Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jim Bob

How long until Modano gets the NHLPA beat down?

By Jim Bob, in NHL Discussions

Recommended Posts

Jim Bob    0

Jim Bob
Posted

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/01/12/896001.html

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE

Millionaires trump billionaires. If the Boston Red Sox can win the World Series, NHL owners can fall into line. It just goes to show you anything is possible.

Garroted by his own considerable pride, Goodenow will sign a deal with a salary cap, whether it's now or two years from now.

Either that or his successor will.

The players simply don't have the means to wait out their employers and, with the nicely veiled threat of some sort of scab action on tap for September, the union's leverage is ebbing by the day. Careers are short and Sears doesn't pay nearly as well.

The crow won't taste any different right now than it will a year from now.

The players had best get to it while there is still a season to save.

It's not fair, of course.

It's just business.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

tokes    0

tokes
Posted
I'd be embarrassed to be part of this "Association".....

It's getting beyond comical now.... pathetic comes to mind...

I think it's getting pathetic too.

YOU CAN'T SUSTAIN 9+ MILLION DOLLAR SALARIES WHEN YOU'RE A SECOND TIER SPORT IN THE STATES, AND DON'T EVEN HAVE A TV DEAL!

What don't they get? They have some laughable TV deal with NBC or ABC or someone, hardly anybody in the states even knows or cares that the NHL is locked out. Player salaries took up 75% of league revenue last year. NFL is 64, MLB is 63, and the NBA is 58. NBA isn't the best because they have such small teams, but 75% of revnue is completely unreasonable. I say take a salary cap. I liked the NHL's idea of not a straight 24% cut in salary, but one that reduces the highest paid players more than the lowest paid players. Take that cut and a cap. Your individual salary probably isn't going to go down ALL that much, but the talent will be more spread out.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

shootnscore19    0

shootnscore19
Posted

Im not sure exactally what his investment was, but in dallas they did an article on the situation for modano. it basically just said that he trust the wrong people and was esentially robbed of his money and trust. it goes into detail about how hard it is when many pro atheletes dont have highschool or college educations. it leaves them to rely on other people who can and do take advantage of them.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eazy_b97    1

Eazy_b97
Posted
What don't they get?

They aren't looking at the TV deals or other extras. They are looking at the fact in the last 3 stanley Cups, there has been 12 different teams in the finals. They look at teams who went out and broke the bank and it didn't produce results, they don't understand why they got big contracts if the owners couldn't afford it. They don't see why a league, which seems to have parody, and when the system was used correctly (the past summer) teams came out looking well, big spenders spending, others rebuilding, everyone playing the game within their means and still the big spenders did not win. I don't think either side is right, but I do understand both sides arguments. I mean 75% is ridiculous, but its also terrible when a grown man who is a billionaire, cannot say no to a player who wants x amount of money and they know doesn't deserve it. I think a strong luxury tax is the way this needs to be settled and will eventually be settled.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ktang    34

ktang
Posted
YOU CAN'T SUSTAIN 9+ MILLION DOLLAR SALARIES WHEN YOU'RE A SECOND TIER SPORT IN THE STATES, AND DON'T EVEN HAVE A TV DEAL!

The NHL might even be 3rd tier now, along with Arena Football. NASCAR and pro poker would be 2nd tier.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ktang    34

ktang
Posted
I mean 75% is ridiculous, but its also terrible when a grown man who is a billionaire, cannot say no to a player who wants x amount of money and they know doesn't deserve it. I think a strong luxury tax is the way this needs to be settled and will eventually be settled.

I think the billionaires have trouble resisting the upwards trends of salaries because they want their respective teams to win. So, their ego is good for the fans, because if their higher priority were to maximize profits, the team owners would get cheap players.

If one team owner gets cheap players to maximize profits, his team would start losing games and then fans. If all of the owners decide to hold salaries down, that is collusion, which is illegal (it is not free market).

Because there are not enough higher-skilled players for all of the teams, the higher-skilled players can play the teams against each other - supply and demand. This trends the salaries upwards.

The NHL could contract until there are more skilled players than teams to balance out the supply and demand, or it could go for the cost certainty (the cap).

The way I see it, the NHL is looking for an exemption to free market (with a salary cap) because the teams are in the entertainment business, and because winning is a higher priority than profitability. The NFL did this.

The NHLPA doesn't want this because they are doing so well with the current situation. So, we have this stalemate.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Go To Topic Listing
×
×
  • Create New...