Forbes Magazine Says NHL Owners Overstated Losses

[Red Baron 0]

3. Ban the trap.

 

The trap has been succesful for only three teams, the 70's Canadiens, 95 Devils and the current Wild team. These teams made the trap into a transitional strategy.

[Guest Ether]

As far as why most people, including those on this board, are siding with the owners, I think it's because most people believe that most teams are either losing money or forced to operate on a very small budget. Why? Because while hockey players salaries are on par with the major leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB) but it's popularity is on par with sports like arena football. Let's face it, hockey is a cult sport. It's popular in New England, the Great Lakes, and most cities with a team, but everywhere else no one cares. Go to a place like Birmingham or Oklahoma City and most people probably couldn't tell you who won the Stanley Cup, much less name 2 players from the Tampa Bay Lightning. All the newspaper for Huntington, WV does is print the scores and occasionally the standings (except during the Finals where there is a small article). Columbus and Cincinnati are both two and one-half hours away; the Reds and Bengals get full coverage while the Blue Jackets get none. Don't think that's a lot of people? Check out the election results. Bottom line, this translates into low ratings, which translates into low revenue for most teams. That's why I'm inclined to believe the owners when they say they are losing money.

 

Also remember that the general public, in these situations, is almost always anti-player. People who make $25,000 a year with a shitty job aren't likely to have much sympathy for those averaging $1-2 million a year to play a game. I'm constantly defending athletes from family members and other people who think they should all make something like $50,000. The owners have always, deservedly or not, come off as good guys during a sports labor dispute.

 

As far as the method of salary control, I doubt most people outside of the big markets of New York, Boston, etc. have as much faith in MLB's system as Alkeiper does. Most have more faith in the NFL. MLB has no salary cap and is generally dominated by the large market teams. The NFL has a salary cap, and fans of most teams believe they have either a shot this year or a shot very soon. Which league then are most hockey fans going to want to see emulated? Personally, I'm for whatever allows all teams to have a chance to compete on a regular basis and be profitable at the same time, whether it has to be a salary cap, luxury tax, or whatever they come up with. Everybody wins if this occurs.

 

Finally, I agree with UndertakerHart on the Bettmann/Goodenow thing. One would imagine that there would be much more progress if those two would try to negotiate instead of beating the other.

[Guest Ether]

3. Ban the trap.

 

The trap has been succesful for only three teams, the 70's Canadiens, 95 Devils and the current Wild team. These teams made the trap into a transitional strategy.

The trap is associated with one the biggest reasons for why hockey lacks appeal to the general population - an overwhelming emphasis on defense-first strategy, which results in a boring game of dump-and-chase and hooks and holds instead of an offensive strategy that focuses on the skill of the players. Almost all the teams resort to this. There are too many 1-0 or 2-1 hockey games that has most people comparing hockey to soccer.

[Red Baron 0]

3. Ban the trap.

 

The trap has been succesful for only three teams, the 70's Canadiens, 95 Devils and the current Wild team. These teams made the trap into a transitional strategy.

The trap is associated with one the biggest reasons for why hockey lacks appeal to the general population - an overwhelming emphasis on defense-first strategy, which results in a boring game of dump-and-chase and hooks and holds instead of an offensive strategy that focuses on the skill of the players. Almost all the teams resort to this. There are too many 1-0 or 2-1 hockey games that has most people comparing hockey to soccer.

If you watched a Canadiens game in the 70's its pretty exciting to watch. The whole game is based around the trap, while other teams can't get by it, and created chances for Montreal.

 

Since nearly every team has opted for the trap, its become very stale. When the opponent turns the puck over, most likely you are going up against the trap. Thats why so many hockey games, end up low scoring, and we see the dump and style strategy to defeat the trap.

[Guest Rrrsh]

A few quotes from Rsssh

 

The point is, the Canucks, like many other NHL franchices, is a money making business and the NHL is full of shit when they tell you otherwise.

 

No one is saying that their hasn't been huge losses.

 

So, I'm somewhat unclear on your stance here. So the NHL is a money making business and the NHL and anyone else who says otherwise if full of shit? Yet no one (except apperently you) is saying that there haven't been huge losses?

 

And as for the rollback, as Canadian Chris pointed out, it's obvious your not reading anyone else's posts because it has been stated many times that a salary rollback is a short term fix. Sure, it will drop salaries for the moment but they will just grow back up to where they were.

 

Let's take a look at a few more numbers here.

 

Total salary paid out last year was approximately 1.3166 billion. A 10% rollback on that only comes to a little over 130 million. I wonder where the players are getting this extra 20 million from? Rsshh, do you just blindly listen to everything the P.A. spews or do you bother to check some of the facts.

 

On top this, that rollback would save each team (mind you this is only a one-time saving) approximately only 4.3 million for next season. So, going by the Forbes stats (because they are the only ones you will believe), most teams, with the NHLPA's rollback suggestion stand to only break even next year before proceeding to lose money in the years after that. Hey, that's a great plan to fix the game.

The other 20 Mill come from a Cap on the Rookies and something else that is very small that escapes me at this time.

 

My stance is that the NHL is losing money, but 75% of it is 6 teams. So, instead of contarcting those 6 teams or creating Revenue Sharing that would help these teams make money, a Salary Cap is a quick fix and hinders teh game long term. A cap is a system that stops Owners frokm being idoits but it still dosn't solve the problem that Edmontin can't afford their Free Agents. In Revenuie Sharing or a Luxury Tax, a team like Nashiville or Florida gets money back from the Big Dogs so they can keep their stars. A cap amkes them ZERO in the revenue category.

Right, because that's helped baseball SO much.

It has. Minny was able to keep Radke and Stewart and Hunter because of the Luxury Tax. Their payroll has gone up considrably since the Tax was implimented. Not to mention the sucsess of Florida last year.

[Guest Rrrsh]

You are talking out of ur ass with that statement about the salaires raising later on in te e5 year deal. Along with the % rollbacks, the Players are willing to put a cap on the rookies and have a subsational Luxury Tax. So where in that do the salaries raise?

There already IS a cap on rookie salaries. It was put in place in the last CBA. Fat lot of good it's done. And thinking that a 20% tax on salaries over $40 million (30% on $50mil, 40% on $60mil) would provide any meaningful relief is absurd. Brian Burke, who you apparently hold in such high regard, sees the proposal as "changing a side-view mirror on a bus that's going off a cliff."

 

And given that salaries rose 6% LAST YEAR ALONE, you'd be a fool to think that salaries would hold firm over a 5-year period after a pitiful 5% rollback.

The roll-back is the start of the process tho. If you make the rollback, and then set the Luxury Tax on the roll-backed salaries, any increase in pay to the spending teams will just go back into the lesser Teams pockets. So either the salaries go down or the Lesser teams benifit with bonus revenue because of careless spending. Its the perfect solution.

 

 

And the Rookie Cap is obviously going to be lowered because they reconize its failure, smart guy.

[Guest Rrrsh]

The players are against contraction also, probably even more so than they are against a salary cap. Remember, each team contracted is about 25 jobs lost for the union. It otherwise wouldn't be that bad of an idea, unless your favorite team is one of those teams.

I bet if you proposed a Hard Cap at what the Owners want (31 Mill) or 6 teams being contracted (The 6 teams that make up 75% of the Leagues Losses), the players would probably take contraction.

 

I say this because a lot of players will probably retire because of the lockout, and I think a fair amount of Euro players will go back to their homeland. So the contraction wouldn't loses as many job as one would think.

[Red Baron 0]

Calgary has a payroll of 36 million. CALGARY

 

40 Million is perfect for a salary cap, but you need to back it up with great TV ratings, and excellent revenue sharing, which the league has not.

[Guest Rrrsh]

Calgary has a payroll of 36 million. CALGARY

 

40 Million is perfect for a salary cap, but you need to back it up with great TV ratings, and excellent revenue sharing, which the league has not.

I think the main thing is keeping teams like Calgrey together. There are a great team in a small market. If their is revenue sharing, the team stays together. Ditto with the Lightning.