| 0 |
Subject: instead of giving out fines, Bettman should...
Posted by: JayTDawg
- [57327171] Mon, Jul 15, 2002, 20:10
stick to playing the skin flute |
| 1 | Synergy
ID: 176291522
Mon, Jul 15, 2002, 22:33
|
I don't like Bettman. He has done nothing but kill the game since he's been in. He keeps saying maybe they'll find ways to increase scoring and lower injuries to stars.
Last time I checked, scoring is down, and people can still take liberties with stars. Oooh, a two game suspension. Big deal. The two referee system doesn't work. Clearly they got to remove the instigator rule and go back to the one ref system. The way the game is meant to be played. Give power back to the fighters to police the game. People are allowed to cheapshot now with the instigator pretty much negating any retribution.
DOWN WITH BETTMAN! Oh wait, better not be too loud, maybe they'll find a way to fine me.
|
| 2 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Mon, Jul 15, 2002, 23:30
|
...find a way to put an end to the tyranny that is N'Sync, the Backstreet Boys and O Town.
|
| 3 | Cuz
ID: 555242718
Mon, Jul 15, 2002, 23:33
|
Bettman loves the TV networks $$$ and that's about it. I agree, the instigator rule must go as well as the 2 ref's.
From what I have seen of him on TV, he seems to be too defensive about his policies and that would make it hard for him to accept any constructive input from other sources. Whether the rules are actually right or wrong for the game seems to be a moot fact to him - to him they are right because they are his rules.
And what I don't understand why they would fine a GM for stating the absolute truth. Nothing Quinn said was false. The GM's do run the show carelessly.
The only thing Quinn didn't say was that at times he is one of those careless GM's ;)
|
| 4 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 01:18
|
Well I am going to stray away from the popular opinion and contradict what some people think about Bettman.
After Alan Eagleson tainted the role of NHL President, the NHLPA hired Bob Goodenow whom effectively raised salaries some odd 200% in just a few short years. The NHL hired Gary Bettman as NHL Commissioner to negotiate.
Scoring had already started to fall before Bettmans arrival, I think it would be wrong to place all the blame upon Gary Bettman. In fact the only valid argument that I can see at this time is one regarding expansion. If you can soley credit Bettman with the expansion of the NHL then perhaps you could soley blame him for the drop in goals. The two issues are directly linked together, and I think it is simply wrong to blame/credit Bettman himself for either issue.
I also find it disturbing that people would blame an individual rule change such as the instigator penalty on Gary Bettman. You actually think that it is Bettman, a lawyer who never played hockey, that is making these rule changes?
Rule changes must be approved by the NHL Board of Governors, not Gary Bettman himself. The two-ref system, the instigator, 15 second faceoffs, whatever you want. Dont ask Bettman for it, it is in the Board of Governors hands, not his.
Lets see Gary Bettman gets no recognition, and he doesnt seek any out. When interviewed he defends his policies because if he shows weakness Bob Goodenow will use it against him. Bettman going on the air and stating that he is willing to bend on a few issues is akin to walking on a car lot and saying "OH MY FAVORITE CAR!!"
I dont think Bettman considers them to be his rules, I think he knows his place very well. His true place is to negotiate with the NHLPA. Everything else that is essentially hockey oriented has been properly allocated out to others. Gary Bettman becomes the fall guy that everyone points to when something looks wrong but they never point out the things Bettman has done right.
The 1995 Collective Bargaining Agreement is where Bettman really went to work.
To address the issue of players obtaining free agency and simply going to the highest bidding team Bettman and the NHL successfully raised the age level required to achieve free agency.
To address the issue of rapidly rising player salaries and team payrolls, Bettman successfully negotiated the rookie salary cap which is still in place today, and it dramatically reduced the growth rate of salaries.
To address the issue of exchange rates which hinder Canadian Teams Bettman brought in two things to help out. The first is the transfer payments or equalization payments of approximately 10-15 million a year to eligible Canadian franchises. The second issues revolves around Group II free agents. If a US team offers a contract to Iginla, Calgary can match the offer and recieve the difference in sxchange as compensation.
In 2004 Bettman will employ one of two things. Either a hard salary cap or a revenue sharing program. The success or failure of Bettman to implement one of these plans, in my mind will be the determining factor for whether or not the NHL loses 3 or 4 teams. I would put Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa on that list.
It is my opinion that Bettman is indeed the saviour of hockey. Without him salaries would be 25-50% higher than they are right now, that compounded with the loss off league transfer payments would have spelt destruction for 2 or 3 teams already.
I am happy to see the NHL Board of Governors recently extended Bettmans contract. In 2004 I will again be cheering for Bettman.
|
| 5 | Cuz
ID: 555242718
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 02:25
|
WV, I do agree with some of what you are saying. I think the public perception of him is so tainted because of the way he comes accross alot of times.
I don't blame the rules such as the instigator rule on him, but the way he so vehemently tries to defend them against any scrutiny whatsoever leaves me questioning his objectivity. And maybe it is true that he does not believe the rules are his, but he certainly acts like they are(which is what I meant by saying that previously) and takes it awfully personally when it is brought up in discussions with him.
I think that perhaps listening to suggestions on rules would be a good thing for him to do. Accepting critisism on league rules and how he operates while dealing with the union are two seperate things. And I don't think that acting like he is open to suggestions on issues such as that would ruin his stance with the union.
And I agree that Bettman has helped in regards to the CBA. He has tried his best to help level the playing field. The rookie cap was good in principle, even though it failed in practicality due to GM's using the loophole of signing bonuses etc. And the subsidiary payments to Canadian teams is also good in principle, but it doesn't seem to work. I think that a common critisism of him is that he doesn't seem to care about saving the Canadian or small market teams very much. He doesn't seem to make it a priority. And again, maybe he really does, but so often he comes accross the opposite way.
I think he could win alot of fan support by how he deals with the CBA in 2004. I think the NHL not only needs a cap but it also needs the revenue sharing. We will see if he has the shnuts to duke it out until he gets what he wants. I for one would tolerate 2 years of no hockey in order to straighten out some of these lunar contracts.
But I don't think that people get their hard feelings for Bettman in his dealings with the union. I think it is mostly on issues of the game. And perhaps you are right, that alot of those feelings are unfounded and misguided but when he acts the way he does most of the time, it doesn't surprise me that most people feel the way they do about him.
|
| 6 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 14:07
|
I cant argue against your perception of Bettmans public persona, I can only offer my opinion which is slightly different than yours.
I percieve him as defending the enforcement of the current rules and procedures, but not defending the rule itself. Perhaps that difference is very subtle, but I think it is an important distinction.
In regards to the rookie salary cap I regret to inform you that have misinformation. The rookie salary cap implemented by Gary Bettman, the NHL and NHLPA is outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It works in both theory and practice for the very reason that you say it doesnt.
The rookie salary cap is an all inclusive one. It includes performance bonuses, signing bonuses, roster bonuses, etc.
The first restriction is on TOTAL COMPENSATION payable. This amount rises yearly at a growth rate of approximately 4.5% opposed to the 30% - 50% that salaries were rising at prior to the cap.
Now the first thing to note is that the maximum signing bonus payable to a rookie player is 50% of his annual salary. This amount including others will be included when determining the players TOTAL COMPENSATION. The term total compensation includes benefits such as insurance, etc, etc.
If you own a copy of the NHL/NHLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement you can flip to Article 9 subsection 3b and subsection 4.
Before you mention deferred salary payments I suggest you read the section on them, also found in article 9.
|
| 7 | Cuz
ID: 555242718
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 14:59
|
My source for the rookie cap failure was tsn.ca. I can't find the exact link -it was like 3 weeks ago when the free agent fiasco began. But the jist of it was explaining how rookies have to sign for the maximum $$ figure for rookies, and the signing bonus like you said, but then the GM's fill the contracts with bonus clauses that enable them to easily topple the cap limit. It stated that Harry Sinden's deal with Thornton as the first contract to contain the loopholes. It also went on to use Danny Heatley as an example of how the cap fails. Apparently he earned almost $4 million this year because of the bonus clauses. And other rookies have earned similar figures according to what I read. But you say that this is false. I'm not saying that you are wrong, you could very well be right, but now I am confused.
As far as subsidy payments, I don't think they work as intended because just look at the state of Canadian teams. They are at the lowest point they have ever been save Toronto, and never before have so many been on the brink of leaving. That's why I say the plan doesn't appear to work.
|
| 8 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 16:28
|
Ok here goes.
First of all, I am not a lawyer. I did take a contract law course in University way back when but truthfully I learned there were a couple cool sounding Latin phrases.
Upon further reading I found what you are referring to. However, the issue at hand is laid out in the CBA so the term loophole isnt really appropriate.
The issue revolves around what they call "legitimate performance bonuses". They determine whether or not a performance bonus is legitimate based upon whether or not the player meets or exceeds league specified levels. The amount of the bonus is open for negotiation between player and club.
For those following along in their CBA's flip to Exhibit 5 for the exact qualifications. Essentially you can be paid non-cap bonuses for meeting various requirements including being one of the top players in ballots for various rewards. Actual performance output numbers are given for forwards, defensemen, and goalies. In other words if you score X number of goals you may be paid a bonus.
Dany Heatley
He could earn the following bonuses.
1. He won the Calder
2. He was named All-Rookie Team
3. He scored more than 20 goals.
4. He recorded more than 35 assists.
5. He earned more than 60 assists.
6. Played more than 42 games at higher than .73 pts/game
7. Scored 5 or more Power Play Goals.
8. Scored 4 or more Game Winning Goals.
If Heatley's agent is worth anything he probably got some good payouts for meeting bonuses. Ill get into that in a second, but most importantly I should point out that not all rookies are going to meet these performance measurements. Maybe 1 a year? 2? Not alot in the grand scheme of things. The media sees 1 or 2 cases like this and they cry "WOLF!!", but perhaps they dont realize exactly how the CBA works and how isolated these incidents really are.
Now Heatley most likely did very well for himself during his contract negotiations because he was a Canadian that played in the NCAA.
What?!?! You ask? Well it is a well known fact that NCAA players whom are drafted into the NHL at the age of 19, can drop out of school after 1 or 2 years of classes and become a free agent. Heatley could have dropped from Wisconsin, then played another year in WHL(his Canadian home in Calgary determines which CHL league he must play in, this is important because if he was from Ontario region the OHL would not let him play, WHL and QMJHL would let him). Anyway all this means that when it came down to negotiating for a contract Heatley was bargaining from a position of extreme power.
In the case of Joe Thornton, he would only have been elibigle for bonuses in the third year and final year of his rookie contract. In Thorntons case he was the #1 overall draft pick, this probably earned him some good bonus numbers at the draft table. But we all remember how slowly Thornton developed into a producing player. In this case I think the CBA rookie salary cap performed brilliantly. Without it Thornton would have made a fortune, but by the looks of it he was restricted to his 925,000 base salary for the first two years when he produced little.
To conclude this I would suggest that when a team and player really want to work out a deal they could make a performance ladden contract, but that player must meet league specified achievements to earn them. I have no problem with this, it is a good system.
Perhaps the best indicator of how well the rookie cap is working is the growth rate of salaries which has declined dramatically since its inception in 1995. By dramatically I mean, prior to the cap salaries were rising 25%-51%, after the cap salary growth has been 12%-17%.
Now obviously the rookie cap is only one factor affecting total average salaries, and it will only slow down initial growth. As we have seen veteran free agents are still pushing the growth rate higher and higher. The rookie cap is only 1 part of a total package. As mentioned before the NHL needs to implement a hard salary cap as well as a revenue sharing package.
|
| 9 | Cuz
ID: 555242718
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 16:54
|
Ok, so the CBA is actually structured then to allow performance rewards and those performance levels are set and stated above. It is becoming more clear now. The good old media boys left that little part of it out - which would have made things alot easier to understand.
So, is there anything in the CBA that sets a limit as to the amount of reward the players who achieve this can get? For example, say next year Rick Nash steps in and scores those 20 goals, is there anything to stop Columbus from rewarding him with say $7 million for that accomplishment, or are they limited to a specific amount?
|
| 10 | Cuz
ID: 555242718
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 16:57
|
It seems hard for the fans to get a good grasp on how everything works because it would seem that many of the media stories are taking a small part of an issue and examining it without clearly stating how it fits into the big picture. Like you said WV, it is a rare occasion that a rookie makes several million but the way it was made to sound to me was that it was a common occurence because of a loophole in the CBA's rookie cap. Thanks for clearing that part up.
|
| 11 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 17:20
|
In regards to the amount awarded for performance bonuses to entry level players(rookie contracts), there is no limit to the amount a team can pay as long as the performance indicator is achieved.
The player and the team negotiate these amounts and its up to them to deem what is satisfactory.
I have no real problem with this. I look at the rookie salary cap and I see a system that prevents a rookie player from demanding 4,000,000 a year simply based on the fact that he was drafted 2nd overal. If he can negotiate a good performance ladden contract and then come through in the clutch and meet those requirements, I have no problem with teams paying them.
Certainly 2nd year players stand a better chance at meeting performance requirements than 1st year rookies, and likewise for 3rd year rookies. But in the past, prior to the existence of this cap, rookies were starting to demand huge salaries based on draft order. This has effectively slowed that growth, in my mind is achieving exactly what it was originally intended to do.
PS. Under the current CBA rookie contracts are automatically considered 2way contracts.
|
| 12 | Cuz
ID: 555242718
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 17:43
|
Now that I get the full picture, I see how the cap has curbed the salary demands of rookies. I was put under the impression that most GM's were getting around the cap by laying down insentive laden contracts without any restrictions. I am also at a loss as I don't have a copy of the CBA and must get my information from other sources.
It's too bad that all player contracts couldn't be insetive oriented. Perhaps the league could institute a contract maximum salary of say $2 mill/year for example, and make the rest of the contract based on insentives. I know that is easier said that done because players like Kasparaitis for example, are not going to score as many goals as a Guerin or Amonte would but they may be more valuable in other ways and thus would need and entirely different set of standards.
A silly idea, most people will probably say. The union would never go for it. But as I now have a better understanding of how the cap works in the case of the rookies, and if players are actually worthy of the bonuses by actually attaining certain goals, then what's the problem? It would come down to 'put up or shut up' in the case of the player contracts. Performance dictates salary accordingly.
Of course this will never happen, but I'd like to know what people think of an idea such as this?
|
| 13 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 19:02
|
In my opinion, this last round of free agent signs served to to make it very clear that something must be done.
I would like to suggest that drastic measures are required. A hard cap and a revenue sharing program, the intention here is make it possible for all 30 member teams to compete equally. At this point in time I dont think that is the case.
I havent really got it worked out in my head how it would all exactly tie together, so forgive me if I say something now that I would later have to repeal. But lets try and think it through and see what we come up with.
Ok. Here goes.
The Salary Cap.
I would like the amount of the salary cap to be tied to league average attendance. I dont like attaching it to league revenues because that gives owners incentive to raise ticket prices to raise revenues and therefore raise their cap. So what affects attendance? The quality of your team, improve your team, improve interest in it. Win a cup or make a playoff run and you should do good things for your attendance.
Now the cap would have to be low enough to chop the overspenders down, but put it too low and it will never fly with the Union. I suggest 45-50 million maximum. Remember the goal here is to prevent a few top paying teams from hording all the talent, at 45-50million cap should achieve that.
For this cap however we cant allow performance based bonuses to be out-side the cap. If we allow that it would be abused beyond belief, rendering the cap useless. In the rookie cap it works because only 1 team has the rights to that player after the draft, but in this case a team could sign incentive ladden contracts with low base pay and circumvent the cap.
Another potential loophole is the possibility of deferred payments. In other words, contracts that pay little now and carry huge payouts at some point in the future, subsequently allowing teams to buy longterm contracts for low amounts now. Id suggest closing this by using the present value of the contract/length of contract as the computation for determining current year cap value.
In regards to performance bonuses. I like the idea of performance bonuses as it rewards players for production. But you already mentioned one shortcoming of that system...availability of accurate performance measurements. Personally I like the idea of attaching performance bonuses to team success or line success, which is easier to measure in the grand scheme of things.
I guess the bottom line here is we dont want teams to monopolize the player market. We dont want to leave teams/owners and loopholes through which they can circumvent the system.
Now trying to push all this through plus a revenue sharing plan is gonna be tough. The cap will meet stiff competition from the NHLPA, and the revenue sharing plan isnt popular amoung some of the owners. Personally I have had enough. I am willing to sit through a strike 10 times longer than the 1995 strike/lockout.
anyone have any thought on how we could implement it? Would we make Detroit trade talent away right now to fit under the cap? Or do you allow them a period of a couple years to get under? Fine them for being over the cap and distribute it to the member teams?
|
| 14 | Cuz
ID: 555242718
Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 22:09
|
Personally I would start the Revenue sharing right away, based on team salaries the moment the new CBA is signed. But, I think to be fair, the teams that were above cap levels before it was implemented should be given one year to get their rosters below cap levels.
WV, what do you mean exactly by basing the cap on the average attendance? I am trying to figure out how that would work and I sort of see where you are going but I guess I need clarification.
I agree with your bottom line but I would like to add something to it. Personally, after this is all said and done, I would like to see much more affordable ticket prices. I know that affordable is a different thing to different people, but for people like me - average Joe - there is no way I could afford to take my family to more than a few games per year. Season tickets?? Out of the question. So, hopefully by the time 2004 rolls around it isn't too late for perhaps a rollback in prices if the league gets it's house in order.
I know I am probably dreaming, but that is what I'd like to see in the bottom line.
|
| 15 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Wed, Jul 17, 2002, 01:06
|
If the NHL comes out and says this is the salary cap, it wont ever change or grow I think the NHLPA would never sign the CBA. I think there has to be some glimmer of hope for the union. For that reason I suggest tying the value of the cap to the average league attendance, thus saying if you can fill the buildings around the league and promote the league then the value of the cap will go up.
In other words the cap is equal to LAA(league average attendace) * modifing factor. Set it so that it equals 45-50million now, but has potential to grow if the popularity of the league improves. I "think" the nfl cap is based upon ticket revenue.
Now basing an NHL cap on ticket revenue would be a recipe for disaster. Owners would jack ticket prices to increase their salary cap. However, basing it on attendance would give owners and incentive to field a competitive team at a competitive price, because lets face it thats what us fans really want... to watch good hockey at affordable prices. This would also help all the member teams become more "team" oriented towards achieving overall league objectives. It kinda just makes sense.... or am I full of it?
Ticket Prices.
If you think about this realistically there are two seperate factions working against the common fan.
The first is the players union which has forced player salaries towards the skies, demainding raise after raise, essentially a 330% raise over the past 12 NHL season. They make the postal workers look innocent. Well these raises have to paid for, and with the NHL a vast majority of this is paid by fans through ticket and merchandise sales, as opposed to a league like the NFL which hauls in a ton of television revenue.
The other known force working against the common fan is owners. When we actually get a salary cap, I think most owners would rather pocket the money than cut us fans a break. The more fortunate point is that they shouldnt be required to raise them further. Especially if the cap is tied to attendance numbers. Perhaps some teams could afford to cut us a break, but I wouldnt count on it.
|
| 16 | Cuz
ID: 555242718
Wed, Jul 17, 2002, 01:25
|
It is unfortunate that most owners feel no loyalty towards the fans. After all, where would they be without us?
|
| 17 | Wild Vikings
ID: 26210202
Wed, Jul 17, 2002, 01:35
|
The same can be said about the players ;)
|
| 18 | Puckprophet
ID: 54371812
Thu, Jul 18, 2002, 00:26
|
anyone got the stats on the average season ticket price by team ? [ ie. red line 12 rows back]
|
| 19 | Cuz
ID: 555242718
Thu, Jul 18, 2002, 02:32
|
I've got some info here that is hopefully helpfull...
$32.79 -- The Calgary Flames' average ticket price (in U.S. dollars) this season, the lowest in the NHL.
$75.91 -- The Dallas Stars' average ticket price (U.S. Dollars) this season, the highest in the NHL
$49.86 (U.S. Dollars) -- the average price ticket for the NHL increased 4.5 percent.
The Atlanta Thrashers and Carolina Hurricanes were the only teams that decreased prices in multiple price categories for the 2001/2002 season.
This is all NHL Teams
Note: This was for the 2001/2002 season. Hope this is what you were looking for.
|
| 20 | Cuz
ID: 555242718
Thu, Jul 18, 2002, 03:11
|
Can't seem to find average season ticket prices though.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|