HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Notices

2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2012, 11:48 AM
  #76
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 624
Something roughly like what you suggest could work. If you accept the PAs suggestion that a quarter billion dollars would save all the failing franchises. That sounds perhaps right - heard Doug MacLean on McCown's shows yesterday. In talking about running Columbus he suggested that the problem was that it cost $25 mil more to run a team then it could reasonably earn. So you spread that kind of money around to the bottom 10 to 15 markets and a lot of money-losing teams are suddenly profitable.

And if you can come up with that $250 mil equally between cuts in player salaries, and increased revenue sharing from owners, then maybe that's the basis for a deal.

The one thing I worry about though - that to truly put everyone on equal footing, you might have to do revenue sharing to the "bottom" 20, even 24 teams. I suspect it's a small number of teams making an enormous amount of money...

Yukon Joe is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 11:53 AM
  #77
bigplay41
BIG MEECH
 
bigplay41's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,145
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to bigplay41
This blows! At this rate well be lucky to have hockey start in December

bigplay41 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 11:57 AM
  #78
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 624
Meh - at least they're negotiating now. Nobody has drawn a "line in the sand" like last year:

Owners: "We must have cost certainty!"
Players: "We will never accept a salary cap!"

I think we'll lose games, but not many.

Yukon Joe is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 03:08 PM
  #79
bodybreak
We're Back!
 
bodybreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,246
vCash: 500
Unfortunately, my most anticipated game of the year is the 2nd home game: vs Jonathan Toews & the Chicago Blackhawks. After that, it'd probably by the Wild game right after the new year. Pretty sure that game will still be on (unless they come out with a completely redone schedule following a lockout, should one happen)!

bodybreak is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 03:37 PM
  #80
Denny 204
Registered User
 
Denny 204's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lac du Bonnet, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 186
vCash: 500
This has got to be the most poorly run league in North America. So angry at the NHL right now.

Denny 204 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 03:40 PM
  #81
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
If the revenue sharing is anything like the last CBA, Phoenix will not qualify.
Are you talking about the 2 million people clause? Because that clause was only included as a "screw you" to Chicago late owner Bill Wirtz. He was the one they were targeting. It was cleverly written so very few people would be excluded in that clause. Since Phoenix plays in Glendale, they were eligible. And it is widely speculated that the clause will disappear since Wirtz is no longer the owner over there.

__________________


Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
08-15-2012, 04:09 PM
  #82
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny 204 View Post
This has got to be the most poorly run league in North America. So angry at the NHL right now.
You must not be very familiar with the last round of cba negotiations for the NFL and NBA. Be angry all you want but the deal wont be made until the last second as neither party will put its best offer on tbe table until then.

surixon is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 04:47 PM
  #83
mzappa
Jets fans in space
 
mzappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 50
For the NBA, yes.

For the NFL, there was just no way they would miss any of their regular season, with the impact that would have on the US economy and with the government push behind finding a solution.

But you are right, for the NHL it'll come down to the 11th hour.





Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
You must not be very familiar with the last round of cba negotiations for the NFL and NBA. Be angry all you want but the deal wont be made until the last second as neither party will put its best offer on tbe table until then.

mzappa is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 05:10 PM
  #84
SCP Guy
Registered User
 
SCP Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Peg
Country: Portugal
Posts: 1,758
vCash: 50
well the owners offer was a joke and the players response was just as bad IMHO

hockey by the new year Maybe

SCP Guy is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 05:13 PM
  #85
bigplay41
BIG MEECH
 
bigplay41's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,145
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to bigplay41
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybreak View Post
Unfortunately, my most anticipated game of the year is the 2nd home game: vs Jonathan Toews & the Chicago Blackhawks. After that, it'd probably by the Wild game right after the new year. Pretty sure that game will still be on (unless they come out with a completely redone schedule following a lockout, should one happen)!
That Chicago Blackhawks game was my one game I wanted to see the most as well. That looks like it definitely wont happen

bigplay41 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 05:45 PM
  #86
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCP Guy View Post
well the owners offer was a joke and the players response was just as bad IMHO

hockey by the new year Maybe
These are opening volleys, nothing to get too disappointed about. Give it sometime. Starting next week I am betting they will be meeting every other day or more, some serious progress can happen.

It's like when a player goes for arbitration. The team's offer is like 2 million, the players like 7 million. A world of difference it seems like, but really the team is gunning for a 4 million dollar deal, the player a 4.5 million dollar deal. It seems bad at first, but you quickly realize both sides have plenty of room to give.

For example, it's clear, IMO, that things like the 10 year RFA period, max 5 year contracts, etc were placed in the owner's original offer so that they can be "given up" in negotiations. I have no doubt the owners would be completely fine with the current 7 years of RFA, and maybe a 8-10 year maximum on contracts (pending other details as well). But that is somewhere where they can "give ground" in order to stick to their guns on lower percentage, for example. And the players will likely be willing to give on the percentage points, (given a redefinition of HRR), in order to maintain the revenue sharing program that will enable more teams to spend more.

Give and take. It will take time, but there is still a month, a lot can happen in that time. Calm down everyone.

Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:12 PM
  #87
sully1410
Registered User
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Turner Valley, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,597
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
These are opening volleys, nothing to get too disappointed about. Give it sometime. Starting next week I am betting they will be meeting every other day or more, some serious progress can happen.

It's like when a player goes for arbitration. The team's offer is like 2 million, the players like 7 million. A world of difference it seems like, but really the team is gunning for a 4 million dollar deal, the player a 4.5 million dollar deal. It seems bad at first, but you quickly realize both sides have plenty of room to give.

For example, it's clear, IMO, that things like the 10 year RFA period, max 5 year contracts, etc were placed in the owner's original offer so that they can be "given up" in negotiations. I have no doubt the owners would be completely fine with the current 7 years of RFA, and maybe a 8-10 year maximum on contracts (pending other details as well). But that is somewhere where they can "give ground" in order to stick to their guns on lower percentage, for example. And the players will likely be willing to give on the percentage points, (given a redefinition of HRR), in order to maintain the revenue sharing program that will enable more teams to spend more.

Give and take. It will take time, but there is still a month, a lot can happen in that time. Calm down everyone.

Pretty been my view the whole time. There's no way either side will do a lock out again.

Sometimes, just sometimes, you make alot of sense HC.

sully1410 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 07:45 PM
  #88
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
One positive is that both sides will continue to meet. Not saying there won't be a lockout but at least the communication lines are still open.

Man the summer has been long enough with not a whole lot of Jets news (well in comparison to last year at least) but a missed season, if that is indeed the case, isn't the end of the world. At least my tickets are paid for now.

Perhaps the shortened season will see the Jets in the western conference too? I suppose it depends on how short the season is etc.

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 07:48 PM
  #89
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,169
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
Something roughly like what you suggest could work. If you accept the PAs suggestion that a quarter billion dollars would save all the failing franchises. That sounds perhaps right - heard Doug MacLean on McCown's shows yesterday. In talking about running Columbus he suggested that the problem was that it cost $25 mil more to run a team then it could reasonably earn. So you spread that kind of money around to the bottom 10 to 15 markets and a lot of money-losing teams are suddenly profitable.

And if you can come up with that $250 mil equally between cuts in player salaries, and increased revenue sharing from owners, then maybe that's the basis for a deal.

The one thing I worry about though - that to truly put everyone on equal footing, you might have to do revenue sharing to the "bottom" 20, even 24 teams. I suspect it's a small number of teams making an enormous amount of money...
Good post Joe I would like to add to it. I believe what the weakest markets want to avoid is extreme losses. I will use an example, let's say it's not an exaggeration that the teams that are hardest hit lose in the area of $20 to $25 million on a bad year and do not own their arena asset (Phoenix or your example of Columbus). I think any owner would be ok if their losses were under $10 million while they were trying to right the ship. I don't think its nessesary to find a revenue sharing model that gets the weakest of the weak into the black but I do think they need to assist in making the losses manageable. I think this would allow more distribution to the teams that were mild have nots. More of a hand up vs a hand out revenue share plan. It is critical That they find a solution to current systemic flaws. easy to say just have the Leafs and the Rangers float the increase in revenue sharing but the teachers are flipping the leafs to the new owners for a sale price that contemplates current profitability models.....that dog just isn't going to hunt if anyone thinks this problem is all coming off the backs of the few rich teams without the players taking a hair cut too.

I am one of the people that think the NHL is actually a pretty solid brand right now and I do think they can continue to grow revenues because they have found a model where they have competitive balance and like the NFL most teams have hope and that is good for business IMHO. They do have to adjust the economics but if they get the model right I could see then reaching 4 billion in revenues in the next 5 to 7 years. There could be allot more money to go around for both players and owners.


Last edited by ps241: 08-15-2012 at 07:54 PM.
ps241 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 07:55 PM
  #90
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,127
vCash: 1001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
These are opening volleys, nothing to get too disappointed about. Give it sometime. Starting next week I am betting they will be meeting every other day or more, some serious progress can happen.

It's like when a player goes for arbitration. The team's offer is like 2 million, the players like 7 million. A world of difference it seems like, but really the team is gunning for a 4 million dollar deal, the player a 4.5 million dollar deal. It seems bad at first, but you quickly realize both sides have plenty of room to give.

For example, it's clear, IMO, that things like the 10 year RFA period, max 5 year contracts, etc were placed in the owner's original offer so that they can be "given up" in negotiations. I have no doubt the owners would be completely fine with the current 7 years of RFA, and maybe a 8-10 year maximum on contracts (pending other details as well). But that is somewhere where they can "give ground" in order to stick to their guns on lower percentage, for example. And the players will likely be willing to give on the percentage points, (given a redefinition of HRR), in order to maintain the revenue sharing program that will enable more teams to spend more.

Give and take. It will take time, but there is still a month, a lot can happen in that time. Calm down everyone.
I've been through the bargaining process a couple of times (obviously not under the same glare as this) but you always put things in the proposal you knew you would never get. Both sides did it. You would then show "good faith" by giving up what you knew you wouldn't get. Eventually you get down to the core issues and then it can get pretty messy. But even then you have a list of most important to least and where the line in the sand is. At some point something gives and things can fall into place relatively quickly. Paperwork and specific #'s are a non issue once the main negotiators come to an agreement. They will have legions of number crunchers and lawyers to dot the I's and cross the T's. Of course those who sign the pay-checks get more of their wants, but that's pretty much how life goes.

KingBogo is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 12:04 AM
  #91
LadyJet26
GO JETS GO!!!
 
LadyJet26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,470
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingBogo View Post
I've been through the bargaining process a couple of times (obviously not under the same glare as this) but you always put things in the proposal you knew you would never get. Both sides did it. You would then show "good faith" by giving up what you knew you wouldn't get. Eventually you get down to the core issues and then it can get pretty messy. But even then you have a list of most important to least and where the line in the sand is. At some point something gives and things can fall into place relatively quickly. Paperwork and specific #'s are a non issue once the main negotiators come to an agreement. They will have legions of number crunchers and lawyers to dot the I's and cross the T's. Of course those who sign the pay-checks get more of their wants, but that's pretty much how life goes.
These *******s shouldn't have waited until freaking August to start negotiations. I'm sorry but players who want a season next year shouldn't have taken time off. Same with the NHL and the PA

LadyJet26 is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 12:07 AM
  #92
mondo3
Registered User
 
mondo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 835
vCash: 571
I believe it was the PA who wanted to wait until August to start the negotiations.

mondo3 is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 08:24 AM
  #93
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,354
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
These *******s shouldn't have waited until freaking August to start negotiations. I'm sorry but players who want a season next year shouldn't have taken time off. Same with the NHL and the PA
Agree. Why hold off these negotiations until the final month before training camp is supposed to start? Apparently working in "crunch time" does something for these negotiations? ... right.

There is no good reason (or excuse) to begin these serious negotiations at this point in time with training camp and the season just around the corner. This process should have began months ago.

Guerzy is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 09:14 AM
  #94
YWGinYYZ
Global Moderator
Glass Half Full
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,846
vCash: 406
If you break down the two proposals, they're miles apart. Very worrisome. I hope they burn the midnight oil, as they're going to have to in order to get something done in the time available.

I seriously doubt that the Owners will have any issues locking the players out on the date that they've set. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't get a warm and cuddly feeling about it.

YWGinYYZ is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 09:43 AM
  #95
Blackie Dammit
proud flatlander
 
Blackie Dammit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Interlake
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,540
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
Agree. Why hold off these negotiations until the final month before training camp is supposed to start? Apparently working in "crunch time" does something for these negotiations? ... right.

There is no good reason (or excuse) to begin these serious negotiations at this point in time with training camp and the season just around the corner. This process should have began months ago.
I was thinking the same thing about the crunch time and it got me thinking. Will teams still start training camp before the 15th without a deal signed then get locked out of traing camp or do the camps start on the 15th. I can't remember what date is scheduled for camp.

Blackie Dammit is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 11:43 AM
  #96
videofarmer
thirsty
 
videofarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: ATL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,051
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
If you break down the two proposals, they're miles apart. Very worrisome. I hope they burn the midnight oil, as they're going to have to in order to get something done in the time available.

I seriously doubt that the Owners will have any issues locking the players out on the date that they've set. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't get a warm and cuddly feeling about it.
At the current pace, I don't see any way this is resolved before the end of December. And if the Winter Classic game gets scrubbed, then the rest of the season is likely a loss. Lame.

videofarmer is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 12:53 PM
  #97
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by videofarmer View Post
At the current pace, I don't see any way this is resolved before the end of December. And if the Winter Classic game gets scrubbed, then the rest of the season is likely a loss. Lame.
Every month the players are locked out, they forgo a collective $200,000,000+ in salary that they will never recoup. $1.8 billion total for the season (or about $1.4 billion if they take the NHL's current offer as it stands). It's not like holding out will get that money back. They have no leverage. They'd be wise to have this settled before training camp. I don't think the owners care about PR, or the first 3 months of the season - the owners lose less money than the players and all have plenty of other irons in the fire (Birchwood Auto Group, Comcast, Rogers, Rexall, etc.). They hold all the cards, and they know it...and so should the players (although there are a bunch of Taylor Hall-types who could fail an open-book boating safety exam 3 times, so I don't think you'd go broke betting against their analytical skills).

Gm0ney is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 01:03 PM
  #98
Denny 204
Registered User
 
Denny 204's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lac du Bonnet, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 186
vCash: 500
Why didn't these talks begin earlier? This league is trying to grow the game in the U.S and losing another season will hurt them dearly. Good job Gary.

Denny 204 is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 01:03 PM
  #99
videofarmer
thirsty
 
videofarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: ATL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,051
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
Every month the players are locked out, they forgo a collective $200,000,000+ in salary that they will never recoup. $1.8 billion total for the season (or about $1.4 billion if they take the NHL's current offer as it stands). It's not like holding out will get that money back. They have no leverage. They'd be wise to have this settled before training camp. I don't think the owners care about PR, or the first 3 months of the season - the owners lose less money than the players and all have plenty of other irons in the fire (Birchwood Auto Group, Comcast, Rogers, Rexall, etc.). They hold all the cards, and they know it...and so should the players (although there are a bunch of Taylor Hall-types who could fail an open-book boating safety exam 3 times, so I don't think you'd go broke betting against their analytical skills).
The economics of the situation sure didn't motivate the players to resolve things quickly the last time the owners threatened to lock them out. They lost a full season's pay before they conceded to most of the owners stipulations.

videofarmer is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 01:03 PM
  #100
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 3,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
Every month the players are locked out, they forgo a collective $200,000,000+ in salary that they will never recoup. $1.8 billion total for the season (or about $1.4 billion if they take the NHL's current offer as it stands). It's not like holding out will get that money back. They have no leverage. They'd be wise to have this settled before training camp. I don't think the owners care about PR, or the first 3 months of the season - the owners lose less money than the players and all have plenty of other irons in the fire (Birchwood Auto Group, Comcast, Rogers, Rexall, etc.). They hold all the cards, and they know it...and so should the players (although there are a bunch of Taylor Hall-types who could fail an open-book boating safety exam 3 times, so I don't think you'd go broke betting against their analytical skills).
Sorry to be OT but is this based of something? did taylor do something stupid? Not defending him, genuinely interested.

Grind is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.