met... The NHLPA and the owners do not have a contract...

It's called how to break a union...

This is what I was thinking... The players better watch out. It's unfortunate but Hockey is just not as lucretive as the other major sports and players salaries should reflect that fact. Now If I were in the union, I be pushing more for a temporary comprimise with much more emphasis on increasing the popularity of the sport so that maybe, someday, the NHL could become lucretive enough to support the desired salaries. By all means don't cave in, but a prolonged stoppage now can only hurt both sides. If you hurt the owners too much, they're not going to be as willing to sign big checks and may force them to do something as drastic as create a new league.

I just recently returned from a cross-country road trip and discussed Hockey some with people not in Hockey markets (New Mexico, Oklahoma and such). Amazingly, the objection to hockey I heard most was that the rules were confusing and because of this they didn't understand what was going on (We all know how untrue that is, but obviously there is a need for some education). Next in line was that they had trouble following the puck, and I truely believe HD will eventually help with this aspect.

The NHL obviously realized this problem when they pushed for expansion but I feel they haven't done enough to popularize the sport. Hockey has a good balance of everything that most North Americans love in sports, and now with rollerblades, even people in the desert can even enjoy playing a game that used to be only for those who live in colder climates.

Guys you don't understand.

There will be no new league. Owners say they'll ditch the union if the union refuses to sign a better CBA. Union knows that this would be the union would be useless, so union is willing to compromise.


The owners could easily start a new league. Its not that tough when you own everything.

Guys you don't understand.

There will be no new league. Owners say they'll ditch the union if the union refuses to sign a better CBA. Union knows that this would be the union would be useless, so union is willing to compromise.

Come on!! Let us keep foaming at the mouth for a little while longer before reason sets in!

DownformNJ with the reality serum!

(I agree) :D

Are you sure about that?

The NHL is not the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup.

If not the NHL, who is the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup? The NHLPA?

As far as I understand, the Stanley Cup is an NHL asset - it is a league award... not an NHLPA award...

But even if the Stanley Cup is owned by the NHLPA, I'm quite sure they'd sell the cup to the new owner's league for their definition of the right amount of $...

_______________________________

BTW: I think this 'new league' alternative is just a threat - a negotiation tactic... I don't think things will get that far...

But it's interesting thinking about :thumbu:

Are you sure about that?

The NHL is not the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup.
Who is, the Czar of Russia?

Seriously though, I know what saying. Maybe the owners will start up the Pacific Coast Hockey Association again, and they will get the Stanley Cup.

Guys you don't understand.

There will be no new league. Owners say they'll ditch the union if the union refuses to sign a better CBA. Union knows that this would be the union would be useless, so union is willing to compromise.


The owners could easily start a new league. Its not that tough when you own everything.

I agree too but making a new NHL isn't a bad idea. If the Union caves in then they sign a new CBA and everythings ok but if they don't then they just make a new NHL with all the same teams and in a couple of years, it's gonna be as popular as the NHL.

I guess I kind of question the journalistic value of the article considering it was short enough to write on a napkin and without a reputable source and details.

If it's true, it's genius, and the NHLPA would fold like a house of cards. Sure the star players might keep the NHLPA's company line, but all the young players who are trying to make a living playing hockey would jump to NHL2 in a heartbeat, and you'd also see other fringe players that can't hold on doing the same. If there is enough of a current going into NHL2, then the stars would follow as well and it'd be a lost game for the NHLPA.

That's all if the story has an ounce of validity.

I'd be curious to see an NHLPA versus NHL league and to see where the players would go, and what players would go where. It'd only work if the overall number of teams remained the same or even a slightly smaller total of team. Obviously the talent would divide out to still have roughly 30 teams as today, possibly even two leagues of 16 teams for 32.

If not the NHL, who is the rightful owner of the Stanley Cup? The NHLPA?

As far as I understand, the Stanley Cup is an NHL asset - it is a league award... not an NHLPA award...

But even if the Stanley Cup is owned by the NHLPA, I'm quite sure they'd sell the cup to the new owner's league for their definition of the right amount of $...

_______________________________

BTW: I think this 'new league' alternative is just a threat - a negotiation tactic... I don't think things will get that far...

But it's interesting thinking about :thumbu:

You could probably get a good start on a new league for, I don't know, $300M? :dunno:

It actually makes me go back to the post I had recently talking about splitting the NHL into two leagues, the spenders (NHLPA backed) and the rest of the teams that want a cap. Two different leagues where the owners could go where they felt they were best served, you could fit in some intra-league games so they meet once a season at home each, or not, and then the best of the two leagues meet for the Cup final.

Have a read (http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=98828)

No. Some of the owners have venues. The NHL has the team names and the TV contracts, not the owners' new league.

Do you think TSN or CBC is going to pay the same for some new unestablished league as it would for a league with decades of history and with another unestablished league offering a similiar product? The owners wouldn't get nearly as much from its contracts.




But the owners are starting a new league to try and prevent the players from getting the money.

There are plenty of arenas around North America that are NHL calibre and aren't owned by an NHL owner. Saddledome, Rexall Centre, Rose Garden, Houston's new arena, and Arrowhead Pond to name some of them. They could also go into arenas are that are almost NHL calibre like the new Winnipeg arena, Copps Coliseum, Ottawa Civic Centre, Toronto's AHL arena, etc.

The fans would rather watch the best players in the less desireable buildings then the less desireable players in the best buildings.

The players also know if they stick together they can beat the owners' new league and get their buildings from them for a song.


It all depends on who you side with the owners or the players. I side with the owners, NHL players are to ****** greedy and want on par money that the other leagues players get,in which their is
only one problem! the NHL doesn't generate a fraction of the money the other leagues make. 76 % of all NHL revenue comes from the gate where as its around 50 % for the other leagues plus we don't have the TV revenue. When are the players going to wake up & realize they been getting paid way to much in accordance with what this league generates. If the 2 sides do form their own leagues all watch the owners, screw the NHLPA & their greedy ways.

It's called collusion, and it's illegal. Major League Baseball got into troube for doing it many years ago.

Time to read the law books again Puddywhacker. What was just described is absolutely not collusion.

Who is, the Czar of Russia?

Seriously though, I know what saying. Maybe the owners will start up the Pacific Coast Hockey Association again, and they will get the Stanley Cup.

Well, the last Tsar has been dead since 1918 so I guess it can't be him. I think it belongs to the Ayatollah's grandson. :D

*Hides in embarassment from extremely weak joke* :o

Hmmm... A SuperLeague maybe? There are probably 10 teams that will say screw you if an attempt to handcuff them with a salary cap is part of the equation.

I think the key to establishing an Elite NHL would be to place teams in major US markets, capital cities, and other cosmopolitan locations. By limiting markets, you would create a niche sport and higher demand by limiting access to the well-heeled customer.

New York, Boston. Los Angeles, Chicago, Montreal Washington Ottawa, Detroit, Dallas, and Miami.

Toronto would then be the flagship franchise of a Canadian League. They could compete for the Stanley Trophy (sponsored by Stanley Tools naturally) in keeping with their blue-collar image.

If I'm not mistaken the Stanley Cup belongs to a holding with roughly the same name.
They gave the Cup to the NHL, as it is supposed to be the trophy for the best hockey league in the world. This may have changed a bit, considering the long history of the Stanley Cup being the NHL's trophy. The holding would never seperate them.
If there would be a "new" NHL and it would still be the best league, which would be doable, there is no reason to suspect the holding taking the Cup away.

Well, the last Czar has been dead since 1918 so I guess it can't be him. I think it belongs to the Ayatollah's grandson. :D

*Hides in embarassment from extremely weak joke* :o

you better hide :beatup:

Time to read the law books again Puddywhacker. What was just described is absolutely not collusion.

I think David was implying that it would be collusion if the NHL owners 'secretly' agreed to a cap system amongst themselves - when the CBA spells out something far different - i.e. the 'free market' status quo that currently exists...

It actually makes me go back to the post I had recently talking about splitting the NHL into two leagues, the spenders (NHLPA backed) and the rest of the teams that want a cap. Two different leagues where the owners could go where they felt they were best served, you could fit in some intra-league games so they meet once a season at home each, or not, and then the best of the two leagues meet for the Cup final.

Have a read (http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=98828)

IMO, this is great... It's an alternative that a good fan of the game came up with to try and solve the problem (while considering and being compassionate towards both two sides)...

IMO, this is what the real world hockey negotiations need... More possible solutions... less bickering as to which side is right or wrong... Get to know, understand, and have compassion for the other side... and this only comes through dialogue and communication... The more dialogue and communication, IMO, the better...

How many proposals did the league submit to to the NHLPA... 6? How many proposals did the NHLPA submit to the NHL? Probably not even that many...

I say both the NHLPA and the NHL send hundreds of proposals back and forth... from the informal crazy ones sent via e-mail (or over a beer) to the dead serious formal ones sent by Fed Ex... Hell, if there is not going to be a year of hockey - at least have the two sides constantly talking and discussing things over that time - even if it's over crazy ideas (not that your proposal is crazy GoCoyotes... I personally think it's interesting... ;) )

That's the only way progress is going to be made... Not one meeting that takes place in August, one in September... one in December... etc...

IMO, constant communication (and thinking) is needed... Even if both sides are debating the existence of God... C'mon Goodnow... C'mon Bettman... Sometime in October, discuss and laugh over a beer about some crazy idea Milbury had to fix the problem - if the alternative is not talking or discussing at all!

I think David was implying that it would be collusion if the NHL owners 'secretly' agreed to a cap system amongst themselves - when the CBA spells out something far different - i.e. the 'free market' status quo that currently exists...

Easier to say than to prove. Petrolium companies agreed together to put the same price on Oil in the cities , it's so obvious that it's collusion but nothing to do about it.

Same with the NHL, NHLPA can claim all they want that there is a collusion , it will be very hard to prove it. In fact there's probably a collusion today regarding UFA - Superstars & no one says anything about it ? because it's hard to prove.

Easier to say than to prove. Petrolium companies agreed together to put the same price on Oil in the cities , it's so obvious that it's collusion but nothing to do about it.

Same with the NHL, NHLPA can claim all they want that there is a collusion , it will be very hard to prove it. In fact there's probably a collusion today regarding UFA - Superstars & no one says anything about it ? because it's hard to prove.

Ya, it perhaps would be difficult to prove...

Just to be clear, I see the Petrolium company collusion example different from the NHL collusion example...

Petrolium companies are all separate businesses that are in the oil industry... If collusion exists, this is cross-industry price fixing...

In contrast, the team franchises all belong to the same business (the NHL)... I personally don't have a problem with the team franchises fixing salaries (as they all belong to the same business - in fact, this is both common and legal in the franchising business - and IMO, I think that the franchisee - the NHL - should probably be determining the NHL salaries based on the salaries in the overall free market 'professional hockey industry')... But I do have a problem with the NHL doing it secretly - if they agreed with the NHLPA a completely different arrangement... IMO, that's collusion and illegal... In this case, the NHL is not obligating their legal contract... In this case, the NHL is being deceptive in getting around their legal contract through a 'secret' agreement amongst the franchises - and that's illegal...

How true is that! This is pathetic, and why if you are the reporter, would you bother with such a vague article. I mean we could have come up with a much better story ourselves.

The role of a journalist is to fufill the public's right to know. I'm sure we've all said "they should start a new league" but the fact any remarks that it were being considered would be false, as this was the breaking of this news.

Let's remember this wasn't the front page of the Citizen or anything.

no hockey fan should have to deal with this crap.

Exactly. Hockey was great before the NHL came along. Let's also not forget that 85 years ago, the NHL was a league with teams in Toronto, Québec, Montreal, Ottawa and Hamilton. Since then Ottawa lost its team (only to get it back some sixty years later), Québec lost its team only to have the moved franchise win the Stanley Cup the very same year and Hamilton is supposedly to small to support a franchise (despite being a larger city than many existing markets) and too close to Toronto (see New York City with its three teams, Los Angeles with its two, etc.)

In 1942 the league was condensed to the "original six" in an attempt to reign in the game, something that has been unthinkable in the NHL since at least 1994. In the history of the NHL, four Canadian teams have been relocated to the States (Ottawa, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Québec, correct me if I am wrong) while only one American team has moved to Canada (Atlanta). The NHL was created to Canadians could watch professional Canadian players play Canada's sport, and the ridiculous state in which it stands (fans lose out, people who have never played hockey in their life get rich) is a travesty. Boo!

If a new league means no Bettman it sounds like a good idea to me. Don't think it'll happen though.

Just one problem with that. There are a lot of players with money. Some of them have done quite well over the years. But they can't compete with the money the owners have at hand. The poorest owner is worth several hundred mil, the richest player is under a hundred mil. They may be able to get some backing, but they would have a hard time with the start up expenses.

What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

If the players are on board with their own league, what startup expenses do they have? Arena leases can easily be covered by the PA's warchest. They can hire all the front office staff that the owners laid off.


Even player pay will be an issue. Will the players league be able to pay as much as the owners league? Probably not. And as much as the players say they are united, most of the players making less than $1M per year will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Europeans? They will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Rookies? They will go to the league that will pay them the most. You will be left with the die hard NHLPA supporters in the players league, and their numbers will slowly dwindle as they see they can still make more money in the owners league.

But as far as the players are concerned this new owners league is just like the NHL bringing in replacement players. It won't draw worth a damn without real NHL players. And if the fans aren't there, the money won't be there either.

Meanwhile the players' league will be packing in the fans if they play in smaller venues or have cheap tickets for large venues like Skydome. They may not make as much as the old NHL teams did but they'll make more then the owners league will with scrubs and scabs playing.

The owners will also have to worry about paying off the loans they incurred while paying for their franchises and building their arenas. The players won't have to worry about that because their franchises were free.

What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

If the players are on board with their own league, what startup expenses do they have? Arena leases can easily be covered by the PA's warchest. They can hire all the front office staff that the owners laid off.


You do have lease arena, pay lawyers, buy uniforms, contract for travel expenses (planes, hotels, buses, etc...). Then you need to have staff in place to operate the arena (ushers, ticket takers, announcers, etc...). Then you also need team staffs (coaches, trainers, scouts, doctors, etc...). And let's not forget that you must have inssurance covearge. Most of this will need to be in place before you play a single game.

If the numbers are accurate that the league had $2B in revenue, and player costs were 75% of that. That means that the day to day operation of the team costs ~$500M, so maybe you need ~$250M just to get started. I'm not a business major, but I do know that there is a lot that has to be done before you start up something like this.


But as far as the players are concerned this new owners league is just like the NHL bringing in replacement players. It won't draw worth a damn without real NHL players. And if the fans aren't there, the money won't be there either.

Meanwhile the players' league will be packing in the fans if they play in smaller venues or have cheap tickets for large venues like Skydome. They may not make as much as the old NHL teams did but they'll make more then the owners league will with scrubs and scabs playing.

The owners will also have to worry about paying off the loans they incurred while paying for their franchises and building their arenas. The players won't have to worry about that because their franchises were free.

You sound as if you know all of the players personnally...

That is a very simple view of how things will work. Human nature will take the players where the best money is. That is why many Europeans come to the NHL to play in the first place, rather than being stars in their own countries.

And don't forget that there will be in an economic war between the two leagues. The owners will drive up the prices on anything they can to drive the players league out of business. And since many of the owners are experienced businessmen with billions of dollars in net worth, my money is on them.

What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

What startup costs? Do you know anything about business? Here's a list of the things that would have to be paid for before ever playing a game:

Lease for arena
Office Space
GM Salary
President Salary
Coaches
Marketing personnel or outsourcing
Customer Service Personnel
Scouts
Sales Personnel
Lawyers
Training of arena personnel
Marketing
Untilities
Uniforms
Web Development
Player signing bonuses
Computers, Printers, Copiers, Routers, etc.
Office Supplies

And that's just scratching the surface.

What startup costs? Do you know anything about business? Here's a list of the things that would have to be paid for before ever playing a game:

Lease for arena


Negigible compared to what the players make. Its the only real major expense they'd have.


Office Space

Already part of the PA


GM Salary

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.


President Salary

They already have a President and he's getting paid regardless.

Coaches

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Marketing personnel or outsourcing

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Customer Service Personnel

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Scouts

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Sales Personnel

Employees aren't paid their entire salary up front.

Lawyers

Already have lots of those working for the PA.

Training of arena personnel

Not the responsibility of the league.

Marketing

Already have this at the PA.

Untilities

Are you just making up words now?

Uniforms

Minor cost.

Web Development

Already done for the PA.

Player signing bonuses

Not needed because the players will have an equity stake.

Computers, Printers, Copiers, Routers, etc.

PA has already purchased this equipment and even if they didn't it's a minimal expense.

Office Supplies

Oh! They can't afford to start a multimillion dollar league because they can't afford paper and pens? Give me a break!

The PA, unlike the WHA, already has the infrastructure in place to form a new league. All they need to do is sign some leases, negotiate some broadcast deals and they'd be pretty much ready to go. They can even hire all those front office employees the NHL turfed during the summer to help them out.

You do have lease arena, pay lawyers, buy uniforms, contract for travel expenses (planes, hotels, buses, etc...). Then you need to have staff in place to operate the arena (ushers, ticket takers, announcers, etc...). Then you also need team staffs (coaches, trainers, scouts, doctors, etc...). And let's not forget that you must have inssurance covearge. Most of this will need to be in place before you play a single game.


Leasing arenas is the only tough part. The PA has plenty of lawyers already working for it. Travel expenses are not a big deal for a billion dollar business. The arenas already have employees in place. There are plenty of team staff available to work. The PA already deals with insurance for players.



That is a very simple view of how things will work. Human nature will take the players where the best money is. That is why many Europeans come to the NHL to play in the first place, rather than being stars in their own countries.


Many Europeans comes to the NHL not just for the money but to prove themselves against the best in the world. World class athletes are more about the competition then the money.


And don't forget that there will be in an economic war between the two leagues. The owners will drive up the prices on anything they can to drive the players league out of business. And since many of the owners are experienced businessmen with billions of dollars in net worth, my money is on them.

If the owners will just drive up the prices, why wouldn't they just negotiate with the players instead of getting into a bidding war with a competing league?

And those experienced businessmen with billions of dollars can't seem to be able to make money in hockey. Why would you put your money on them if they've proven they can't successfully run a hockey team? Unless they aren't really doing as badly at running a hockey team as they claim.

Leasing arenas is the only tough part. The PA has plenty of lawyers already working for it. Travel expenses are not a big deal for a billion dollar business. The arenas already have employees in place. There are plenty of team staff available to work. The PA already deals with insurance for players.




Many Europeans comes to the NHL not just for the money but to prove themselves against the best in the world. World class athletes are more about the competition then the money.



If the owners will just drive up the prices, why wouldn't they just negotiate with the players instead of getting into a bidding war with a competing league?

And those experienced businessmen with billions of dollars can't seem to be able to make money in hockey. Why would you put your money on them if they've proven they can't successfully run a hockey team? Unless they aren't really doing as badly at running a hockey team as they claim.

In most cases, the owners dont care about losing a few million dollars per year on their hockey team, even allowing it to happen, because they make many more millions (and billions) from their other business ventures.

players who aren't willing to concede some salary

huh ? players take pay cuts all the time. they are more than willing to concede "some" salary, they just will not agree to do it in a cap enviroment.

get the facts straight.

dr

NHL players are to ****** greedy and want on par money that the other leagues players get,in which their is.

liar liar pants on fire.

the players dont care what they are paid, they simply dont want to be paid under a cap.

dr

They don't want to be paid under a cap because it limits how much they can be paid. Of course they care what they're paid.

liar liar pants on fire.

the players dont care what they are paid, they simply dont want to be paid under a cap.

dr

i find this to be oxymoronish....and yes i knwo that aint a word, but if they didn't care what they were paid then they wouldn't care if it was within a cap or not, plain and simple the players must care what they get paid or they woudln't be so against a cap being put in place.. while the players may not care if they get 4 mil or 8 mil...they DO care what they get paid

and you answer to this will most likely be somewhere around the area of "it's a players right to get paid for what he brings in'' and you'll also argue that it's the owners fault if they pay the player more than they really wanted to keep that certain player, but that's a catch 22, said player said he wants a larger salary than what he's been offered, note: said player is a premier player in the league, should the owners cave and give him x million more than what they wanted they stand a chance of losing money becuase they went outside their budget... if they don't re'sign him and he becomes UFA they lose him for nothing, OR they make a trade such as the Weight to STL deal, yet they stand a chance at losing money as well.. w/ said player off team there's the possibility that you won't make it as far in the playoffs, if you even get there, however w/ said player on the team you'd be pretty much a lock for a playoff spot

all the above counts for possible lost revenue, not to mention letting a premier player go, who in most cases would be a fan fav... could dicourage fans and alienate them, also counting in lost revenue... it's cause and effect when you sign anyone to any contract, if the potential effect is great enough to make an owner pay the extra and go over budget a little, then obviously he'd be a fool to not sign and have a negative effect be blanketed over his team, i think i've rambled on enough for right now

They don't want to be paid under a cap because it limits how much they can be paid. Of course they care what they're paid.

many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

a) if someone is willing to pay them the 2m, then why should they agree to a system that limits that.

b) if no one is willing to pay them 2m, then they will have to take a paycut, right ?

pretty simple and no cap is needed.

dr

many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

a) if someone is willing to pay them the 2m, then why should they agree to a system that limits that.

b) if no one is willing to pay them 2m, then they will have to take a paycut, right ?

pretty simple and no cap is needed.

dr
Who has been taking paycuts aside from marginal players or players who are getting old and have maxed out their value like Brett Hull? Most of the avg players have been getting marginal increases in a sport where they make more on avg than football players and many of the team are above Bettman's 31 million dollar number already just trying to keep most of last year's teams. The same owners who claim to lose money yet keep spending created this market simply do not want to be the first one to sign a huge name to a big contract and get all the negative attention at this time.

If there is no hard cap, as soon as it's settled they will be spending as
freely as ever, which is what all the big market names available are counting on as well as the NHLPA.

And nothing will have changed. Status quo.

What startup expenses? The biggest expense for the NHL is the players.

If the players are on board with their own league, what startup expenses do they have? Arena leases can easily be covered by the PA's warchest. They can hire all the front office staff that the owners laid off.

I personally can't provide you a list of all the costs - as I don't have intimate knowledge of the professional hockey industry...

But I do know that 9 out of 10 new businesses fail within 5 years... and the number one reason is inadequate cash flow (i.e. not enough money coming in to cover the expenses going out)... I do know that the probability of a player's league to last longer than 5 years is 10%... If it is a new business that has the experience, resources, and contacts already in the industry through owning and growing an old business in the same industry - the probability of success goes up greatly -thus, why my money would be on a new owner's league...

Whatever you project the start up costs to be (your best - most realistic estimate based on careful study and analysis)... add 25% on top - that is at least what it will cost...

The players know how to play hockey (and get the most out of a CBA) - as a group, not how to run successful companies... If the players were going to go this route (start their own league), IMHO they would need financial and business backing from investors and business leaders to control the show - for even a fighting chance for success - business astute people who have spent their lives successfully running and growing entertainment (or sports entertainment) businesses... and, IMO, it would be a challenge in it's own right for the players to convince these business astute people to invest in a business where 75% of the revenue generated goes to the employees - in a business that has a foundation that basically shut down the NHL (a 100 year old brand) - as I assume that the players would want to at least make as much as they would currently in the NHL - and maintain the status quo - to even entertain starting a new league... Oh, and the main competitor is the former NHL guys... Good luck players :thumbu:

It's not easy starting up and successfully growing a new business in any industry... I imagine it is the same in the 'professional hockey industry'...

Part of me wants to see the players start their own league - as it would make a very interesting case study in 'The Idiots Guide to Biting the Hand that Feeds You' book one day...

If there is no hard cap, as soon as it's settled they will be spending as
freely as ever,

.

im confused ... if the players dont agree to a hard cap, the owners will in turn spend foolishly ?

how can they cry poor, but then turn around and spend like drunken sailors. the fact is, they will spend BECAUSE of 2 reasons

1) they can afford to
and / or
2) the choose to

what a messed up argument you are making.

dr

The players know how to play hockey (and get the most out of a CBA) - as a group, not how to run successful companies... ...

i agree and this is why the players reject the "partners" concept. they dont want to be partners. they want to be paid. the owners know business, and if the owners are freely choosing to pay them x dollars, then they know best.

its so simple its driving me mad. IF YOU DONT WANT TO PAY A PLAYER 3.5m THEN DONT ! but dont cry if he leaves becuase someone else CHOOSES to pay it to him.

dr

many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

IMO, the players just want to operate in a system where they make the most money possible (what they can get away with)... and the owners now finally want to operate in a system where they pay the least money possible (what they can get away with)... This is how it is supposed to work to keep an equilibrium - to keep things in check! If the players want as much as they can and the owners keep giving it to them - eventually, there is not going to be any more to give - i.e. bankrupcy...

With the way things are now, there is nothing to suggest that the escalating salary problem would correct itself in a 'free market economy' (i.e. as a group, the owners do not have the sense or discipline or whatever to control themselves!!) - therefore, the players want to maintain the status quo... The players love a system that allows out of control owners to act out of control...

I don't blame the players for their 'no cap' stance... I don't blame the owners for their 'cap' stance... IMO, it's the nature of the beast - such is business... The players want to stay in a system that has kept paying them more year after year - and the owners now want the salaries to stop increasing - and even better - decrease...

But I do side with the owners (even though I think the salary escalating problem is their fault)... IMHO, the players are getting too good of a deal - IMO, the NHL allowed the NHLPA to become too powerful - and I believe that it's killing NHL hockey...

I believe that the players should be multi-millionares (for what they do - and the large amounts of money that they help generate, IMO, they deserve it)- but not get paid so much that it ends up exploding the NHL - a league I grew up watching, with a team I've supported since a little kid...

I believe that the owners are guilty for the escalating salaries problem (IMO, it's not the players fault for getting as much as they can)... I don't have enough faith in the owners to turn the ship around on their own... It would be great if they could - but nothing proves to me that they would - IMO, the owners spending NEEDS to be controlled...

and thus, I support a cap - and support a lengthy lockout if necessary to get it...

IMO, salaries should be determined - 'at the top' - i.e. the NHL office... The NHL is the one who should be keeping an eye and hand on revenues and expenses... as any franchisee would...

Imagine a McDonalds (most obvious franchisee) business model that allowed the individual franchises to determine employee salaries... Imagine a business model that allowed the individual franchises to set how much they will charge for a big mac... Eventually the 'free market' between the franchises takes over - and the control the francisee has lessons and lessons to the point where it becomes the least powerful in the relationship... Not only does Macdonald's now compete with Burger King, Wendy's, etc... MacDonald's now competes with itself! The franchises start to think and operate like their franchise is what matters most of all - NOT the overall McDonalds... MacDonald's basically put a noose around its neck and hung themselves...

Like the NHL has done... and for really no good reason other than not thinking about the long term consequences...

i agree and this is why the players reject the "partners" concept. they dont want to be partners. they want to be paid. the owners know business, and if the owners are freely choosing to pay them x dollars, then they know best.

its so simple its driving me mad. IF YOU DONT WANT TO PAY A PLAYER 3.5m THEN DONT ! but dont cry if he leaves becuase someone else CHOOSES to pay it to him.

dr

you try telling this to the owners, they'll look you right in the eye and say you're wrong, if i don't pay him this much, my competitor will and then i'll be screwed, a player's value is driven up by supply and demand, if enough teams want you and you've put up 80 + points for the last 3 or 4 seasons then you're behind the wheel, and some idiot owner WILL pay 10 mil just because they think you'll keep doin it, but that isn't always the case and when said player falls on his face and only puts up 40 - 50 points that season, player y, who's a FA the next year will look and say i put up so many points two years ago, 70 points this year... i should be paid equal to him... so on and so forth and this is how the nhl has the HUGE out of control salaries, while yes i'll admit players thus far have taken less, many have done so JUST so they can get paid, but i'll agree, if the same cba is signed, salaries once again will be skyrocketing out of control, you have players who care about their teams and players who care about the $$$$, and unfortunately nowadays there's more who only care about the latter than the former,

IMO the cap wouldn't be just for the owners to control spending, but moreso for the players who make way too much to begin with, and as we've seen and heard, EVEN NHL PLAYERS say they make too much, yes not all of them say it, but all that have mentioned it have freely admitted that players today make too much

you try telling this to the owners, they'll look you right in the eye and say you're wrong, if i don't pay him this much, my competitor will and then i'll be screwed, a player's value is driven up by supply and demand, if enough teams want you and you've put up 80 + points for the last 3 or 4 seasons then you're behind the wheel, and some idiot owner WILL pay

and you think the players should agree to a system where one party WANTS to pay you x million but isnt allowed to ?

if someone wants to pay it, then whats wrong with that ? if no one wants to pay it, the market will correct. if the money is still being paid, then thats ok.

why should OTT be forced to break up their team when their owner and fans are willing to pay to keep the players ?

dr

IMO, the players just want to operate in a system where they make the most money possible (what they can get away with)... and the owners now finally want to operate in a system where they pay the least money possible (what they can get away with)... This is how it is supposed to work to keep an equilibrium - to keep things in check! If the players want as much as they can and the owners keep giving it to them - eventually, there is not going to be any more to give - i.e. bankrupcy...

With the way things are now, there is nothing to suggest that the escalating salary problem would correct itself in a 'free market economy' (i.e. as a group, the owners do not have the sense or discipline or whatever to control themselves!!) - therefore, the players want to maintain the status quo... The players love a system that allows out of control owners to act out of control...

I don't blame the players for their 'no cap' stance... I don't blame the owners for their 'cap' stance... IMO, it's the nature of the beast - such is business... The players want to stay in a system that has kept paying them more year after year - and the owners now want the salaries to stop increasing - and even better - decrease...

But I do side with the owners (even though I think the salary escalating problem is their fault)... IMHO, the players are getting too good of a deal - IMO, the NHL allowed the NHLPA to become too powerful - and I believe that it's killing NHL hockey...

I believe that the players should be multi-millionares (for what they do - and the large amounts of money that they help generate, IMO, they deserve it)- but not get paid so much that it ends up exploding the NHL - a league I grew up watching, with a team I've supported since a little kid...

I believe that the owners are guilty for the escalating salaries problem (IMO, it's not the players fault for getting as much as they can)... I don't have enough faith in the owners to turn the ship around on their own... It would be great if they could - but nothing proves to me that they would - IMO, the owners spending NEEDS to be controlled...

and thus, I support a cap - and support a lengthy lockout if necessary to get it...

IMO, salaries should be determined - 'at the top' - i.e. the NHL office... The NHL is the one who should be keeping an eye and hand on revenues and expenses... as any franchisee would...

Imagine a McDonalds (most obvious franchisee) business model that allowed the individual franchises to determine employee salaries... Imagine a business model that allowed the individual franchises to set how much they will charge for a big mac... Eventually the 'free market' between the franchises takes over - and the control the francisee has lessons and lessons to the point where it becomes the least powerful in the relationship... Not only does Macdonald's now compete with Burger King, Wendy's, etc... MacDonald's now competes with itself! The franchises start to think and operate like their franchise is what matters most of all - NOT the overall McDonalds... MacDonald's basically put a noose around its neck and hung themselves...

Like the NHL has done... and for really no good reason other than not thinking about the long term consequences...

hit the nail on the head, something needs to be put in place where teams work as a whole, yeah even in a franchise there's competition, but as you said, pay is the same across the board, it's what NEEDS to be done, whether by salary cap or some kinda base salary system that works mostly on bonuses

and you think the players should agree to a system where one party WANTS to pay you x million but isnt allowed to ?

if someone wants to pay it, then whats wrong with that ? if no one wants to pay it, the market will correct. if the money is still being paid, then thats ok.

why should OTT be forced to break up their team when their owner and fans are willing to pay to keep the players ?

dr

not saying any team should have to be forced to break up because of a cap, i'd hope there'd be some kind of a)franchise player exemption one or two players at most, or b) exemption for longevity w/ the club

Just one problem with that. There are a lot of players with money. Some of them have done quite well over the years. But they can't compete with the money the owners have at hand. The poorest owner is worth several hundred mil, the richest player is under a hundred mil. They may be able to get some backing, but they would have a hard time with the start up expenses.

Even player pay will be an issue. Will the players league be able to pay as much as the owners league? Probably not. And as much as the players say they are united, most of the players making less than $1M per year will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Europeans? They will go to whatever league will pay them the most. Rookies? They will go to the league that will pay them the most. You will be left with the die hard NHLPA supporters in the players league, and their numbers will slowly dwindle as they see they can still make more money in the owners league.

Not every player is Trevor Linden, I'm sure some of them actualy agree with a cap but won't go against what the union is saying. If the owners do form a new league and buy the team names from the NHL we might see some of these players sign with the new league....Brett Hull for example was considering the WHA but in the end signed with Phoenix, in the new league, Phoenix would have the same owner and same budget so they could probably sign Hull at the same salary, it would take one player and I bet you the rest of the core of the team would follow. Another example is Daniel Alfredsson who has been a Senator all of his career and took less than he would get on the open market to stay with the team, there's nothing that say he'll sign with the new leagues Senators and then influence the rest of the team to do so....then the players form a new union.

hit the nail on the head, something needs to be put in place where teams work as a whole, yeah even in a franchise there's competition, but as you said, pay is the same across the board, it's what NEEDS to be done, whether by salary cap or some kinda base salary system that works mostly on bonuses

Ya, but only if the goal is to have a healthy, successful business :D

My proposal is that all teams have the same base salary budget - whatever it is - i.e. $45,000,000... That is a fixed cost for every team - a 'cap'... Teams can spend less if they want...

When certain player performance milestones are met, the individual player makes a % of revenue generated. I.e. if Naslund hits 40 goals - he receives x% of the Canucks revenue generated for the season (where the NHL determines what the percentage is - through CBA negotiations with the NHLPA)... These performance milestones are variable costs - and they could make players mega-rich (if Cooke, for example, got 40 goals next season he would make several million more than his 'base salary' - i.e. he is compensated fairly for his achievement... while NOT altering his contract and base salary for the following year - assuming he's signed a two year contract)... The higher the performance and the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, and because it is a variable cost, what is paid out is directly tied to how much is coming in - It's not 'out-of-owner-pocket'... and if Naslund does not reach 40 goals - he is not paid like a 40 goal player would (i.e. his 'compensation' accurately depicts his achievement - his salary depicts what he has done for the Canucks in the past, and has the potential to accomplish - and his variable cost depicts what he has actually done)...

When certain team performance milestones are met, all players make a % of revenue generated. i.e. If the Canucks make the playoffs, the players get y% of revenue... if the Canucks get a 100 point season, the players get z% of revenue... etc. The more success a team has, the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, the more money the owners make... everyone is happy...

Teams that make large profits (generate a lot of revenue) will still be in higher demand (as far as which teams the players want to play for) - as the potential is there for the players to make more (because of the variable 'compensation' costs - and higher revenues)... yet, there is cost certainty amongst the league at the same time...

With a system like this, an added benefit is that players will want to stay with (or go to) successful teams (i.e. successful teams will generate more revenue as they go farther in the playoffs, etc. - thus the players get compensated more because of the variable 'compensation')...

For example, Ottawa will NOT have a large threat of having to dismantle their team (an argument that I've read a few times here)...

IMO, this is salary cost certainty - a lower fixed cost that is certain and the same for all teams - and certain player and team milestone variable costs (% of generated revenue for the season - where the %s are the same for all teams)...

Good players will not want to stay with poorly run (or break even) teams as x% of 0 = 0... Therefore, good teams that generate large amounts of revenue are rewarded...

I don't see how a system like this would be bad for the owners, OR the players... In exchange for a lower fixed salary cost - I would negotiate a higher variable cost...

If the team is making money, this implies that the team is being successful, which implies that the players are doing a good job - therefore large amounts of money made all around...

If the team is not making money, this implies that the team is not being successful, which implies that the players are not doing a good job - therefore there is not a large amount of money all around... No one is happy or making a lot...

A system like this, IMO, is absolutely fair for both the players and the owners...

Tom? Demented Reality? Anyone? Tell me how this proposal, which incorporates a salary cap is NOT good for the players - as well as the NHL... Please point out what I am missing...

huh ? players take pay cuts all the time. they are more than willing to concede "some" salary, they just will not agree to do it in a cap enviroment.

get the facts straight.

dr

Players take pay cuts all the time? I think yoiu should get your facts straight! If they always take pay cuts, explain to all of us why they bother with arbitration, and why they bother to hold out? When it is a proven FACT that by holding out the salary they lose is never made up anyway. Not to mention the FACT that they rarely have a decent year, let alone a good one.

not saying any team should have to be forced to break up because of a cap, i'd hope there'd be some kind of a)franchise player exemption one or two players at most, or b) exemption for longevity w/ the club

As ridiculous as it may sound, the players have to realize that if they absolutely do not want a cap, then they should expect to have no more guaranteed contracts. If they have a bad year, the team can walk away, or pay them according to their output. We all know that this arbitration thing is a total crock. They need to find a better way to judge what a player should get as a raise, and what better way then to make all contracts made up of incentives. # of games played, goals scored, assists, PP pts, ice time, hits, blocked shots, etc...Give all of these NHL lawyers something to do. The days of Lapointe having a decent year and then getting 5 years and 25 million dollars have to go, I realize that it is not the players who are having the brain cramps, and if someone offered me that money, I would sign it right away, but they need to come with a system whereby before a team signs a player they should have to clear it with a non biased opinion like arbitration should be, and that way maybe someone can slip a reality pill to the prospective GM and stop him before he makes a mistake that then throws the whole value system in the league out the window. I do not begruddge the players anything, and I do think the owners are to blame for what is going on in the NHL, but the only way to fix it is to find a way to work together, and if you look at the other pro sports like Basketball and Football, it really works.

Players take pay cuts all the time? I think yoiu should get your facts straight! If they always take pay cuts, explain to all of us why they bother with arbitration, and why they bother to hold out? When it is a proven FACT that by holding out the salary they lose is never made up anyway. Not to mention the FACT that they rarely have a decent year, let alone a good one. The demented part of your name sure fits!

i didnt say ALL players take paycuts... i said players in the NHL take pay cuts.

and when the get raises, its because the owners have CHOSEN to give it.

leave the insults out of it.

dr

As ridiculous as it may sound, the players have to realize that if they absolutely do not want a cap, then they should expect to have no more guaranteed contracts. If they have a bad year, the team can walk away, or pay them according to their output. We all know that this arbitration thing is a total crock. They need to find a better way to judge what a player should get as a raise, and what better way then to make all contracts made up of incentives. # of games played, goals scored, assists, PP pts, ice time, hits, blocked shots, etc...Give all of these NHL lawyers something to do. The days of Lapointe having a decent year and then getting 5 years and 25 million dollars have to go, I realize that it is not the players who are having the brain cramps, and if someone offered me that money, I would sign it right away, but they need to come with a system whereby before a team signs a player they should have to clear it with a non biased opinion like arbitration should be, and that way maybe someone can slip a reality pill to the prospective GM and stop him before he makes a mistake that then throws the whole value system in the league out the window. I do not begruddge the players anything, and I do think the owners are to blame for what is going on in the NHL, but the only way to fix it is to find a way to work together, and if you look at the other pro sports like Basketball and Football, it really works.

i agree .. if the players are going to make "salary cap" their battle, they will have to negotiate other areas.

-arbitration
-buyouts
-qualifying offers

these are three. one other area the owners should try and negotiate is an extra round of playoffs. say a wild card best of 5 round for 4 more teams. this gives the owners another source of revenue without having to pay the players. hey, if the players want to make the money, its going to be on their backs. fact is, if the owners could generate income by making the players play 500 games a season, then so be it. 500 is obviously an exageration, but if the owners truly are losing money and the players truly will not budget on the salary cap, there has to be another way to skin the cat.

dr

i find this to be oxymoronish....and yes i knwo that aint a word, but if they didn't care what they were paid then they wouldn't care if it was within a cap or not, plain and simple the players must care what they get paid or they woudln't be so against a cap being put in place.. while the players may not care if they get 4 mil or 8 mil...they DO care what they get paid

and you answer to this will most likely be somewhere around the area of "it's a players right to get paid for what he brings in'' and you'll also argue that it's the owners fault if they pay the player more than they really wanted to keep that certain player, but that's a catch 22, said player said he wants a larger salary than what he's been offered, note: said player is a premier player in the league, should the owners cave and give him x million more than what they wanted they stand a chance of losing money becuase they went outside their budget... if they don't re'sign him and he becomes UFA they lose him for nothing, OR they make a trade such as the Weight to STL deal, yet they stand a chance at losing money as well.. w/ said player off team there's the possibility that you won't make it as far in the playoffs, if you even get there, however w/ said player on the team you'd be pretty much a lock for a playoff spot

all the above counts for possible lost revenue, not to mention letting a premier player go, who in most cases would be a fan fav... could dicourage fans and alienate them, also counting in lost revenue... it's cause and effect when you sign anyone to any contract, if the potential effect is great enough to make an owner pay the extra and go over budget a little, then obviously he'd be a fool to not sign and have a negative effect be blanketed over his team, i think i've rambled on enough for right now

The problem with that Garry is not that they don't care being paid or not, they just want to be a free market.

Let me explain myself. Let's suppose you put a CAP & miraculously the NHLPA accept.

Year 1 : we see a decrease of salary of 10% & now 22 teams out of 30 teams are making profit.

Year 5 : we see a stabilization of salary but the REVENUE GOES UP & now all 30 NHL FRANCHISE are making money & they make money more & more each year after that.

I know you probably like so many other will say, THE HELL with players they make 2 millions a year they shouldn't cry about the owner making 20-30 millions a year.

The players no matter what will never get sympathy of the fans because of envy.

It's the owners fault anyway. There the ones forking over all this cash that has put them in this situation. :shakehead

So the owners form their own new league and the players form their own new league. Which one has more appeal, the one whose biggest feature is that is owned by the same people who owned the NHL or the one whose biggest feature is that its players are the ones who played in the NHL?

Let them both start their own leagues. It would be the best thing for the fans to have two competitive major pro hockey leagues.
Question: Who would pay the players in their new league? It seems to me like if there were billionaires lining up to buy NHL teams than there wouldn't be financial problems in the first place.

Maybe they'll work for free :lol

Question: Who would pay the players in their new league? It seems to me like if there were billionaires lining up to buy NHL teams than there wouldn't be financial problems in the first place.

Maybe they'll work for free :lol

A communist league... :handclap: :yo: :bow: :handclap:

im confused ... if the players dont agree to a hard cap, the owners will in turn spend foolishly ?

how can they cry poor, but then turn around and spend like drunken sailors. the fact is, they will spend BECAUSE of 2 reasons

1) they can afford to
and / or
2) the choose to

what a messed up argument you are making.

You forgot choice #3 which is why the league is where it is.

A few owners choose to think only of themselves.

All 30 owners at this time are speaking thru Bettman and everyone is holding the party line. That does not mean they are all on the same page with this after a new cba comes into play. We are where we are today because of the owners, they created this market and it is messed up. We will find out which owners in this group will not want a 31 million dolllar hardcap at some point and are willing to compromise that to keep their spending advantage to make up for poor hockey management abilities with their franchises.

And your right.
1. Some teams can afford to lose some more money than other teams.
2. Those teams are willing to make the choice and take a larger loss for a chance to win.

Every year it's the same two or three owners every year driving up the market for the other teams. Philadelphia, Detroit and the Rangers claim to lose money operating their franchises or claim to have to make the finals to break even. If there is no cap they will continue to do the same and the player agents know this and are counting on it.

All 30 owners at this time are speaking thru Bettman and everyone is holding the party line. That does not mean they are all on the same page with this after a new cba comes into play. We are where we are today because of the owners, they created this market and it is messed up. We will find out which owners in this group will not want a 31 million dolllar hardcap at some point and are willing to compromise that to keep their spending advantage to make up for poor hockey management abilities with their franchises.

Yes and Bob Goodenow and Trevor Linden speak for the players... but there are some players who have different views and opinions, some even ready to accept a cap. So the PA is weak and the union the owner's are forming is also weak, it's obviously just a matter of who caves first.

The problem with that Garry is not that they don't care being paid or not, they just want to be a free market.

Let me explain myself. Let's suppose you put a CAP & miraculously the NHLPA accept.

Year 1 : we see a decrease of salary of 10% & now 22 teams out of 30 teams are making profit.

Year 5 : we see a stabilization of salary but the REVENUE GOES UP & now all 30 NHL FRANCHISE are making money & they make money more & more each year after that.

I know you probably like so many other will say, THE HELL with players they make 2 millions a year they shouldn't cry about the owner making 20-30 millions a year.

The players no matter what will never get sympathy of the fans because of envy.


If the salary cap is tied to a percentage of revenue, the players share increases with the revenue increase...

Not every player is Trevor Linden, I'm sure some of them actualy agree with a cap but won't go against what the union is saying. If the owners do form a new league and buy the team names from the NHL we might see some of these players sign with the new league....Brett Hull for example was considering the WHA but in the end signed with Phoenix, in the new league, Phoenix would have the same owner and same budget so they could probably sign Hull at the same salary, it would take one player and I bet you the rest of the core of the team would follow. Another example is Daniel Alfredsson who has been a Senator all of his career and took less than he would get on the open market to stay with the team, there's nothing that say he'll sign with the new leagues Senators and then influence the rest of the team to do so....then the players form a new union.

But even when they do form a new union, the CBA is already in place with a salary cap. It will be difficult do do away with that once it is in place unless the salary cap is set at a rediculously low percentage of revenue.

But even when they do form a new union, the CBA is already in place with a salary cap. It will be difficult do do away with that once it is in place unless the salary cap is set at a rediculously low percentage of revenue.

Yeah I was just saying that they would form a new union.... and they'd need to so the owners don't take abuse of them and make them play at ridiculously low salaries (like the NHL was in the '40).

Yeah I was just saying that they would form a new union.... and they'd need to so the owners don't take abuse of them and make them play at ridiculously low salaries (like the NHL was in the '40).


I've got no problem with that at all. I just wasn't sure where you were going...

Ya, but only if the goal is to have a healthy, successful business :D

My proposal is that all teams have the same base salary budget - whatever it is - i.e. $45,000,000... That is a fixed cost for every team - a 'cap'... Teams can spend less if they want...

When certain player performance milestones are met, the individual player makes a % of revenue generated. I.e. if Naslund hits 40 goals - he receives x% of the Canucks revenue generated for the season (where the NHL determines what the percentage is - through CBA negotiations with the NHLPA)... These performance milestones are variable costs - and they could make players mega-rich (if Cooke, for example, got 40 goals next season he would make several million more than his 'base salary' - i.e. he is compensated fairly for his achievement... while NOT altering his contract and base salary for the following year - assuming he's signed a two year contract)... The higher the performance and the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, and because it is a variable cost, what is paid out is directly tied to how much is coming in - It's not 'out-of-owner-pocket'... and if Naslund does not reach 40 goals - he is not paid like a 40 goal player would (i.e. his 'compensation' accurately depicts his achievement - his salary depicts what he has done for the Canucks in the past, and has the potential to accomplish - and his variable cost depicts what he has actually done)...

When certain team performance milestones are met, all players make a % of revenue generated. i.e. If the Canucks make the playoffs, the players get y% of revenue... if the Canucks get a 100 point season, the players get z% of revenue... etc. The more success a team has, the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, the more money the owners make... everyone is happy...

Teams that make large profits (generate a lot of revenue) will still be in higher demand (as far as which teams the players want to play for) - as the potential is there for the players to make more (because of the variable 'compensation' costs - and higher revenues)... yet, there is cost certainty amongst the league at the same time...

With a system like this, an added benefit is that players will want to stay with (or go to) successful teams (i.e. successful teams will generate more revenue as they go farther in the playoffs, etc. - thus the players get compensated more because of the variable 'compensation')...

For example, Ottawa will NOT have a large threat of having to dismantle their team (an argument that I've read a few times here)...

IMO, this is salary cost certainty - a lower fixed cost that is certain and the same for all teams - and certain player and team milestone variable costs (% of generated revenue for the season - where the %s are the same for all teams)...

Good players will not want to stay with poorly run (or break even) teams as x% of 0 = 0... Therefore, good teams that generate large amounts of revenue are rewarded...

I don't see how a system like this would be bad for the owners, OR the players... In exchange for a lower fixed salary cost - I would negotiate a higher variable cost...

If the team is making money, this implies that the team is being successful, which implies that the players are doing a good job - therefore large amounts of money made all around...

If the team is not making money, this implies that the team is not being successful, which implies that the players are not doing a good job - therefore there is not a large amount of money all around... No one is happy or making a lot...

A system like this, IMO, is absolutely fair for both the players and the owners...

Tom? Demented Reality? Anyone? Tell me how this proposal, which incorporates a salary cap is NOT good for the players - as well as the NHL... Please point out what I am missing...

doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, didn't understand you fully the first time, a bunch on my mind earlier, but now that it's spelled out it aint too bad at all,

IMO, the owners spending NEEDS to be controlled...


I think this is the wrong use of market levers. Better and fairer is to make their spending ineffective in gaining an unfair advantage.



I don't see how a system like this would be bad for the owners, OR the players... In exchange for a lower fixed salary cost - I would negotiate a higher variable cost...


It sounds similar to one of the 6 proposals put forth by the owners. You make it sound a bit like the owners give the players stock options. Im not sure owners would agree to that particular percentage of revenue type bonus as an individual performance bonus.

Of course right now the biggest variable revenue is the playoff booty. And the variable cost of that now is very low. Its all gravy for the owner. .

Is the premise of players getting a percentage of the revenue that the problem is that when the owner negotiated his salary budgets he had no idea what his revenues would likely be? He was negotiating the salary based on the fact that all the games would be sold out at high prices and when attendance didnt max out, he lost money?

Perhaps since determining revenue by looking at the books of something designed to be a tax shelter is very misleading, they could use paid attendance as a proxy. If the teams collectively exceed 80% capacity attendance, all players get a bonus.


One of the problems with incentive based bonuses is that some great players never reached greatness until they found a 2-way game. Modano, Yzerman, Lecavalier. Performance bonuses would make them less of a team player which is so needed for success in the NHL.


Fans shouldnt want something that encourages selfishness in players for stats over team goals. It may be good for running a hockey pool where points are all that counts, but really we need role players sacrificing their stats for the team. Let the businessmen decide how much these are worth to them. They are smart enough to do it.

It sounds similar to one of the 6 proposals put forth by the owners.

Well, that's the proposal that I support :thumbu:

You make it sound a bit like the owners give the players stock options. Im not sure owners would agree to that particular percentage of revenue type bonus as an individual performance bonus.

Not so much a player stock option... but tying 'player compensation' more to a variable cost (as actual player output is 'variable' from season to season) than to a fixed cost... IMO, a variable 'compensation' is more fair and reasonable - given that players cannot guarantee their output from year to year - because the player output is not guaranteed, IMO, neither should their compensation be guaranteed... For example, Naslund cannot absolutely guarantee that he will score 40 goals next season... If he only scores 15 goals next season - IMO, he shouldn't be compensated as if he did score 40 goals... Naslund gets paid a guaranteed high fixed salary (because of his contributions in the past, and his potential to score 40 goals) but the 'variable' compensation he receives is lower because he didn't actually produce the results for the season...

IMO, one of the most frustrating parts of being a business owner is having to pay employees a lot of money when they are not getting the results - or doing the job that they are paid to do... this frustration is compounded when there is another employee who is generating the results, yet he is not being compensated for it...

For example, say Cooke scores 40 goals next season... Because of his contributions in the past he does not have a very high fixed salary (when compared to Naslund's fixed salary)... Yet, he produced over and above expectations and scored 40 goals... IMO, Cooke should be rewarded for this actual output - for the season he scored the 40 goals in - Cooke should receive the compensation that a 40 goal scorer should receive... If from then on out, Cooke proves to be a 40 goal scorer, then the next time his contract is negotiated, his fixed cost salary goes up significantly... If that one 40 goal season was a fluke, not much changes as far as his fixed salary goes - yet he is still compensated fairly and recognized financially for the one 40 goal season that he did achieve...

Is the premise of players getting a percentage of the revenue that the problem is that when the owner negotiated his salary budgets he had no idea what his revenues would likely be? He was negotiating the salary based on the fact that all the games would be sold out at high prices and when attendance didnt max out, he lost money?

IMO, the premise is that the owner has no idea what the player output will be like from season to season... Right now, the owner is expected to guarantee a player high compensation, yet the owner has no guarantees if the player will actually produce the expected results season to season... While it is reasonable, IMO, for the owner to absorb some of the risk - and thus pay high quality players high fixed compensation - with the potential to pay the player high variable compensation... IMO, the players also have to absorb some of the risk - after all, the owner is putting faith in him (the individual player) to perform... IMO, it is only fair for the individual players to stand behind the quality of their talent... and thus, absorb some of the risk by accepting (in addition to a fixed compensation) a 'variable' compensation based on actual performance...

One of the problems with incentive based bonuses is that some great players never reached greatness until they found a 2-way game. Modano, Yzerman, Lecavalier. Performance bonuses would make them less of a team player which is so needed for success in the NHL.

First, I don't consider this an 'incentive based bonus'... but rather a 'variable compensation that rewards what the player accomplished for the season'... and I see the 'fixed' salary as a compensation that rewards what the player has accomplished in the past - and has the potential to accomplish before the season starts...

Performance bonuses would include more than just stats... For example, those three players you mentioned are captains... Team captains (and alternate captains) are team leaders - and thus would be subject to higher compensation - Also, if the player has been a captain for several years with the same team, this would reflect in his 'fixed' compensation - and a higher variable compensation (for example, team captains receive x% of revenue more for the same output that a regular player would receive)- as his importance to the team is presumably higher - given that he is a captain... Things like years with the team, roles the player plays in (i.e. penalty kill, shutdown center, etc.) would play into compensation more than just stats... IMO, it is necessary and imparative to reward 'roles' not just stats... and even with stats - things like '# of times on ice during a game winning goal' are very telling - and IMO, should also count when determining player compensation...


Fans shouldnt want something that encourages selfishness in players for stats over team goals. It may be good for running a hockey pool where points are all that counts, but really we need role players sacrificing their stats for the team.

Agreed... In fact, I would make 'team achievements' very high variable costs - that apply to all players on the team... After all, the higher the achievements, the more money the franchise makes, and thus, the more money available to pay to the players...

For example,

Assume Todd Bertuzzi's base salary is $5 million (fixed cost - just for being alive and a member of the Vancouver Canucks)... After the season, the Canucks achieved a hundred point season, made the 3rd round of the playoffs, and Bert scored 100 points while being a leader on the team... Bert's compensation for the year - $10 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - as the Canucks generated a lot of money...

Now assume after the season, the Canucks achieved a fifty point season, last in the NHL, and Bert scores 30 points while floating around the ice virtually every game... Bert's compensation for the year - $5 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - even though the Canucks didn't generate a lot of money for the season...

Right now, the owner is expected to guarantee a player high compensation, yet the owner has no guarantees if the player will actually produce the expected results season to season... While it is reasonable, IMO, for the owner to absorb some of the risk


Its reasonable for them to assume all of this risk. They are the risktaking capitalists. The players are the employees.

Im still a little fuzzy on the distinction you are making between a variable cost and performance bonus.

How will this variable cost be determined? Sounds like you are saying by a judgement of what its worth, except in terms of a % of revenues.

How is this overpaying for someone now, that you are referring to, manifesting itself? I know that in Ottawa for example, we had 28-29 yr old Bonk and Lalime coming due for $3-4mil contracts on the salary track we had them on. It was decided they werent worth it. We allowed their salaries to get ahead of their worth to us. We were paying them for performances that went undelivered.

Since they were RFA's, we had to continue qualifying them at this level. If only we knew for sure they would reject the qualifying offer, we could make it and be off the hook. We could just let them sit until someone gave us a good trade. But they likely wouldnt, so we walked. Got 3 and 4th round picks. We have a farm system, and young players that can shift to take new roles. No Sens fans are really crying too hard over these. We probably would of a few years ago, lamenting the injustice of it all , oh the humanity for us all poor small markets.

But now we know we can find good role players we need for that price on the UFA market, so if we are missing something we'll get it. We dont deserve to get compensation for the RFAs we allowed to become overpaid underachievers. And Im not sure we really feel threatened because some other team is willing to take them from us.


If they were UFAs that were no longer performing 2 years into a 5 year contract signed after they poached this player from another team not thinking he is worth it, I really dont see the problem or where sympathy is coming from.



Now assume after the season, the Canucks achieved a fifty point season, last in the NHL, and Bert scores 30 points while floating around the ice virtually every game... Bert's compensation for the year - $5 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - even though the Canucks didn't generate a lot of money for the season...


You'd be willing to pay $5mil for that? I think you would be better off trading Bertuzzi for the next Chara-Spezza before they are proven and go on a long term rebuilding program to develop a youthful core to get a team that can compete into a playoff spot and have a shot at growing into a champ. It may be a nice warn fuzzy to have the games elite powerforward playing cheaply on a develpoing team, but why would owners or players want to provide incentives for that unnatural event to occur.

Oh hell.... lets just have the owners put the financial system they want in place and use replacement players. (It wouldn't work but at least we would have some sort of Hockey.)

Well one rumor squashed about an NHL acquistion for a potential owner's league(at least for the time being):
WHA denies reports of sale to NHL (http://www.worldhockeyassociation.net/)

In a number of current NHL markets there are enough arenas in the area so that both an Owners League and an NHLPA-backed league could field teams. In some cases, they may have to play at oddball times because of other tenants (NBA, minor league hockey, AFL, ABA, for example). More than likely, it would be an NHLPA League that would probably end up at these secondary arenas if they choose to put their teams in current NHL markets. One example being the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. Office Depot Center (The Panthers' arena), American Airlines Arena, and Miami Arena. Another is the NYC metro area, with MSG, Continental Airlines Arena, and Nassau Colisseum.