HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Boston Bruins (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   2012 CBA/Lockout talk, Part the Fifth (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1299667)

Dogberry 11-30-2012 10:04 AM

2012 CBA/Lockout talk, Part the Fifth
 
Have at it.

Part I: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1219919
Part II: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1266407
Part III: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1274757
Part IV: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1283219

duckchobbins 11-30-2012 10:51 AM

http://awdsgn.com/classes/spr07/webI...es/davefif.jpg

One, two, three, four, FIF!

Anything you say FIF!

BlackNgold 84 11-30-2012 11:07 AM

Today on the greatest human alive thread.. jeremy jacobs.. silk or cotton underwears?.. GO!!!

Spooner st 11-30-2012 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 (Post 56139913)
Today on the greatest human alive thread.. jeremy jacobs.. silk or cotton underwears?.. GO!!!


Tomorrow on the greatest human alive thread...
Hockey players... Witch color to choose for your 2nd Ferrari... Black or Yellow.

BlackNgold 84 11-30-2012 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spooner st (Post 56140361)
Tomorrow on the greatest human alive thread...
Hockey players... Witch color to choose for your 2nd Ferrari... Black or Yellow.

obviously black.. looks cooler. Monday... what rolls-royce dealership will gary bettman and donald fehr go to after the cba is reached?

Shaun 11-30-2012 11:35 AM

Saint Jeremy will get us through this

BlackNgold 84 11-30-2012 11:39 AM

Jeremy Jacobs.. does keg stands with dos equis... take that "most interesting man in the world".

Bi Coastal Bawse* 11-30-2012 12:12 PM

I still say cancel the season

I do not give the slightest **** anymore about all this both sides have pissed me off and neither is innocent of anything

DOGSTARMAN 11-30-2012 12:28 PM

Where I'm at with the lockout:

1. When it's over, I'll be glad to watch hockey again. I know there is not one owner or player who cares a little bit if I'm "mad" about the lockout, so why bother being mad. I like hockey, I'll like it still when they start playing again.

2. I see very little sign that anything positive is forming that will break the impasse. Given that they blew off a season not long ago, it is easy to imagine it happening again - we know they are capable of it.

3. Given that, it feels to me right now like "no season." The past couple weeks, colder weather, not much to watch at night, is really the first time I find myself noting that I would normally be watching a hockey game and really missing it.

4. One thing that troubles me is what it will mean for the Bruins roster. We could get gypped out of seeing a year of a good team and some good players. Some guys we expected to watch at least one last year may never play here again. They may have to part with some talent due to a revised CBA/cap. I thought we knew what this team would look like "this year" but now we probably don't.

5. Jacobs seems to be absorbing quite a bit of heat about his role in the lockout. I don't doubt that the players will come to Boston if the money is on the table, but it can't help the Bruins team building mission to be run by one of the figureheads for labor strife. How much it hurts is hard to quantify and is prone to be overstated due to fan emotion - but it can't help, I'll say that.

6. I think I must not understand something. But isn't it the case that there is a pretty simple equation in effect whereby the players will lose so much money from not ending the lockout from their side that whatever gains they are fighting for on an annual basis will never equal the lost top line revenue? I mean, if they lose $1.5-$1.8BN this year alone, how do they ever make up that ground? It seems to me they are fighting for a bigger share of a smaller pie. At what point do they realize, "oh, *****, we are just heading deeper and deeper into the red every week?" I guess I am not understanding this part of the players' strategy in not finding a resolution, even if it's not best case or even close to it for their side.

Greyhounds 11-30-2012 12:47 PM

I could use a fifth. :sarcasm:


People ask me all the time about de-certification. Well, maybe not all the time. Someone was thinking about asking me once, I could see it in their eyes. Here is a brief explanation.

First a little background. The league offered the players a fair deal that would still offer them a lot of money, while stabilizing the league as a whole. The players decided to shoot themselves in the foot, and turned it down.

Here is where de-certification comes in. The players would be making this ominous threat: if you don't give us everything we want, we are going to shoot ourselves in the other foot.

If and when the union decides to de-certify, all contracts become null and void, since they were based on a CBA with a non-existent party. Rather than having 30 different teams now trying to hire players, there will only be one employer, and that will be the NHL league office; they will sign players to contracts, and assign them to a given team, which, by coincidence happens to be the team that previously owned their rights.

The players will get a fair deal at 25% of revenues, or so. As the league flourishes, that will probably grow to 27 or 28 percent.

Eventually, the players will want to form another union. It will probably be called something like Masters Of Ruining Our Nesteggs Society (M.O.R.O.N.S).

ranold26 11-30-2012 12:51 PM

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=976

Modano's dog in 2004, now this.:sarcasm:

duckchobbins 11-30-2012 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyhounds (Post 56142193)
I could use a fifth. :sarcasm:


People ask me all the time about de-certification. Well, maybe not all the time. Someone was thinking about asking me once, I could see it in their eyes. Here is a brief explanation.

First a little background. The league offered the players a fair deal that would still offer them a lot of money, while stabilizing the league as a whole. The players decided to shoot themselves in the foot, and turned it down.

Here is where de-certification comes in. The players would be making this ominous threat: if you don't give us everything we want, we are going to shoot ourselves in the other foot.

If and when the union decides to de-certify, all contracts become null and void, since they were based on a CBA with a non-existent party. Rather than having 30 different teams now trying to hire players, there will only be one employer, and that will be the NHL league office; they will sign players to contracts, and assign them to a given team, which, by coincidence happens to be the team that previously owned their rights.

The players will get a fair deal at 25% of revenues, or so. As the league flourishes, that will probably grow to 27 or 28 percent.

Eventually, the players will want to form another union. It will probably be called something like Masters Of Ruining Our Nesteggs Society (M.O.R.O.N.S).

So essentially you're saying decertification suits the owners quite well? Player share gets cut more than half, and then it's business as usual? Weird

BlackNgold 84 11-30-2012 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranold26 (Post 56142317)
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=976

Modano's dog in 2004, now this.:sarcasm:

:shakehead Not too bright.

patty59 11-30-2012 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Eye (Post 56141751)
Where I'm at with the lockout:

1. When it's over, I'll be glad to watch hockey again. I know there is not one owner or player who cares a little bit if I'm "mad" about the lockout, so why bother being mad. I like hockey, I'll like it still when they start playing again.

2. I see very little sign that anything positive is forming that will break the impasse. Given that they blew off a season not long ago, it is easy to imagine it happening again - we know they are capable of it.

3. Given that, it feels to me right now like "no season." The past couple weeks, colder weather, not much to watch at night, is really the first time I find myself noting that I would normally be watching a hockey game and really missing it.

4. One thing that troubles me is what it will mean for the Bruins roster. We could get gypped out of seeing a year of a good team and some good players. Some guys we expected to watch at least one last year may never play here again. They may have to part with some talent due to a revised CBA/cap. I thought we knew what this team would look like "this year" but now we probably don't.

5. Jacobs seems to be absorbing quite a bit of heat about his role in the lockout. I don't doubt that the players will come to Boston if the money is on the table, but it can't help the Bruins team building mission to be run by one of the figureheads for labor strife. How much it hurts is hard to quantify and is prone to be overstated due to fan emotion - but it can't help, I'll say that.

6. I think I must not understand something. But isn't it the case that there is a pretty simple equation in effect whereby the players will lose so much money from not ending the lockout from their side that whatever gains they are fighting for on an annual basis will never equal the lost top line revenue? I mean, if they lose $1.5-$1.8BN this year alone, how do they ever make up that ground? It seems to me they are fighting for a bigger share of a smaller pie. At what point do they realize, "oh, *****, we are just heading deeper and deeper into the red every week?" I guess I am not understanding this part of the players' strategy in not finding a resolution, even if it's not best case or even close to it for their side.


Great post.

I have a feeling that #6 is what the owners are waiting for and have been during this whole time. Surely the players have to know that the more time they miss the better the deal will have to be to make that money back, the only problem is that there is no budge on the money split from the owners. So, will they use their brains and cut bait and go for a deal to make up the lost money sooner, or are they too proud?

Time will tell, I guess.

WBC8 11-30-2012 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Eye (Post 56141751)
Where I'm at with the lockout:

1. When it's over, I'll be glad to watch hockey again. I know there is not one owner or player who cares a little bit if I'm "mad" about the lockout, so why bother being mad. I like hockey, I'll like it still when they start playing again.

2. I see very little sign that anything positive is forming that will break the impasse. Given that they blew off a season not long ago, it is easy to imagine it happening again - we know they are capable of it.

3. Given that, it feels to me right now like "no season." The past couple weeks, colder weather, not much to watch at night, is really the first time I find myself noting that I would normally be watching a hockey game and really missing it.

4. One thing that troubles me is what it will mean for the Bruins roster. We could get gypped out of seeing a year of a good team and some good players. Some guys we expected to watch at least one last year may never play here again. They may have to part with some talent due to a revised CBA/cap. I thought we knew what this team would look like "this year" but now we probably don't.

5. Jacobs seems to be absorbing quite a bit of heat about his role in the lockout. I don't doubt that the players will come to Boston if the money is on the table, but it can't help the Bruins team building mission to be run by one of the figureheads for labor strife. How much it hurts is hard to quantify and is prone to be overstated due to fan emotion - but it can't help, I'll say that.

6. I think I must not understand something. But isn't it the case that there is a pretty simple equation in effect whereby the players will lose so much money from not ending the lockout from their side that whatever gains they are fighting for on an annual basis will never equal the lost top line revenue? I mean, if they lose $1.5-$1.8BN this year alone, how do they ever make up that ground? It seems to me they are fighting for a bigger share of a smaller pie. At what point do they realize, "oh, *****, we are just heading deeper and deeper into the red every week?" I guess I am not understanding this part of the players' strategy in not finding a resolution, even if it's not best case or even close to it for their side.

Great post Kevin...:handclap:

Shaun 11-30-2012 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Eye (Post 56141751)
Where I'm at with the lockout:

1. When it's over, I'll be glad to watch hockey again. I know there is not one owner or player who cares a little bit if I'm "mad" about the lockout, so why bother being mad. I like hockey, I'll like it still when they start playing again.

2. I see very little sign that anything positive is forming that will break the impasse. Given that they blew off a season not long ago, it is easy to imagine it happening again - we know they are capable of it.

3. Given that, it feels to me right now like "no season." The past couple weeks, colder weather, not much to watch at night, is really the first time I find myself noting that I would normally be watching a hockey game and really missing it.

4. One thing that troubles me is what it will mean for the Bruins roster. We could get gypped out of seeing a year of a good team and some good players. Some guys we expected to watch at least one last year may never play here again. They may have to part with some talent due to a revised CBA/cap. I thought we knew what this team would look like "this year" but now we probably don't.

5. Jacobs seems to be absorbing quite a bit of heat about his role in the lockout. I don't doubt that the players will come to Boston if the money is on the table, but it can't help the Bruins team building mission to be run by one of the figureheads for labor strife. How much it hurts is hard to quantify and is prone to be overstated due to fan emotion - but it can't help, I'll say that.

6. I think I must not understand something. But isn't it the case that there is a pretty simple equation in effect whereby the players will lose so much money from not ending the lockout from their side that whatever gains they are fighting for on an annual basis will never equal the lost top line revenue? I mean, if they lose $1.5-$1.8BN this year alone, how do they ever make up that ground? It seems to me they are fighting for a bigger share of a smaller pie. At what point do they realize, "oh, *****, we are just heading deeper and deeper into the red every week?" I guess I am not understanding this part of the players' strategy in not finding a resolution, even if it's not best case or even close to it for their side.

I don't think #5 matters as long as the team is competitive and the money is there.

patty59 11-30-2012 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranold26 (Post 56142317)
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=976

Modano's dog in 2004, now this.:sarcasm:

Maybe Chara can give him a nudge in the right direction

DOGSTARMAN 11-30-2012 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patty59 (Post 56142993)
Great post.

I have a feeling that #6 is what the owners are waiting for and have been during this whole time. Surely the players have to know that the more time they miss the better the deal will have to be to make that money back, the only problem is that there is no budge on the money split from the owners. So, will they use their brains and cut bait and go for a deal to make up the lost money sooner, or are they too proud?

Time will tell, I guess.

There you go, that is the struggle. Your point - and I agree - is that the players, to contain their losses, need an increasingly better deal while the owners will never keep pace with those expanding demands. Where do you go with that except to cut your losses at some point?

The biggest challenge and why it seems like there's a huge risk of this season being lost, is that the players are not operating strictly based on a logical analysis of the overall financial impact to the players. At least IMO. They are also very caught up in the battles about "who is giving up more," "which side is getting 'their deal,'," bitter feelings about the last CBA, etc. There's a lot of emotion and interest in "justice" in effect here. Otherwise, what Mark Recchi or Hamrlik have said makes a lot of sense: the players are just sliding down the money mountain while focusing on certain issues that only extend their net loss. The other thing is, it will be really hard for the players to have gone this deep into the lockout only to take it on the chin and take the owners' "best offer." They will really struggle to make peace with that.

I know the players are angry about the "best offer" from the owners, and it is fairly aggressive in its clawbacks, but there's no win to be found in erasing top line revenue at the level the players are allowing to happen. It's hard to imagine them not coming out of this asking themselves what they heck they did this for. Their only silver bullet seems to be the owners solidarity crumbling. Maybe that happens but it would surprise me.

Maybe somebody smarter than me can explain it.

The owners have an interesting advantage over the players. It often seems like both sides lose somewhat equally because players lose salary while owners lose profit. A lost year is a very significant blow to all parties. But the owners hold an asset the players really don't: the value of their teams and the appreciation of those over time. Of course, the value is negatively impacted by these lockouts. But if an owner can sell his team for $10M, $50M, $250M more than he paid for it down the road, that's a big windfall. Even with some depreciation of the team valuations due to a bad NHL labor climate, they stand to do quite nicely in the big picture. The players, there is not a similar silver lining. All they can do is go play in Europe, but there ain't no pot of gold waiting for them when they decide to get out of the hockey business.

I think there's an interesting study to do about the typical profit each team could make by selling the team versus what they paid for it. We hear about a lot of teams losing money (on the team at least, hard to say when you also factor in parking/concessions/arenas that may be held by other corporate entities). Why are these rich business people bothering with the NHL if its such a fiasco? I would be very curious to see what the value of the various teams looks like if they decided to cash out. There is a reason why FL or PHX hangs with the league in these negotiations and it's not just because Jacobs is mean to them.

DOGSTARMAN 11-30-2012 01:56 PM

BTW, I should clarify that I am not "for the owners" or "against the players." I just honestly don't see how this turns out as a net positive for the players. But, again, someone may help me understand their end game better.

neelynugs 11-30-2012 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patty59 (Post 56143733)
Maybe Chara can give him a nudge in the right direction

i see what you did there :laugh::laugh: just finishing my checks.

neelynugs 11-30-2012 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Eye (Post 56143861)
There you go, that is the struggle. Your point - and I agree - is that the players, to contain their losses, need an increasingly better deal while the owners will never keep pace with those expanding demands. Where do you go with that except to cut your losses at some point?

The biggest challenge and why it seems like there's a huge risk of this season being lost, is that the players are not operating strictly based on a logical analysis of the overall financial impact to the players. At least IMO. They are also very caught up in the battles about "who is giving up more," "which side is getting 'their deal,'," bitter feelings about the last CBA, etc. There's a lot of emotion and interest in "justice" in effect here. Otherwise, what Mark Recchi or Hamrlik have said makes a lot of sense: the players are just sliding down the money mountain while focusing on certain issues that only extend their net loss. The other thing is, it will be really hard for the players to have gone this deep into the lockout only to take it on the chin and take the owners' "best offer." They will really struggle to make peace with that.

I know the players are angry about the "best offer" from the owners, and it is fairly aggressive in its clawbacks, but there's no win to be found in erasing top line revenue at the level the players are allowing to happen. It's hard to imagine them not coming out of this asking themselves what they heck they did this for.

Maybe somebody smarter than me can explain it.

i think you covered it fairly well, actually. seems like the players want to "win" after "losing" the last time (not bad to double your salary when you lose). shawn thornton indicated they wanted the owners to "throw them a bone". what seems so odd is that if the PA would agree to de-linkage, you'd think the league would come down off the contractual stuff.

anyway, dan said it best - next wednesday could be one of the most entertaining meetings in NHL history. too bad you won't get much detail on it.

BlackNgold 84 11-30-2012 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patty59 (Post 56143733)
Maybe Chara can give him a nudge in the right direction

We haven't agree on much in the past 2 or 3 months.. but this.. is just plain great:D

Lost Horizons 11-30-2012 02:07 PM

Here a hockey fix for ya:

patty59 11-30-2012 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neelynugs (Post 56144035)
i think you covered it fairly well, actually. seems like the players want to "win" after "losing" the last time (not bad to double your salary when you lose). shawn thornton indicated they wanted the owners to "throw them a bone". what seems so odd is that if the PA would agree to de-linkage, you'd think the league would come down off the contractual stuff.

anyway, dan said it best - next wednesday could be one of the most entertaining meetings in NHL history. too bad you won't get much detail on it.

It's funny that Thornton would say something like that. The guy just signed what's likely his last deal that pays him 1.1M per year for the next 2 years. 1.1M for a guy who plays around 8mins a game, that's a huge bone if you ask me. If I were him I'd be on the PA to hurry this **** up, because he stands to lose quite a bit of money and will be lucky to get another deal.

BlackNgold 84 11-30-2012 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost Horizons (Post 56144101)
Here a hockey fix for ya:

This is over the top.. despicable.. and perverted.... I love it!!!:handclap:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 AM.

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.