View Single Post
Old
09-13-2012, 10:03 PM
  #301
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 13,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Normative? Wow your really 101ing me now, Bringing out the discipline specific lingo!


1. your statment was infact Normative. You said that the model would LIKLEY work. normative statment nes pas? the Positive statment would be to say the model doesn't work.

"Exponential losses" tells me right away that the deal isn't working.The owners screaming to the heavens that the system is broken, tells me the same. Exponential losses arent something you just "tinker" away. If they are allowed to tinker it will end up back here in three or four years again. Again. AGAIN!!!!

which all goes back to my original point. is it a charity club where rich powerful owners support weakerones?, Or, is it a business where Teams that can't make it need to move, or fold and be sold and bought and moved for whoever puts up the bux. Right now the owners tell us they are a business when it's convenient to them, but act an awful lot like a private club when it suits them. Either way The players did what was asked last time, watched record revenues occur , onlybe asked to take a hit again so a few billionaires who made bad decisions about the viability of thier hockey markets can be propped up.
Sorry, there is some miscommunication and it is pretty much all my bad. You're right about me guessing the future and the discussion about which model works is normative statement... I haven't been sculpting my arguments that well due to me trying to post in between things in the day and I apologize for that. We're discussing multiple facets and I've been smushing my arguments without really explaining what has to do with what.

When I was mentioning normative/positive statements and game theory I was meaning about the UFA market and pricing. Which neither of those things is exclusive to soft sciences like economics.
Also, I didn't specify that the losses, while being exponentially growing, is still accelerating at a slower rate than pre-lockout... so it wasn't a total failure, just a partial failure... like a lesser of two-evils.

I'll try to do better now:

I'm actually not for the players or for the owners. I see reasons against siding against/for both.

For the owners/against the players:
*the players have delayed talks in multiple ways and fashions, and from all appearances have not been productive in their negotiating
*the cap system has its faults and hasn't stopped the losers from losing exponentially, but has slowed down... so I view it as a step in the right direction but not fixed yet
*luxury tax allows the stupid "Pittsburgh Pirates" fiasco and the old system was causing losses to grow faster than the cap system
*the owners tried to start negotiations early which would allow for them to bargain items like HRR and smaller details; with a shortage of time, they have to leave negotiations to one particular item, in this case: percentage points
*Fehr has a history of calling a strike after starting a season, so it would be dumb for the owners to not lock out the players with the expiary of the old CBA... even if it's a ****ty situation
*if you are negotiating intelligently and have a short turnaround like the owners do, it doesn't make sense for them to negotiate HRR and percentage points... what they probably were planning to do was over demand percentage points, than give back points in return for HRR structure and such, but Fehr is hard-balling
*the standard is around a 50/50 split, as shown by other professional sports
*realistically it is unlikely to expect hockey to grow as fast as it has been, and so it is likely the players were actually asking for a raise and not improvements
*just because the players gave up some doesn't necessarily mean they gave up enough (but also on the other hand doesn't mean they didn't either)

For the players/against the owners:
*just going down a few percentage points won't fix the problem, only improve the situation short-term
*losing hockey sucks
*they make less than the owners and it's hard to root for the money makers
*while though there is less points for the players the first one is a BIG one that I'm highlighting it here

PS it is of my opinion that causing a few teams to fold or move will only delay the return to our current problem just like the players giving up some percentage points will...

EDIT:
Here is the image from nhlnumbers.com:

It is by Forbes data so there is problems with it. Also, because the fiscal year falls part way through the season, the last year would include partial Atlanta and partial Winnipeg
One big thing to note is that looking at averages, the NHL in it's entirety is running at a very small profit margin... around 3%... so although I really think that the rich need to share with the poor more, it still won't solve the problems...


Last edited by garret9: 09-13-2012 at 11:55 PM.
garret9 is offline