Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: I'm PISSED!

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Mainely Maine
    Posts
    87

    I'm PISSED!


    Between the moving of the Expo's (was hoping to boo a "juiced-up" Barry) and now this crap with the NHL there will be no major league sporting events for me to attend in Montreal. I suppose I could go to the F1 race or maybe a CFL game but neither appeal to me. The only that could be worse is if there were no more "hobbying". I hope this is only a dream and i'll wake up soon..

    BB69

  2. #2
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983

    What's wrong with a

    salary cap if the players can obtain from the owners a yearly 3 per cent increase to adjust to the cost- of- living index?

    fml
    fml

  3. #3
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,824
    Personally, i don't want a salary cap. I cheer for a team which is way up there in team payroll, and they're making millions of $$ of profits each year. Why would i want a cap? If they can afford to buy and pay for the best players, then they should. If they don't do this, the money will wind up in the owner's pockets anyway. It will be a cold day in hell if the price of tickets ever goes down.

    At the end of the regular season, when each team is trying to boost themselves up for the upcoming playoff run, the trading day deadline is one of the most exciting annual events in a hockey season. With a salary cap, it won't be the same. Also, if a team's highest paid player gets injured early in the season (or later), there will be no way to replace him with a player of his calibre if this player's injury is very serious. To be able to replace him, a team would have to go over the cap, which wouldn't be permissible under the new rules. The possibility of serious injury in a contact sport such as hockey is very possible. This isn't basketball or baseball, after all....and games are played on every second or third day, over an 8-9 month period....not every weekend (over a 4-5 month period such as in the NFL).

    A cap won't solve anything in cities such as Miami, Raleigh, Atlanta, etc. They are just not hockey hotbeds, period. A salary cap won't attract more fans to those areas. It's the league's fault that they didn't establish teams in potential hockey markets such as Seattle, Milwaukee, etc. They took the money instead of making the logical choices. The owners want a salary in order to police themselves, period. They are like a bunch of spoiled children that have no control over themselves.
    Last edited by Doc Holliday; 02-17-2005 at 04:59 PM.

  4. #4
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,155

    Communism

    Salary caps are nothing more than a form of communism. Let's face facts, professional sports leagues are businesses. If one team conducts their business better than another why should they have to pay for the other business's laziness? Everyone seems to think that a salary cap should be implemented in baseball to save the small market teams, but the fact of the matter is that small market teams in some instances are greedier with their profits than the large market teams. George Steinbrenner, the greatest owner in the history of professional sports, takes his incredible profits and puts them back into his team in player salaries, scouting budgets, etc. Owners of other teams don't give a shit about winning, and put their profits into their slimy, greedy pockets rather than back into the team. And you think the Yankees should have to pay these slimeballs beyond what they already do in a luxury tax? Paying losers who enjoy losing and simply want to get out of dodge with as much cleared profit as possible? That's what I call bullshit! It's Bolshevism applied to sports.

    In the case of hockey, as I understand it many of these teams in markets that are not traditional hotbeds for hockey, like Atlanta and Columbus, are losing money. The players are being asked to share in the losses. The players have been unwilling to do that which is wrong. On the other hand if all of these teams were making money should there be a salary cap? Of course not. The players should be able to share in the wealth. But during bad times they must share in the losses and to not recognize these economic realities is very foolish. The NHL has behaved very foolishly in the last 10 years with the expansion they undertook and now they are paying the price. Also, it looks like ESPN is pulling the plug on them which could very well be the death of that league. We may see a new hockey league emerge, with only the real hockey cities.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 02-17-2005 at 07:46 PM.

  5. #5
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,155
    regnaD,

    That is a grossly oversimplied analysis as we both know. Why don't we look at the number of games won by the Yankees over that span of time vs. the number of games won by those other teams instead of boiling it down to the postseason where anything can happen. The fact is the Yankees are by far the winningest team over that stretch. Baseball is played over a 162 game season.

  6. #6
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,155
    I'll take 26 World Series titles over 1 since 1918.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Mainely Maine
    Posts
    87
    I wonder if ? If we (or the agency owners) could put a salary cap on SP's. ? Just wondering...................................

    BB69

  8. #8
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaJohn
    Personally, i don't want a salary cap. I cheer for a team which is way up there in team payroll, and they're making millions of $$ of profits each year. Why would i want a cap? If they can afford to buy and pay for the best players, then they should. If they don't do this, the money will wind up in the owner's pockets anyway. It will be a cold day in hell if the price of tickets ever goes down.

    It's the league's fault that they didn't establish teams in potential hockey markets such as Seattle, Milwaukee, etc. They took the money instead of making the logical choices. The owners want a salary in order to police themselves, period. They are like a bunch of spoiled children that have no control over themselves.
    I disagree. First off, the players are paid way too much money at the expense of the regular people buying the tickets. A lot of the regular season games are boring with guys visibly not giving it their all, being more content with adopting a cruise-control-type of playing mode. At 100 bucks a ticket, the current situation is nothing short of gross fan exploitation. If you have a cap, you give yourself a chance at controlling expenses and curbing the ever-rising ticket prices. The NFL has imposed a cap on its players and it's also the most popular sports league there is today. The NFL teams are all well-balanced. Anybody can beat anybody, on any given day. The games are in general relatively close which keeps fans interested and tv revenus pouring in. With the NHL's current situation, not only are the less hockey-friendly markets in jeopardy but a lot of the other ones also including most of the Canadian teams, with the exception of MTL and TO. Some have compared a cap to communism yet i don't see any relation between people earning 2 million dollars a year and communism . Yes the owners are at fault for having brought hockey to the state which it's in today, but it's also incumbent upon them to rectify their mistakes.

    fml
    Last edited by femaleluver2; 02-17-2005 at 10:42 PM.
    fml

  9. #9
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,824
    Quote Originally Posted by femaleluver
    The NFL has imposed a cap on its players and it's also the most popular sports league there is today. The NFL teams are all well-balanced. Anybody can beat anybody, on any given day. The games are in general relatively close which keeps fans interested and tv revenus pouring in. With the NHL's current situation, not only are the less hockey-friendly markets in jeopardy.fml
    The NFL never 'imposed' a cap on its players. It was mutually negotiated, as opposed to what the NHL is trying to do. The NFL players had as much to gain as to lose considering the astronomical television deals that the NFL possesses, plus other various types of revenue sharing. The same cannot be said of the NHL. There is nothing comparable (as to the NFL) to gain on the part of the players. The tv deal is a joke. The owners cannot be trusted (and this has been proven many times in the past) with the numbers, etc. Comparing the NFL to the NHL is like comparing apples to oranges. As for the NHL's situation in less hockey-friendly markets, well....it's the owners and the league that put those teams there in the first place. As i said, any cap (even one at $10 million) won't bring more people into these arenas. They are just not interested in hockey, period. It's a calamity that teams should have been removed from cities such as Winnipeg and Hartford and put into place in the Arizona desert and in NASCAR country.

  10. #10
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,155
    Quote Originally Posted by regnad
    Scouting budgets????Scouting budgets???? Then why hasn't this team developed a major league player since Jorge Posada?
    regnaD,

    This comment suggests to me that you don't know or realize that a large portion of the scouting budget is for scouting done at the major league level. In other words, the Yankees have an armada of advance scouts looking at major league teams in the series before the Yankees play them - far more than other teams do. In case you didn't know, this is one of the reason why the Yankees won the World Series in 2000 and should have in 2001 despite not having the best team. In 2000, the Mets' Timo Perez was made to look like the second coming of Roberto Clemente by teams who did not have very good scouting reports. In the World Series against the Yankees, Timo Perez disappeared.

  11. #11
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    I don't know why some have put revenue-sharing and salary cap in the same discussion for they do not seem to have to be mutually inclusive. I don't see the necessity of talking about revenue sharing when discussing a cap. It just serves to steer the discussion off-topic . The NHL salary cap will only help to curb today's out-of-control spending which has become a necessity in part because, as you said JaJ, television revenues are nothing compared with the NFL's.

    Some have described the creation of new NHL markets in Nascar country as being problematic. Let me remind you that some of the more traditional hockey towns haven't exactly drawn big crowds either like for example NY Islanders, Pittsburgh Penguins or even the Boston Bruins (haven't you noticed the sea of empty yellow seats at the Fleet centre on some of the highlight reels?). JaJ, by implying that you "almost crave" buying tickets at 100 bucks apiece and seeing star studded teams kick everyone's butt, you're playing into the industry's hand, players and owners alike, that seek to exploit you in order to greedily line their own pockets for what constitutes at the end of the day a product that, let's face it, aside from the playoffs, seldom gives the fan value for his or her money.

    fml.
    Last edited by femaleluver2; 02-19-2005 at 08:28 AM.
    fml

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •