 No end in sight for labour dispute despite Gretzky's Jan. 1 hope Wayne Gretzky believes the NHL will be up and running by Jan. 1. But No. 99 also made it clear that he has no inside knowledge of what has been going on behind the closed doors of the stalled negotiations between the NHL and NHLPA that - in the nextCommentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
At this point his biggest concern isn't for the league like he keeps saying, it's for his job plain and simple.
He has held power for the last 8 years specifically because he won the last lockout for the owners. If they league has to cave to the players demands this time it won't be long till the disgruntled owners who think the leagues revenue sharing plan for his pet projects are ruining hockey will quite happily use the strike as an excuse to see him sent packing back to Daniel Stern and the NBA.
So stand by for a long lockout since this could be the Buttmans last stand.
Go Generals
This time though the owners are clearly more to blame than the players are.
Oh, there is plenty of blame on both sides of this coin...
The problem with the big market owners is that they can pay up to the maximum and still make boatloads of cash every year, so that's what they do. The top ten team salaries last year were all over $60 million/year! How is a city like Edmonton or Carolina supposed to compete with that? If you look at the standings, almost all the top teams are in the top end of salaries, while the poor teams are in the bottom half.
The big market teams also sign insane contracts like the long term Kovalchuk/Suter/Parise deals that are designed specifically to circumvent the cap.
Finally, players are also to blame. Their agents use big market contracts to demand big paydays ("Joe got 25 goals last year and earned and $4 million with the Rangers, so Bill should get the same here in Edmonton"), further escalating salaries. If they don't get it, they sit out until the teams cave in to their demands.
The players already gave in in 2005 on revenue sharing, the salary cap, and an across the board wage rollback of over 20%. Yet it's the owners that keep raising the cap and keep signing borderline players to ludicrous contracts, and then turn around and tell the players that, despite over $3 billion in collective hockey revenue, they have to take another massive pay cut and give up more off-ice revenue. Like I said the vast majority of the blame this time lies squarely with the owners. Not only are they stupid for crapping in their own beds they're being nothing less than massively unfair this time around.
But it's the owners that always cave in to that stupidity. No one forces them to give out these contracts, especially not with these absolutely ridiculous no-trade clauses that get added it. God forbid that any of the other owners and managers could ever show the backbone that Tambellini and Lowe did when Sheldon Souray pulled that brattish "trade me or else!" stunt a few years ago, The players are exploiting a market that the owners are directly responsible for creating. The league and the owners never stopped Bruce McNall (LA Kings) back in the late 1980's or Neil Smith/Glen Sather (Rangers) in the mid-1990's when this nonsense that nearly killed off all but two of the Canadian teams erupted. If you're a mid-level player that's given $3 million a year because an owner agreed to it because of "current market conditions" would you be dumb enough to say no to that kind of payout? I sure wouldn't, and I certainly don't blame the guys for taking advantage of those kinds of offers.
The players already gave in in 2005 on revenue sharing, the salary cap, and an across the board wage rollback of over 20%. Yet it's the owners that keep raising the cap and keep signing borderline players to ludicrous contracts, and then turn around and tell the players that, despite over $3 billion in collective hockey revenue, they have to take another massive pay cut and give up more off-ice revenue. Like I said the vast majority of the blame this time lies squarely with the owners. Not only are they stupid for crapping in their own beds they're being nothing less than massively unfair this time around.
My point is that it's not all the owners who are giving $3 million to mid-level players - it's mostly the big market teams setting those high prices. The smaller market teams are then forced to either pay similar wages or become defacto farm teams for the big market teams. That's basically what happened to the Oilers and Jets in the 90s, and despite the salary cap, it's still happening today.
Don't get me wrong - there are lots of owners who deserve blame, but not ALL of them.
I'd say about a quarter to a third have tried to hold the line - and as a result, their teams sit in the bottom half of the league, barring the occasional breakout year by several of their low paid players - who are then scooped up by big market teams the second their contract expires.
The players are hardly innocent - their agents gleeflully point to players with similar stats in big market teams and then demand that same salary for their small market player. Small teams that can't afford to pay, either see their team gutted or players sitting out, until the team is forced to cave-in to their outrageous demands.
The problem started IMHO the second they started publishing everyone's salaries. Had they stayed private, this constant salary inflation wouldn't happen.
Not sure that there was any way to keep the salaries a insider secret. Just by word-of-mouth alone all the players and media jerks would have found out all the relevant details anyway.
The problem with the big market owners is that they can pay up to the maximum and still make boatloads of cash every year, so that's what they do. The top ten team salaries last year were all over $60 million/year! How is a city like Edmonton or Carolina supposed to compete with that? If you look at the standings, almost all the top teams are in the top end of salaries, while the poor teams are in the bottom half.
The big market teams also sign insane contracts like the long term Kovalchuk/Suter/Parise deals that are designed specifically to circumvent the cap.
Sorry boots, you're off on this one as well.
You told us previously that Oilers were a losing venture and now you group them in with the poor teams?
Going into this season, Edmonton's at $62.9 million more than Detroit, Pittsburgh and the NY Rangers. They're also spending more than the team who won the Cup last year is spending.
Edmonton competes just fine with the other teams and they still make a profit year after year.
Finally, players are also to blame. Their agents use big market contracts to demand big paydays ("Joe got 25 goals last year and earned and $4 million with the Rangers, so Bill should get the same here in Edmonton"), further escalating salaries. If they don't get it, they sit out until the teams cave in to their demands.
That's how the real world works. People within the same field are compared all the time and paid accordingly. Do we complain when a manager at Wal-Mart gets more money to jump to Target?
If the owners jack up prices to attract a player, they're setting the market value for that type of player.
The problem with the big market owners is that they can pay up to the maximum and still make boatloads of cash every year, so that's what they do. The top ten team salaries last year were all over $60 million/year! How is a city like Edmonton or Carolina supposed to compete with that? If you look at the standings, almost all the top teams are in the top end of salaries, while the poor teams are in the bottom half.
The big market teams also sign insane contracts like the long term Kovalchuk/Suter/Parise deals that are designed specifically to circumvent the cap.
Sorry boots, you're off on this one as well.
You told us previously that Oilers were a losing venture and now you group them in with the poor teams?
Going into this season, Edmonton's at $62.9 million more than Detroit, Pittsburgh and the NY Rangers. They're also spending more than the team who won the Cup last year is spending.
Edmonton competes just fine with the other teams and they still make a profit year after year.
You're wrong on the Oiler's salary. LA spent $64.39 million last year, so even if your Oiler's figure is correct, they are still spending less than the Cup winners.
If you look at last year's team salaries, only two in the top dozen (Buffalo and Calgary) failed to make the playoffs. If you expand it to the top half (1-15) only three didn't make the playoffs (Anaheim came in at 15th).
Conversely, the bottom dozen spenders has only four playoff bound teams (Florida, St. Louis, Ottawa and Phoenix). Expanded to the bottom half (16-30), still only four teams made the playoffs.
http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/ ... aries/team
Guess where all the small market teams fall - the bottom dozen...
I'd say that's fair proof that money equals success - and who has the most money? The big market teams of course, which have all sorts of extra revenue that teams like Edmonton et al can only dream of.
The problem isn't ALL the owners, its the big market owners. Whatever system is brought into place needs to accept that big market teams have the wherewithal to spend far more than most small market teams.
Perhaps the player's idea of a luxury tax is the best idea of the bunch.
Finally, players are also to blame. Their agents use big market contracts to demand big paydays ("Joe got 25 goals last year and earned and $4 million with the Rangers, so Bill should get the same here in Edmonton"), further escalating salaries. If they don't get it, they sit out until the teams cave in to their demands.
That's how the real world works. People within the same field are compared all the time and paid accordingly. Do we complain when a manager at Wal-Mart gets more money to jump to Target?
If the owners jack up prices to attract a player, they're setting the market value for that type of player.
Your analogy doesn't work - I'm not arguing costs for stars (managers in your analogy) is unjust - the problem lies with the mid-level players (stock people and cashiers). Wal-mart pays the going rate - it doesn't jack up salaries to 'steal' all the 'good' stock people from its competition.
In the real world, you don't have managers from Wal-Mart cruising the parking lot at a mall offering huge salary increases for staff working at the Gap.
The problem is that "fair market" price is relative. What is fair market in one centre isn't necessarily the case everywhere.
Take a look at real estate - if it operated under rationale your using here, we'd all have to have mortgages of a million dollars or more because that is fair market price in Vancouver or Toronto, irregardless if that was fair market price in Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton or Halifax.
You're wrong on the Oiler's salary. LA spent $64.39 million last year, so even if your Oiler's figure is correct, they are still spending less than the Cup winners.
LA spent $63.6 million last season a mere 3.2 million more than Edmonton at $60.4. I use Cap Geek, I wouldn't take those numbers from USA today.
Considering the majority of sports journalists use CG, I'll stick to that.
I'd say that's fair proof that money equals success - and who has the most money? The big market teams of course, which have all sorts of extra revenue that teams like Edmonton et al can only dream of.
The problem isn't ALL the owners, its the big market owners. Whatever system is brought into place needs to accept that big market teams have the wherewithal to spend far more than most small market teams.
Perhaps the player's idea of a luxury tax is the best idea of the bunch.
Of course. In life and in business, you get what you pay for. It's too bad the small teams can't compete, perhaps moving the teams into markets who can better support them would make more sense than trying to prop up a loser in a losing market.
If you want to have a luxury tax, you have to remove the cap which doesn't make the problem any better. You can't have both.
Your analogy doesn't work - I'm not arguing costs for stars (managers in your analogy) is unjust - the problem lies with the mid-level players (stock people and cashiers). Wal-mart pays the going rate - it doesn't jack up salaries to 'steal' all the 'good' stock people from its competition.
In the real world, you don't have managers from Wal-Mart cruising the parking lot at a mall offering huge salary increases for staff working at the Gap.
The problem is that "fair market" price is relative. What is fair market in one centre isn't necessarily the case everywhere.
Take a look at real estate - if it operated under rationale your using here, we'd all have to have mortgages of a million dollars or more because that is fair market price in Vancouver or Toronto, irregardless if that was fair market price in Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton or Halifax.
Come on boots, compare apples to apples. Don't compare real estate to the value of people's services.
I don't know about you but being in a position to hire people at a retail and corporate level, I've had people in both sectors, "common" workers come in for an interview from another business within the same industry and there's always talk about what they currently make and looking to match or exceed their current/previous salary. Quite often, the hourly rate is matched if we think the person is a good fit.
You're wrong on the Oiler's salary. LA spent $64.39 million last year, so even if your Oiler's figure is correct, they are still spending less than the Cup winners.
LA spent $63.6 million last season a mere 3.2 million more than Edmonton at $60.4. I use Cap Geek, I wouldn't take those numbers from USA today.
Considering the majority of sports journalists use CG, I'll stick to that.
Whatever - the numbers from both sites come from the NHL, so I don't see much difference.
I'd say that's fair proof that money equals success - and who has the most money? The big market teams of course, which have all sorts of extra revenue that teams like Edmonton et al can only dream of.
The problem isn't ALL the owners, its the big market owners. Whatever system is brought into place needs to accept that big market teams have the wherewithal to spend far more than most small market teams.
Perhaps the player's idea of a luxury tax is the best idea of the bunch.
Of course. In life and in business, you get what you pay for. It's too bad the small teams can't compete, perhaps moving the teams into markets who can better support them would make more sense than trying to prop up a loser in a losing market.
If you want to have a luxury tax, you have to remove the cap which doesn't make the problem any better. You can't have both.
It's not a matter of a team in a "loser market" - there's a difference of revenue streams.
Many of the large market teams have their own specialty cable channels to broadcast their games, are better known and so sell more merchandise (the Rangers probably have more overall appeal nationwide than the Hurricanes do for example), and sometimes even bettter arena deals, which means they have deeper pockets than small market teams.
It's not anyone's fault that the Rangers generate 20 or 30 million (or whatever it is) more annually than the Hurricanes do, but if they are allowed to spend all of that sum to make their team better, then the Hurricanes will have a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning a Cup.
That was the entire point of the salary cap - to introduce some form of even playing field for all teams in the league, not just the richest ones. Guess who won the Stanley Cup the year AFTER the salary cap was introduced?
As for moving teams to better markets - I don't see that as an option. There simply aren't that many large cities that would support a team that don't already have one. People may bandy Seattle and Kansas City around, but I have my doubts either would be a better market for hockey long-term than existing markets.
Frankly, if you want to get rid of 'loser markets', the only real option is to contract some teams and go to a 26-28 team league instead.
Your analogy doesn't work - I'm not arguing costs for stars (managers in your analogy) is unjust - the problem lies with the mid-level players (stock people and cashiers). Wal-mart pays the going rate - it doesn't jack up salaries to 'steal' all the 'good' stock people from its competition.
In the real world, you don't have managers from Wal-Mart cruising the parking lot at a mall offering huge salary increases for staff working at the Gap.
The problem is that "fair market" price is relative. What is fair market in one centre isn't necessarily the case everywhere.
Take a look at real estate - if it operated under rationale your using here, we'd all have to have mortgages of a million dollars or more because that is fair market price in Vancouver or Toronto, irregardless if that was fair market price in Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton or Halifax.
Come on boots, compare apples to apples. Don't compare real estate to the value of people's services.
I don't know about you but being in a position to hire people at a retail and corporate level, I've had people in both sectors, "common" workers come in for an interview from another business within the same industry and there's always talk about what they currently make and looking to match or exceed their current/previous salary. Quite often, the hourly rate is matched if we think the person is a good fit.
Fine, then let's look at wages in LA and Edmonton in just about any field. Median wages are vastly different for a variety of reasons. Same goes for comparing Vancouver and Regina, or New York City and Winnipeg. Big markets almost always offer higher wages than smaller markets because what is fair market in one city isn't necessarily the same in another.
Again, fair market price is relative. But only in professional sports do small market cities pay the same price as large markets.
Could you imagine anyone in 'real life' demanding the same wage for their job in Edmonton as someone in LA or NYC? Of course not.