HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Pittsburgh Penguins (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Who do you hope 'wins', the owners or players' union? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1259975)

Jaded-Fan 09-14-2012 06:36 PM

Who do you hope 'wins', the owners or players' union?
 
Simple question, and granted it asks for a black and white response to a grey question as you can see both sides having some legitimate points. But let's make it on balance, who gets your support more, or maybe more appropriate for some, who do you fear winning more?

If a Mod could merge it with the thread on this topic it would be appreciated. But I thought a poll would be interesting to see where opinions lie here.

Ogrezilla 09-14-2012 06:55 PM

Voted owners for sure, but I do hope the players get them to put a better revenue sharing system in place. So basically I'm with the small to middle market owners.

Warm Cookies 09-14-2012 07:13 PM

Players, without a shadow of a doubt. People can say they make millions, but so does the league, and the players made all the concessions last time around.

An article from a thread on the Business board sums it up nicely:

Bettman bad for business

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1259709

Quote:

So we asked economist and author Andrew Zimbalist, a favourite voice from lockouts past, what it means, exactly, when a professional sports league is facing its third lockout in as many collective bargaining agreements?

"It means it is poorly managed," said our frank, 64-year-old professor of economics at Smith College in Massachusetts, and author of 20 books, including May The Best Team Win: Baseball Economics and Public Policy.

"Mr. Bettman, although he has some qualities that are admirable, has made a lot of bad decisions," Zimbalist said this week, before Thursday's confirmation that we are heading towards Bettman's third lockout since becoming the commissioner of the National Hockey League in 1993. "He has not promoted effective management at the team level, and he is unwilling to admit his mistakes and walk away from them."

Zimbalist is not a hockey man. He doesn't even purport to watch the game.
Quote:

"The bottom line is this: the league is not well managed, it's not well structured, and that has to change. Ownership and Bettman can't expect the players to assume the whole burden of those problems"
Quote:

"Gary Bettman doesn't want to admit that his southern strategy was a bad strategy, back in the 1990s," Zimbalist said. "It is his intransigence around this issue that's created this problem."
Quote:

"To come to the table and say we want you guys to drop your share in revenues from 57 per cent of revenues to 42 per cent is a declaration of unreasonableness and irrationality."
Basically, Bettman wants the players to shoulder the financial pitfalls of his money-pit southern expansion experiment that has never yielded the big money TV contract he thought it would. Of course a good portion of teams aren't making money, because it was Bettman's initiative to put them in non-conventional areas. If he decides to put a team in Cairo, should the players give up more of their share to fund that too?

It's not the players responsibility to foot the bill for Bettman's goofy expansion ideas.

Sivek 09-14-2012 07:20 PM

Definitely more toward the owners but each side deserves a lot of blame for what's happening.

Til the End of Time 09-14-2012 07:22 PM

why do we care who is right or wrong?

i want whats best for the pens, and i think thats the owners winning. if someone can convince me that the players winning is in the best interest of the penguins, i will root for the players.

Ogrezilla 09-14-2012 07:26 PM

The main outcomes I want to see is for the cap remain a hard cap and for every team to be able to compete financially. That's the owners side.

invictus 09-14-2012 07:31 PM

I am with TeoT. I want what is best for the Penguins. I think owner's dropping a hammer on the players is better for our team in the long-run if you consider Shero a good asset manager.

Wes C Addle 09-14-2012 07:34 PM

Wish there was a mixed bag option.

I'd like to see the split drop from 57 to 50, which would be on the owners side. However there needs to be some kind of revenue sharing between the big and small markets, which is something the players are promoting. In the spirit of the poll though, I'll side ever so marginally with the players.

The vibe and trend from the owners/Bettman seems to be that in another 6 to 7 years the league will be right back in the same place locking out again for another better deal. And why shouldn't they, they win everytime, just like they will this time.

Slabber Chops 09-14-2012 07:38 PM

Option 5: the fans.

In all seriousness, I understand some of the points made about the sustainability of the league moving forward. What I find ironic however, is that the players will likely end up making significant concessions in this dispute all borne out of the ill-discipline of a small minority of the richer franchises in the league who throw money around like it's going out of fashion. It is difficult for me to fathom the owners collective arguing "poor me" when it is part of their collective group that is shelling out the big dollar contracts.

Anyway.. that's my piece.

Sidney the Kidney 09-14-2012 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sivek (Post 54329189)
Definitely more toward the owners but each side deserves a lot of blame for what's happening.

This is pretty much where I'm at.

For me, I tend to gravitate toward siding with the owners (if "siding" is the right word -- I think both are greedy buggers) because of one basic reason: the players are getting guaranteed millions regardless of how they perform, while the owners are the ones shouldering the risk if a team isn't bringing in revenue.

Basically, an owner can potentially lose money each season, thus he has the risk. A player can sign a 5 year deal for $5 million per season and play like utter crap throughout the deal, and still earns the entire $5 million despite him not playing up to the contract.

Jaded-Fan 09-14-2012 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Til the End of Time (Post 54329231)
why do we care who is right or wrong?

i want whats best for the pens, and i think thats the owners winning. if someone can convince me that the players winning is in the best interest of the penguins, i will root for the players.

This is exactly my position.

Warm Cookies 09-14-2012 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidney the Kidney (Post 54329633)
This is pretty much where I'm at.

For me, I tend to gravitate toward siding with the owners (if "siding" is the right word -- I think both are greedy buggers) because of one basic reason: the players are getting guaranteed millions regardless of how they perform, while the owners are the ones shouldering the risk if a team isn't bringing in revenue.

Basically, an owner can potentially lose money each season, thus he has the risk. A player can sign a 5 year deal for $5 million per season and play like utter crap throughout the deal, and still earns the entire $5 million despite him not playing up to the contract.

Not necessarily. The players lost 24% of their so-called "guaranteed money" after the last lockout, and would sustain another significant rollback if their owners had their way.

DegenX 09-14-2012 08:21 PM

I'm with the owners. The hard cap needs to stay. Loopholes allowing front loading of contracts need to be closed. I don't have a problem with long term contracts, but allowing the amount to be divided by the length to get a cap hit shouldn't happen. It gives too much potential leverage to big market teams that have the cash to throw around. Get rid of signing bonus'.

I would like to see some revisions to how revenue is shared. For example, I don't think that the size of the TV market should be a factor. That hurts teams like the NYI because they share a market with two other teams. It also hurts teams in non-traditional markets that may be in an area with that many potential viewers, but are competing against another major sport or haven't solidified a fanbase yet. Kind of on the fence about lengthening the time it takes for a player to get to free agency, but I think players and teams should still have arbitration rights.

M0NTY26 09-14-2012 08:25 PM

I'm not really on a side other than my own here, BUT if I had to pick, it'd be the players, for sure.

Owners are crying poor, saying players make to much and their should be a maximum of five years handed out in contracts, meanwhile, most of these owners tried to get Parise and/or Suter on lifetime deals, plus you look at all these six year contracts that've been handed out this summer.

I just don't think you can preach something and expect people to listen if you don't follow that same practice through your actions. And for those that'll say they have no choice to hand out these contracts if they want to remain competitive you're wrong. That's like a ***** saying I have to eat and the only way I can do that is to sell my body to make money. No. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Signing the best players doesn't = championships... just ask the Yankees or the Sox.

#66 09-14-2012 08:36 PM

They can all F off for all I care. I can get my hockey fix without the NHL and keep money in my pocket to boot.

I'm sure I'll go back to watching games and going out to Pittsburgh to see the Pens but not the 6 to 8 times a year I used to.

I actually feel like a fool spending the money on games and a trip. That goes back a long way. There are way to many times that I've gone to games to see the team and the Pens star players loaf because its a mid season game against the Whalers, Jets or Thrashers.

Big McLargehuge 09-14-2012 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Til the End of Time (Post 54329231)
why do we care who is right or wrong?

i want whats best for the pens, and i think thats the owners winning. if someone can convince me that the players winning is in the best interest of the penguins, i will root for the players.

I'm with this angle.

I don't care about the health of hockey teams in jokes of places like Phoenix and I don't care about Joe Fourth Liner's ability to only buy 4 shark tanks for his mansion instead of his desired 5...I just want hockey on the ice and whatever result favors the Penguins the most.

If I had to pick a side I'd say **** 'em both. I don't have the patience to put up with another ****ing damn lockout; you play a goddamned game and you don't make any money without those players. ****ing kiss and make up, *******s.


I've devoted too much of my time, energy, and money to this sport to make any sort of meaningful threat of abstinence and I think most anyone who cares enough to sign up for a message board called Hockey's Future is going to be in much the same boat...but they're going to kill the casual fan who was just starting to come back around. All good will that's been built up over the past 7 years is getting flushed down the toilet. The 2004-05 lockout at least was to fix a severely flawed system...this is just two sides bickering over who gets what slice of pie. If I was going to be going to the first game back after the lockout I'd be booing throughout the first period and carrying a vitriolic sign against both sides...but by the second period I'd be right back to my usual manner of only spewing vitriol at the opponents.

M0NTY26 09-14-2012 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big McLargehuge (Post 54330825)
I'm with this angle.

I don't care about the health of hockey teams in jokes of places like Phoenix and I don't care about Joe Fourth Liner's ability to only buy 4 shark tanks for his mansion instead of his desired 5...I just want hockey on the ice and whatever result favors the Penguins the most.

If I had to pick a side I'd say **** 'em both. I don't have the patience to put up with another ****ing damn lockout; you play a goddamned game and you don't make any money without those players. ****ing kiss and make up, *******s.


I've devoted too much of my time, energy, and money to this sport to make any sort of meaningful threat of abstinence and I think most anyone who cares enough to sign up for a message board called Hockey's Future is going to be in much the same boat...but they're going to kill the casual fan who was just starting to come back around. All good will that's been built up over the past 7 years is getting flushed down the toilet. The 2004-05 lockout at least was to fix a severely flawed system...this is just two sides bickering over who gets what slice of pie. If I was going to be going to the first game back after the lockout I'd be booing throughout the first period and carrying a vitriolic sign against both sides...but by the second period I'd be right back to my usual manner of only spewing vitriol at the opponents.

Sooo true. I just got my cousin back into the sport and now they're leaving again. He was going to buy a packaged ticket plan, too.

Big McLargehuge 09-14-2012 09:23 PM

I'm horrified to see what it does to LA.

For one shining week the Kings were the talk of the town...and now they're going into a lockout while the Lakers went out and got players that even I've heard of. Great way to build hockey in the league's second largest market.

I can't even say how many people I've talked to who said they never watched hockey before the playoffs but now want to go to games because of how exciting it is. Like it or not, the casual fan is the life-blood of any sports league.

Crozbar 09-14-2012 09:29 PM

Ownership has some points, but on the whole of it I think Bettman had his chance to set things right with the last lockout and should live with the results. Everything is certainly not coming up roses, but on the whole revenues are up, veiwership is up, profits are up, the league is on the rise. Despite the remaining problems, I just do not think now is the time to take all the wind from Hockey's sails.

It's a disaster, and this time Bettman really should be axed.


Speaking as a Pens fan, I don't think it's in my interest to miss a half or full year of prime Crosby and Malkin. They don't call them "generational talents" for nothing. When you have a great team you wanna see it play, not sit in the moth-balls. Simple as that ...

Uemoda 09-14-2012 09:33 PM

Bettman will be axed regardless of outcome, I'm pretty certain. He can get his nice summer home paid for by the owners.


Players' side. 100%.

bambamcam4ever 09-14-2012 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidney the Kidney (Post 54329633)
This is pretty much where I'm at.

For me, I tend to gravitate toward siding with the owners (if "siding" is the right word -- I think both are greedy buggers) because of one basic reason: the players are getting guaranteed millions regardless of how they perform, while the owners are the ones shouldering the risk if a team isn't bringing in revenue.

Basically, an owner can potentially lose money each season, thus he has the risk. A player can sign a 5 year deal for $5 million per season and play like utter crap throughout the deal, and still earns the entire $5 million despite him not playing up to the contract.

Owners of professional sports franchises have very little financial risk involved. The value of their franchise continuously goes up, so even if they lose a few million per season, they always can sell the team and make a net profit.

MetalheadPenguinsFan 09-14-2012 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crozbar (Post 54331719)
Ownership has some points, but on the whole of it I think Bettman had his chance to set things right with the last lockout and should live with the results. Everything is certainly not coming up roses, but on the whole revenues are up, veiwership is up, profits are up, the league is on the rise. Despite the remaining problems, I just do not think now is the time to take all the wind from Hockey's sails.

It's a disaster, and this time Bettman really should be axed.


Speaking as a Pens fan, I don't think it's in my interest to miss a half or full year of prime Crosby and Malkin. They don't call them "generational talents" for nothing. When you have a great team you wanna see it play, not sit in the moth-balls. Simple as that ...

Damn right.

Injuries and bad-luck have already robbed Geno (but mainly Sid) of a chunk of their careers already. The last thing we want is for them to become more "What If" players due to a stupid lockout that could have been avoided.

66-29-33 09-14-2012 10:35 PM

I voted for number 4 because i'm not even paying attention to the hockey politics.

Jaded-Fan 09-15-2012 12:31 AM

Interesting.

The results are about even, which is not what I would have predicted. Hockey almost leaving Pittsburgh, not because of the market or support, but because of a screwed up non-capped system, the Pirates, etc., and seeing the cap work so well for us, I would have predicted more owner sympathy in this market.

That said, that is why I made the poll, I had no clue how it would come out and was curious to see.

ColePens 09-15-2012 12:39 AM

I think both parties are ******** the bed on this one. But if I had to choose - went with owners. I think a variation of freezing the cap from going through the roof is a good thing. It will help the game longer. I also want to see a salary cap as long as we possibly can.

But I also don't want to see the cap go down to 58. That's a joke. If they just froze it for a few years it'd be very good. I'm also against ELC contracts going to 5 years. I think that's a joke to a rookie, too.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.