The owners that wanted to play

The owners that wanted to play

Post by Neil Horns » Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:14:04


Although the owners voted 26-0 to reject the players' offer to play the
season without striking, league insiders say that five teams wanted to
accept the offer, and seven other teams were leaning that way.  The teams
for accepting the offer were the New York Rangers, LA Kings, St.Louis,
Montreal, and Toronto.  The teams leaning that way were Edmonton, the NY
Islanders, Ottawa, Buffalo, Vancouver, Dallas, and Pittsburgh.  Most of
these don't surprise me except Edmonton, Ottawa, and Buffalo.  These are
supposed to be three of the small market teams, the teams that the owners
are supposed to be fighting for.  I find it surprising that they would
want to go on playing with the current situation if they were in such bad
shape.  I'm also surprised that Detroit and Chicago weren't on this list.
They no doubt rake in the money.  I guess they want more.

Neil Hornsey

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by Nelson » Tue, 25 Oct 1994 16:00:12


Quote:

>accept the offer, and seven other teams were leaning that way.  The teams
>for accepting the offer were the New York Rangers, LA Kings, St.Louis,
>Montreal, and Toronto.  The teams leaning that way were Edmonton, the NY
>Islanders, Ottawa, Buffalo, Vancouver, Dallas, and Pittsburgh.  Most of
>these don't surprise me except Edmonton, Ottawa, and Buffalo.  These are
>supposed to be three of the small market teams, the teams that the owners
>are supposed to be fighting for.  I find it surprising that they would

Actually, although it is a small surprise, it's not that big of a surprise.
Edmonton and Ottawa want revenues to flow in and probably have smaller lockout
reserves than other teams, and so continuing the lockout would be detrimental
to them.  I am not sure about Buffalo, but part of it might be that they have
just paid big signing bonuses to Hasek and LaFontaine and thus need revenues
quick.

===============================================================================
YEAH!  LOCK 'EM OUT!  YEAH!  LOCK 'EM OUT!  YEAH!  LOCK 'EM OUT!  YEAH!
===============================================================================

rec.sport.hockey contact for the San Jose Sharks

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by Lydia Manci » Fri, 28 Oct 1994 14:59:34

Quote:

>Although the owners voted 26-0 to reject the players' offer to play the
>season without striking, league insiders say that five teams wanted to
>accept the offer, and seven other teams were leaning that way.  The teams
>for accepting the offer were the New York Rangers, LA Kings, St.Louis,
>Montreal, and Toronto.  The teams leaning that way were Edmonton, the NY
>Islanders, Ottawa, Buffalo, Vancouver, Dallas, and Pittsburgh.  Most of
>these don't surprise me except Edmonton, Ottawa, and Buffalo.  These are
>supposed to be three of the small market teams, the teams that the owners
>are supposed to be fighting for.  I find it surprising that they would
>want to go on playing with the current situation if they were in such bad
>shape.  I'm also surprised that Detroit and Chicago weren't on this list.
>They no doubt rake in the money.  I guess they want more.

Yeah, that's why they're not playing hockey right now. I very much doubt that
the owners are going to have this much resolve over an issue taken very
seriously by these few teams.

If the large market teams really wanted to make a huge amount of money,
they wouldn't give a rat's behind about anyone but their own teams.

-- Lydia

--
 (==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)
  Lydia Mancini       | "Oh drat these computers are so *** and so

  McGill University   |  -- Marvin The Martian from Loony Tunes

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by Adam Glov » Sun, 30 Oct 1994 12:25:37

Quote:


>>Although the owners voted 26-0 to reject the players' offer to play the
>>season without striking, league insiders say that five teams wanted to
>>accept the offer, and seven other teams were leaning that way.  The teams
>>for accepting the offer were the New York Rangers, LA Kings, St.Louis,
>>Montreal, and Toronto.  The teams leaning that way were Edmonton, the NY
>>Islanders, Ottawa, Buffalo, Vancouver, Dallas, and Pittsburgh.  Most of
>>these don't surprise me except Edmonton, Ottawa, and Buffalo.  These are
>>supposed to be three of the small market teams, the teams that the owners
>>are supposed to be fighting for.  I find it surprising that they would
>>want to go on playing with the current situation if they were in such bad
>>shape.  I'm also surprised that Detroit and Chicago weren't on this list.
>>They no doubt rake in the money.  I guess they want more.

>Yeah, that's why they're not playing hockey right now. I very much doubt that
>the owners are going to have this much resolve over an issue taken very
>seriously by these few teams.

>If the large market teams really wanted to make a huge amount of money,
>they wouldn't give a rat's behind about anyone but their own teams.

What makes you think they do?  The main reason that they want to protect
the small market teams is to prevent them from moving to markets from
which they hope to get expansion fees.  The main reason that they wish
to do this using a cap is so that they can rake in more dough by taking
advantage of an artificially low priced labour market.

--
 "I can't get laid 'cause everyone is dead." -- Thurston Moore

  Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada.

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by Adam Glov » Mon, 07 Nov 1994 01:59:08

Quote:


>>What makes you think they do?  The main reason that they want to protect
>>the small market teams is to prevent them from moving to markets from
>>which they hope to get expansion fees.

>How many large markets are left,

A lot actually.  Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, and Seattle to name a
few plus a few "medium" markets like Denver, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and lest
we forget the Twin Cities.  True many of these cities have already had their
cracks at teams and screwed up, but it's a different era now.  Some of them
are getting NHL-sized attendance figures for IHL teams.

Quote:
>and if the league is in such a state that
>teams keep folding and moving, why would more want to come in?

You must be referring to a different league.  At last count only 3 teams
have moved since 1980, and only one of them since 1984.  The latter wasn't
even really the Twin Cities' fault, they're still perfectly capable of
supporting an NHL team, Dallas just turned out to be a better market and
an opportunity not worth missing.  The former two were results of the fact
that hockey did not have the broad fan base in many parts of the US that it
does now.  By comparison 5 teams have expanded into the league in that time
frame, and 2 more expansion teams are planned as we speak with several of
the cities named above bidding for them.  This is a sign of a league in
trouble?

Quote:
>>  The main reason that they wish
>>to do this using a cap is so that they can rake in more dough by taking
>>advantage of an artificially low priced labour market.

>The main reason for a salary cap is to control the artificially high priced
>labour market.

>The NHL is not a free market, and should not be compared to one.
>When the NHL lets lose all its controls on team entrance and player
>acquisition will talk about labour market.

How do you know that these restrictions are benefitting the players?  If
anything the restrictions on player acquisitions would benefit the owners
by reducing the options that players have to auction themselves out to
whatever team wants them at whatever price.  Even if it turns out that
these restrictions do benefit the players (by reducing the supply in
the free agency market), then the owners should turn their attention toward
correcting that than toward a salary cap.

--
 "I can't get laid 'cause everyone is dead." -- Thurston Moore

  Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada.

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by John Andrew Fingerh » Wed, 09 Nov 1994 05:47:59


Quote:


>>What makes you think they do?  The main reason that they want to protect
>>the small market teams is to prevent them from moving to markets from
>>which they hope to get expansion fees.

>How many large markets are left, and if the league is in such a state that
>teams keep folding and moving, why would more want to come in?

Of course, that's the question that the players are asking...Not only aren't
there any teams that "keep folding" and only one that has recently moved,
but there are cities just dying to get a team.  I find it interesting that
both Baseball and Hockey are crying poor and just dying to expand after
having recently expanded.  The reason, of course, is that they can charge
an even higher expansion fee if they can guarantee a smaller salary scale
to the expansion owners!
--
Stephen Gevers

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by Lydia Manci » Sat, 12 Nov 1994 00:12:19

[stuff about markets deleted]

I still believe that without a salary cap, smaller mrket teams will fail.
This will not make the NHL as attractive to potential cities.

Quote:
>How do you know that these restrictions are benefitting the players?  If
>anything the restrictions on player acquisitions would benefit the owners
>by reducing the options that players have to auction themselves out to
>whatever team wants them at whatever price.  Even if it turns out that
>these restrictions do benefit the players (by reducing the supply in
>the free agency market), then the owners should turn their attention toward
>correcting that than toward a salary cap.

I didn't say that restrictions help the players.  I said that all these
restrictions were put in place to help the poorer teams. A team like Quebec
wouldn't have been able to get top ranked draft picks for 5 years in a row
without a draft. Had this been the 1930's, the team probably would folded.
However, the league decided it didn't want situations like this to happen.
They put things in place to ensure that poorer teams don't fold.

To repeat, a salary cap is fully cinsistent with the way the league works
right now.

-- Lydia

--
 (==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)
  Lydia Mancini       | "Oh drat these computers are so *** and so

  McGill University   |  -- Marvin The Martian from Loony Tunes

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by Lydia Manci » Mon, 14 Nov 1994 07:50:58

Quote:

>>How many large markets are left, and if the league is in such a state that
>>teams keep folding and moving, why would more want to come in?
>Of course, that's the question that the players are asking...Not only aren't
>there any teams that "keep folding" and only one that has recently moved,
>but there are cities just dying to get a team.  I find it interesting that
>both Baseball and Hockey are crying poor and just dying to expand after
>having recently expanded.  The reason, of course, is that they can charge
>an even higher expansion fee if they can guarantee a smaller salary scale
>to the expansion owners!

So what? People who own businesses want to make money, that isn't much of a
revelation. However, I don't think you can argue that this is the only reason
they don't want the smaller market teams to die.

Look at this in another way: If large US markets are dying to get in to the
NHL, do you think the fans in those new NHL cities would gave a rat's behind
about these small Canadian teams? Don't you think it would be better for those
teams to play larger/better known teams so they can rake in more money?

Ultimately, without any sort of cap on salaries, Canadian teams will fold.
Having researched back to the 1880's on the history of hockey in Canada,
this would seem like a slap in the face to the pioneers and players who
started and innovated the product US markets are dying to get a taste of.

Don't get me wrong, I welcome expansion to the US, but Canadian teams shouldn't
be left behind.

-- Lydia

--
 (==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)
  Lydia Mancini       | "Oh drat these computers are so *** and so

  McGill University   |  -- Marvin The Martian from Loony Tunes

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by TSUJI GEOR » Wed, 16 Nov 1994 13:21:09


Quote:


>>>How many large markets are left, and if the league is in such a state that
>>there any teams that "keep folding" and only one that has recently moved,
>>but there are cities just dying to get a team.  I find it interesting that
>>both Baseball and Hockey are crying poor and just dying to expand after
>>having recently expanded.  The reason, of course, is that they can charge
>>an even higher expansion fee if they can guarantee a smaller salary scale
>>to the expansion owners!

>So what? People who own businesses want to make money, that isn't much of a
>revelation. However, I don't think you can argue that this is the only reason
>they don't want the smaller market teams to die.

>Look at this in another way: If large US markets are dying to get in to the
>NHL, do you think the fans in those new NHL cities would gave a rat's behind
>about these small Canadian teams? Don't you think it would be better for those
>teams to play larger/better known teams so they can rake in more money?

>Ultimately, without any sort of cap on salaries, Canadian teams will fold.
>Having researched back to the 1880's on the history of hockey in Canada,
>this would seem like a slap in the face to the pioneers and players who

Of course, we all should know what the "N" in NHL stands for.  But the
point here is that the players don't believe that the owners are imposing
a cap to save the Canadian teams.  It's a great P.R. move to say something
like this, but do you really think the owners in Florida or Anaheim (for
example) really care about Winnipeg?  The Canadian teams draw poorly on the
road because most Americans don't know what a Winnipeg or Calgary is.  They
would probably be better off if the Nordiques, Oilers and Jets all moved
south (except they wouldn't get any expansion money).

The big market teams see a salary cap as a way of controlling expenses,
while continuing to rake in huge revenues.  It's alot easier to justify
t*** salaries when you're forced too.  If a team arbitrarily decides
to slash its payroll, attendence will suffer (see Padres, S.D.), but if
the club's fans know the team had no choice in the matter, things will
work out differently.

Besides, would it really kill hockey in Canada if we were left with the
Leafs, Habs, Canucks, and one Alberta team (presumably the Flames)?  Hockey
survived and flourished for years with only two teams, none west of Toronto.
This didn't stop the West from producing some of the best players in the
League.  The appearance of the NBA in Canada will probably be balanced out
by the decline of the CFL.  I'm sure hockey will survive in Canada without
Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Quebec.  Even I can remember the league
without all four of these teams.
Hamilton, on the other hand would probably become an instant success, but
we both know the NHL will never expand there.

George

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by John Andrew Fingerh » Thu, 17 Nov 1994 03:17:47


:
:>>How many large markets are left, and if the league is in such a state that
:>>teams keep folding and moving, why would more want to come in?
:
:>Of course, that's the question that the players are asking...Not only aren't
:>there any teams that "keep folding" and only one that has recently moved,
:>but there are cities just dying to get a team.  I find it interesting that
:>both Baseball and Hockey are crying poor and just dying to expand after
:>having recently expanded.  The reason, of course, is that they can charge
:>an even higher expansion fee if they can guarantee a smaller salary scale
:>to the expansion owners!
:
:So what? People who own businesses want to make money, that isn't much of a
:revelation. However, I don't think you can argue that this is the only reason
:they don't want the smaller market teams to die.

It may not be the only reason...but it is a big reason.  Another reason
is rivalries.  For example, the Blackhawks didn't want the Blues to move
to Saskatoon because the St. Louis/Chicago rivalry would not survive the
move.  However, I don't think that LA gave a rat's behind about that
rivalry.

:
:Look at this in another way: If large US markets are dying to get in to the
:NHL, do you think the fans in those new NHL cities would gave a rat's behind
:about these small Canadian teams? Don't you think it would be better for those
:teams to play larger/better known teams so they can rake in more money?

I don't think that the loss of the Vancouver Canucks or the Quebec Nordiques
would have any effect on the amount of money an expansion teams makes.  I'd
be willing to bet major dollars that the loss of the Senators wouldn't make
much difference to anyone as far as how much money they can make (my point
being that the Senators are not much of a draw when they come to town.)
Also, don't interpret these comments as saying that *I* don't care if those
teams move or fold.

:
:Ultimately, without any sort of cap on salaries, Canadian teams will fold.

I don't believe this.  I believe that if revenues were shared so that they
could be competitive with the other teams, that they would be able to afford
the same salaries as everyone else.  If this were the case, the cap would
come about naturally as no team would want to operate at a sustained loss.
This all presumes that each of the teams has the same amount of income to
put towards their teams.

:Having researched back to the 1880's on the history of hockey in Canada,
:this would seem like a slap in the face to the pioneers and players who
:started and innovated the product US markets are dying to get a taste of.

I don't wish for Canada to lose any of its teams.  I believe that Canadiens
deserve to have teams because of the contributions that you mentioned above.

:
:Don't get me wrong, I welcome expansion to the US, but Canadian teams shouldn't
:be left behind.

Actually, the point is that by saving the Canadien teams, the US markets that
could support hockey have to get it through expansion rather than teams
being sold and/or moving.  Expansion into some carefully chosen markets
could make the NHL more of a national sport to the US rather than a regional
one.  That is what is needed to gain large TV contracts so that teams can
get even more money (to spend on players ;-)).  However, saving those small
market teams is in the best interests of everybody and shouldn't be shouldered
by the players alone through a salary cap.
--
Stephen Gevers

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by Lydia Manci » Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:14:52


[stuff deleted]

Quote:
>Of course, we all should know what the "N" in NHL stands for.  But the
>point here is that the players don't believe that the owners are imposing
>a cap to save the Canadian teams.  It's a great P.R. move to say something
>like this, but do you really think the owners in Florida or Anaheim (for
>example) really care about Winnipeg?  The Canadian teams draw poorly on the
>road because most Americans don't know what a Winnipeg or Calgary is.  They
>would probably be better off if the Nordiques, Oilers and Jets all moved
>south (except they wouldn't get any expansion money).

Good point. The US owners probably don't care if Canadian teams fold. However,
I believe (ok, so maybe I'm a little naive) that the Canadian owners in places
like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver do. That's a good portion of the owners
would do want to save the small markets.

Quote:
>The big market teams see a salary cap as a way of controlling expenses,
>while continuing to rake in huge revenues.  It's alot easier to justify
>t*** salaries when you're forced too.  If a team arbitrarily decides
>to slash its payroll, attendence will suffer (see Padres, S.D.), but if
>the club's fans know the team had no choice in the matter, things will
>work out differently.

The main reason for a cap is to increase revenues, I don't think the owners
are trying to hide that. It's perfectly legitimate for a company to want to
keep the majority of its revenues. Once the teams start doing that, who really
owns the team?

Quote:
>Besides, would it really kill hockey in Canada if we were left with the
>Leafs, Habs, Canucks, and one Alberta team (presumably the Flames)?  Hockey
>survived and flourished for years with only two teams, none west of Toronto.
>This didn't stop the West from producing some of the best players in the
>League.  The appearance of the NBA in Canada will probably be balanced out
>by the decline of the CFL.  I'm sure hockey will survive in Canada without
>Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Quebec.  Even I can remember the league
>without all four of these teams.
>Hamilton, on the other hand would probably become an instant success, but
>we both know the NHL will never expand there.

I don't want the NHL reduced to the 3/4 Canadian teams, I don't feel that's
right. Ok, so maybe I'm letting my emotions get in the way of my objectivity
just a ***sy weensy bit :-)

-- Lydia

--
 (==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)
  Lydia Mancini       | "Oh drat these computers are so *** and so

  McGill University   |  -- Marvin The Martian from Loony Tunes

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by Lydia Manci » Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:20:00

[stuff deleted]

Quote:
>:Ultimately, without any sort of cap on salaries, Canadian teams will fold.
>I don't believe this.  I believe that if revenues were shared so that they
>could be competitive with the other teams, that they would be able to afford
>the same salaries as everyone else.  If this were the case, the cap would
>come about naturally as no team would want to operate at a sustained loss.
>This all presumes that each of the teams has the same amount of income to
>put towards their teams.

This is the crux of the problem: Some argue imposing a salary cap would cure
all that ails the teams, some say revenue sharing would. I believe a combo
of both. However, the owners own the teams, what do you think they would
choose? Why should they share revenues when they can impose a cap?

[rest deleted]

-- Lydia

--
 (==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)
  Lydia Mancini       | "Oh drat these computers are so *** and so

  McGill University   |  -- Marvin The Martian from Loony Tunes

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by P. Allen Lars » Sat, 19 Nov 1994 01:43:41


Quote:

>Besides, would it really kill hockey in Canada if we were left with the
>Leafs, Habs, Canucks, and one Alberta team (presumably the Flames)?  Hockey
>survived and flourished for years with only two teams, none west of Toronto.

How would you feel if you lost your favourite team?  I know that my interest
in the NHL would decline if my team moved to Phoenix or Atlanta.  I rarely
watch a game in which my team isn't involved, unless it's the playoffs.

Hockey wouldn't die in vacated markets, but it sure would see a huge dip in
popularity.  

Quote:
>I'm sure hockey will survive in Canada without
>Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Quebec.  Even I can remember the league
>without all four of these teams.

Your empathy for the fans of these teams is overwhelming.

Quote:
>Hamilton, on the other hand would probably become an instant success, but
>we both know the NHL will never expand there.

Why would they have a better chance of keeping a hockey team then any of the
others that you have mentioned?  Hell, they can't even support a CFL team.

Al.

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by Yaska Sank » Sat, 19 Nov 1994 07:44:21


Quote:



[stuff deleted]

Quote:
>>The big market teams see a salary cap as a way of controlling expenses,
>>while continuing to rake in huge revenues.  It's alot easier to justify
>>t*** salaries when you're forced too.  If a team arbitrarily decides
>>to slash its payroll, attendence will suffer (see Padres, S.D.), but if
>>the club's fans know the team had no choice in the matter, things will
>>work out differently.

>The main reason for a cap is to increase revenues, I don't think the owners
>are trying to hide that.

If that is what the owners believe, they've really gone off the deep end.
However, I don't think they're that loony.

The main reason for a salary cap is to limit costs. That in turn may
increase profits or reduce losses. A salary cap has *no* direct effect
on revenues. (You could argue that a salary cap will force some star
players to jump to another league, thereby reducing interest and
merchandise sales in certain NHL cities ... which would reduce revenues).

Building a new arena with lots of luxury boxes, selling more
advertising on the ice and on the boards, selling more tickets,
selling more team merchandise, and negotiating richer local TV and
radio contracts are the things that increase team revenues.

Quote:
>It's perfectly legitimate for a company to want to keep the majority of
>its revenues.

Just as it is perfectly legitimate for its employees to ask for fair
market value for the services they provide ... especially when
they are the product. That's what collective bargaining is for.


Sankar !                        ! University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada

 
 
 

The owners that wanted to play

Post by P. Allen Lars » Sat, 19 Nov 1994 01:55:32

Quote:

>:Look at this in another way: If large US markets are dying to get in to the
>:NHL, do you think the fans in those new NHL cities would gave a rat's behind
>:about these small Canadian teams? Don't you think it would be better for those
>:teams to play larger/better known teams so they can rake in more money?

>I don't think that the loss of the Vancouver Canucks or the Quebec Nordiques
>would have any effect on the amount of money an expansion teams makes.  I'd
>be willing to bet major dollars that the loss of the Senators wouldn't make
>much difference to anyone as far as how much money they can make (my point
>being that the Senators are not much of a draw when they come to town.)

The Senators aren't much of a draw because the don't have much of a team.  
However you can't tell me that the Canucks don't draw well in St. Louis now.
They have many ex-Blues in the lineup, along with on of the leagues most
exciting players (Bure) and a handful of other allstar level players.  While
location of a team does indeed help a draw, so do big name players.  If (or
when) the Senators have a good team, they will draw much better.

Quote:
>I don't wish for Canada to lose any of its teams.  I believe that Canadiens
>deserve to have teams because of the contributions that you mentioned above.

(One small nitpicky point here.  The Canadiens are a hockey team and Canadians
are residents of Canada, unless of course you wish to converse in French.)

Quote:
>Actually, the point is that by saving the Canadien teams, the US markets that
>could support hockey have to get it through expansion rather than teams
>being sold and/or moving.  Expansion into some carefully chosen markets
>could make the NHL more of a national sport to the US rather than a regional
>one.  That is what is needed to gain large TV contracts so that teams can
>get even more money (to spend on players ;-)).  However, saving those small
>market teams is in the best interests of everybody and shouldn't be shouldered
>by the players alone through a salary cap.

Amen!

Al.