serge 904 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 So when the new collective bargaining was finally agreed upon it was something I didnt agree with...As a fan of the richest franchises in all of sports the salary cap is basically a handcuff...I have mentioned this before, however the salary cap is just wrong...Everyone talks about parity and how its good for hockey, and how small markets team should have the right to compete for a championship along the rich teams like the Leafs,Rangers,Canadiens and such...WHY is this a good thing??The Toronto Maple Leafs are a huge success as a business..They have the most loyal fans who support them through not only gate receipts , but merchandise and television revenue...So why shouldnt the team be able to spend as much as they want...After all this is a business, the teams that are succesful running a good business should be able to reward their fans...Can you imagine the fans of the Yankees and the Red Sox being told, you have to spend the same amount of money on salaries as the Pittsburgh Pirates...ITS JUST STUPID....The soft cap in baseball works as those teams pay out a ton of money in luxury tax. The Yankees deserve to get the best players every year since they have the best fans and revenue coming in.With the recent escalation in revenues in the NHL and then the escalation in salaries, I really like to see us go back to how it was before...Of course everyone will disagree with me, however just think about it....Why should a team that cant sell out an arena be able to compete with a team like the Leafs in signing free agents...If they cant sell their team to their fans they should relocate to another market...The other issue is there are too many teams in the NHL...Thats another thread all together..Thanks for listeningSergeProud fan of the most succesful franchise in Hockey Link to post Share on other sites
doox 15 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I'm going to pretty much ignore everything in this thread and add my one and only comment:Fuck the Pirates.That is all. Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 While I appreciate your viewpoint Serge, I gotta disagree. The premise of loyal fans being thanked by their team and spending the necessary funds to try and provide a winner is great, but there has to be some kind of ceiling, and the soft cap just doesnt provide that. Since you used the baseball example, let me just put it like this. As somewhat of a Blue Jays fan, I HATE the idea that every year, your pretty much resigned to the fact your team will not be able to compete with the Yankees and Red Sox. And while you may argue thats because of loyal fans, I think its not just cause of that. Market plays a big role, and also, so does owners pockets and the owners will to win at all costs. Many teams had loyal fans in baseball whose ownership just refused to spend the money. I like the idea of different teams, even small market ones, being able to be competitive with anyone on a level playing field. Then again, I root for Hartford/Carolina, pretty much the ultimate in small market fans. But I will say this. Hartford had MANY loyal fans and a very committed base. But because of many different reasons and a major one being a municipal government willing to pay for a new arena elsewhere, the team left. Link to post Share on other sites
TheDaveyG 6 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It depends on what you think the "business" is. Is each team it's own business, or is the entire league the business? As for the Yanks and Sox, it's not that they get the best players, it's that they can get whomever they want by just paying more. They don't always get the best players, they just drive up the market price for who they can get, which has a trickle down a effect for almost all the other players. Salary caps make teams spend more wisely, and develop prospects better than w/o a cap. Being a Leafs fan, Serge, you should welcome this new era with open arms. Your team, along with mine, hasn't won the Cup in forever. Obv, what they were doing wasn't working. If you're going to complain about anything, ask why your team hasn't lowered ticket prices even though they won't be spending as much. Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 If you're going to complain about anything, ask why your team hasn't lowered ticket prices even though they won't be spending as much.Nicely put. Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 If you're going to complain about anything, ask why your team hasn't lowered ticket prices even though they won't be spending as much.2 things you may or may not be aware of:1. It doesnt matter how much they lower the price to most Torontonians. We dont have access to season tickets, so it really doesnt matter. Lowering them will only create a bigger market, and make it harder.2. Businesses dont lower their margins based on the wages of their employees. I own my own business and I sell a product, and my price has very little to nothing to do with my employee wages. My expenses only set the bar, anything I can get above that, i will try and the market will decide what I can and cannot get for it. I am NO FAN of the terrible ownership Toronto has been stuck with in my Leafs lifetime (Ballard to present). But I also dont see the price of Leafs tickets as anything to do with why the team has been so bad and why I hated being a Leafs fan. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 The argument about the ticket prices is pointless...I dont blame the Leafs for charging whatever they can get..They run a succesful business and they can charge whatever they want..If Leafs fans are paying $300 for a ticket to go watch a game, and every game is sold out ...Why shouldnt the Leafs be able to go out and buy the best team ...This is how free enterprise works..So lets say that Mcdonalds is competing with Joe's Hamburgers...Why should there be a cap on what Mcdonalds should spend on advertising...Maybe not a good analogy but similar nonetheless...Joe's Hamburgers(Nashville Predators,Buffalo Sabres, Florida Panthers) need to find a way to compete...If they cant they shouldnt be in the burger selling business(Nashville should move to a hockey market).Plus with a soft cap..The Leafs can share their revenue and pay a "penalty" to the small market teams to even out the finances.If that means there will be 20 succesful franchises in the NHL, then fine we go with 20...30 teams is too many anyway Link to post Share on other sites
TheDaveyG 6 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 2 things you may or may not be aware of:2. Businesses dont lower their margins based on the wages of their employees. I own my own business and I sell a product, and my price has very little to nothing to do with my employee wages. My expenses only set the bar, anything I can get above that, i will try and the market will decide what I can and cannot get for it.True, but how many of your customers know how much you are spending on your employee wages?Serge, there is too much I want to say to your last post. So I'll try to sum up.1. You should care what they charge, unless you're ok with a only certain wage brackets being able to enjoy live games. 2. The NHL is not a free enterprise.3. There is too much talent to have 20 teams. Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The argument about the ticket prices is pointless...I dont blame the Leafs for charging whatever they can get..They run a succesful business and they can charge whatever they want..If Leafs fans are paying $300 for a ticket to go watch a game, and every game is sold out ...Why shouldnt the Leafs be able to go out and buy the best team ...This is how free enterprise works..So lets say that Mcdonalds is competing with Joe's Hamburgers...Why should there be a cap on what Mcdonalds should spend on advertising...Maybe not a good analogy but similar nonetheless...Joe's Hamburgers(Nashville Predators,Buffalo Sabres, Florida Panthers) need to find a way to compete...If they cant they shouldnt be in the burger selling business(Nashville should move to a hockey market).Plus with a soft cap..The Leafs can share their revenue and pay a "penalty" to the small market teams to even out the finances.If that means there will be 20 succesful franchises in the NHL, then fine we go with 20...30 teams is too many anywayWhy can't McDonalds in NYC charge more for a cheeseburger than McDonalds in Green Bay? Larger market, people are able/willing to pay more, so why shouldn't the free enterprise system dictate that they can charge whatever they want?Because McDonalds franchises are governed by a higher set of rules, part of the terms of owning a franchise. Same goes for the NHL, if you want to play you have to play by their rules. League rules are set up Vulcan style, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Link to post Share on other sites
mcpickl 0 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Thanks for listeningSergeProud fan of the most succesful franchise in HockeyHoly ****, you're a Canadiens fan??\All this time I thought you were a Leafs suckup. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 True, but how many of your customers know how much you are spending on your employee wages?Serge, there is too much I want to say to your last post. So I'll try to sum up.1. You should care what they charge, unless you're ok with a only certain wage brackets being able to enjoy live games. 2. The NHL is not a free enterprise.3. There is too much talent to have 20 teams.Your third point of there is too much talent is not accurate...A lot of players will lose their jobs, however the quality of play will be great... Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Why can't McDonalds in NYC charge more for a cheeseburger than McDonalds in Green Bay? Larger market, people are able/willing to pay more, so why shouldn't the free enterprise system dictate that they can charge whatever they want?Because McDonalds franchises are governed by a higher set of rules, part of the terms of owning a franchise. Same goes for the NHL, if you want to play you have to play by their rules. League rules are set up Vulcan style, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.Ditto! Link to post Share on other sites
grocery_mony 9 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 SergeProud fan of the most succesful franchise in HockeyI guess you have a diffrent deffinition of successful than most. Link to post Share on other sites
TheDaveyG 6 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Why can't McDonalds in NYC charge more for a cheeseburger than McDonalds in Green Bay? Larger market, people are able/willing to pay more, so why shouldn't the free enterprise system dictate that they can charge whatever they want?Because McDonalds franchises are governed by a higher set of rules, part of the terms of owning a franchise. Same goes for the NHL, if you want to play you have to play by their rules. League rules are set up Vulcan style, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.I thought they do charge different prices in different locations. Maybe I'm missing something here. Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Why can't McDonalds in NYC charge more for a cheeseburger than McDonalds in Green Bay? Larger market, people are able/willing to pay more, so why shouldn't the free enterprise system dictate that they can charge whatever they want?Because McDonalds franchises are governed by a higher set of rules, part of the terms of owning a franchise. Same goes for the NHL, if you want to play you have to play by their rules. League rules are set up Vulcan style, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I hate to break it to you, but Davey is right, not all McD's charge the same. And there is nothing in the franchise agreement of ANY company I know of that says your employees can only make THIS much. You can hire and fire who you want and pay them as you wish. But I get your point. Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I guess you have a diffrent deffinition of successful than most. My wife would agree 100% with Serge on the Leafs being the most successful organization in hockey. Then again, she's a teacher and they are funding her retirement. And maybe, mine too! GO LEAFS GO! Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 4, 2007 Author Share Posted July 4, 2007 My wife would agree 100% with Serge on the Leafs being the most successful organization in hockey. Then again, she's a teacher and they are funding her retirement. And maybe, mine too! GO LEAFS GO! I am pretty sure that in terms of market value the leafs are the top team in the NHL... Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I am pretty sure that in terms of market value the leafs are the top team in the NHL...So would you deem the season a success if Toronto missed the playoffs yet again while recording record profits? Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 4, 2007 Author Share Posted July 4, 2007 So would you deem the season a success if Toronto missed the playoffs yet again while recording record profits?no...the two are separate things...That is why the salary cap is not a good thing...Off ice success should lead to on ice success Link to post Share on other sites
coesillian 0 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 no...the two are separate things...That is why the salary cap is not a good thing...Off ice success should lead to on ice successkind of like when the Rangers tried to buy a cup but missed the playoffs. You got it wrong.It should be the opposite, but expansion teams are the exception. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 no...the two are separate things...That is why the salary cap is not a good thing...Off ice success should lead to on ice successSo what you're saying is that the Toronto Maple Leafs franchise is one of the worst sports franchises in history at turning off-ice/field success into on ice/field success?The Leafs have had decades of a no-salary cap league and still couldn't win, why all the crying now? The fact is if you don't have a cap you will have a two-tier league. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 4, 2007 Author Share Posted July 4, 2007 So what you're saying is that the Toronto Maple Leafs franchise is one of the worst sports franchises in history at turning off-ice/field success into on ice/field success?The Leafs have had decades of a no-salary cap league and still couldn't win, why all the crying now? The fact is if you don't have a cap you will have a two-tier league.You are partly correct...However we are God's team...Thats all you need to know Link to post Share on other sites
DanielNegreanu 141 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Serge, if it was up to you, NHL hockey teams in Canada would cease to exist outside of Toronto and Montreal. There are less people in Edmonton then there are in Toronto or New York, but a larger percentage of those people actually attend the games on a regular basis. Why should Canadian small market teams be punished? The idea that Toronto's fan base is loyal is true, but the same can be said about many Canadian markets. If you opened up the wallets and let every team spend big bucks, you'd lose Ottawa... Edmonton... Calgary... and maybe even Vancouver. Is that what you really want? A three team league with Detroit, Toronto, and the Rangers? The whole reason oweners league wide insisted on a salary cap was because without one, there would have been no league. Link to post Share on other sites
Derswick 0 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Well Serge wouldn't have a problem with a three team league as it would increase the Leafs chances of winning. They might even be able to finish in the top three that way! Its about the only chance they have. Link to post Share on other sites
TheDaveyG 6 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The Cubs haven't won anything in twice as long as the Leafs, but have a huge fan base with loyal fans all over the states. I would not consider them a success. This is the problem with sports and owners. How do you determine what is success? From a business stand point, making money is sucess, but from a competitive standpoint winning or making the playoffs is a success. Usually, making money and winning are one in the same, but not always the case with what teams have to pay to get top tier talent. Most owners are owners because of their passion for sports, knowing full well that most franchises are not a sound business venture. P.S. Serge, just to let you know, Packer fans claim that the Packers are Gods team. People sound so stupid when they say that. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now