HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-16-2012, 02:11 PM
  #101
YWGinYYZ
Global Moderator
.
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,589
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny 204 View Post
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.
The NHL wanted to start the discussions earlier - the NHLPA didn't, or wasn't ready (as I understand it).

YWGinYYZ is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 02:21 PM
  #102
sully1410
#BandOfBeavers
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,921
vCash: 72
I'm kind of in the players side with this one. The idea that the league is trying to roll back salaries that much again is ridiculous. They implemented a system the last time they did this which was the 57% of HRR abd the salary cap and that was supposed to fix everything. Yet here we are. Again. With Gary Bettman's saying that the league cannot function under this agreement.

If the league can no longer function under the current agreement, then why would doing a carbon copy of the agreement work?

I do understand why the players are asking for a new system, maybe not necessarily that system, but perhaps a new one can prevent this from happening again.

They should t have waited this ****ing long though.

sully1410 is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 02:29 PM
  #103
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 1,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
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.
The Bell/Rogers ownership of MLSE though gives them an entirely different perspective. Those companies bought the Leafs in order to ensure their broadcast rights. So now the Leafs aren't just interested in maximizing their own profits, but for maximizing the profits of the parent companies. Which, in part, is done by maximizing competitive balance and overall league profitability.

So maybe they are more willing to give a little.

On the other hand, on the same Mcown show I was listening to with MacLean, McCown pointed out that most owners frankly have little involvement in their teams, and I'm assuming Bell/Rogers are amongst them. There are 6-8 owners that are probably highly involved in negotiations, and the rest will rubber-stamp whatever Bettman presents them with.

I wonder where Chipman fits in. Probably as a new owner he stays quiet.

Yukon Joe is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 02:30 PM
  #104
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 1,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
The NHL wanted to start the discussions earlier - the NHLPA didn't, or wasn't ready (as I understand it).
Yup. Fehr kept saying he needed to "come up to speed" on all things hockey.

Yukon Joe is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 02:32 PM
  #105
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 33,570
vCash: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
The NHL wanted to start the discussions earlier - the NHLPA didn't, or wasn't ready (as I understand it).
Then the NHL wanted to start again towards the end of the season and the NHLPA said no, wait until the playoffs are done.

King Woodballs is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 02:44 PM
  #106
sully1410
#BandOfBeavers
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,921
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
Then the NHL wanted to start again towards the end of the season and the NHLPA said no, wait until the playoffs are done.
I didn't mind that at the time because I didn't realize how far away the two sides were. Now? Holy ****. I doubt there'll be a lockout. If anything we'll miss the preseason....

But if there is a lockout, I have absolutely no sympathy for the players.

sully1410 is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 03:13 PM
  #107
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
Sorry to be OT but is this based of something? did taylor do something stupid? Not defending him, genuinely interested.
Yeah, he Tweeted last summer that he'd failed his open book boater's exam. My mistake - he only failed it twice. Third time's the charm, I guess?

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/0...k-taylor-hall/

Now, I'm not saying he's a dummy, but that open-book, online Pleasure Craft Operator Card exam isn't exactly full of Mensa-level brainteasers.


Last edited by Gm0ney: 08-16-2012 at 03:16 PM. Reason: Mensa is not an acronym!
Gm0ney is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 03:28 PM
  #108
sully1410
#BandOfBeavers
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,921
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
Yeah, he Tweeted last summer that he'd failed his open book boater's exam. My mistake - he only failed it twice. Third time's the charm, I guess?

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/0...k-taylor-hall/

Now, I'm not saying he's a dummy, but that open-book, online Pleasure Craft Operator Card exam isn't exactly full of Mensa-level brainteasers.
Well it is when they don't tell you what book to open

sully1410 is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 03:53 PM
  #109
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 33,570
vCash: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
I didn't mind that at the time because I didn't realize how far away the two sides were. Now? Holy ****. I doubt there'll be a lockout. If anything we'll miss the preseason....

But if there is a lockout, I have absolutely no sympathy for the players.
I completely agree
The players have had months of extra time to get this going and chose not to.
Nows it crunch time... And then they go... Oh **** time is almost up

They probably thought the owners would still play with no agreement

To me this has just turned into on PR pissing match

King Woodballs is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 04:04 PM
  #110
DancesWithWookies
Registered User
 
DancesWithWookies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 1,111
vCash: 500
So what happens to the money us season ticket holders are paying if there is no season or half a season next year? Do we get our money back?

DancesWithWookies is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 04:07 PM
  #111
sully1410
#BandOfBeavers
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,921
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
I completely agree
The players have had months of extra time to get this going and chose not to.
Nows it crunch time... And then they go... Oh **** time is almost up

They probably thought the owners would still play with no agreement

To me this has just turned into on PR pissing match
Precisely. It's almost like the last lockout taught them nothing.

I wonder if a hard cap at like 60m with a 2% increase every season based on HRR would work. Maybe I'm miles off though.

sully1410 is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 04:27 PM
  #112
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 240
I don't understand when people say that the owners got "their system" last time and that it's all their fault that it doesn't work for them.

The owners went hard for "cost certainty" last time, which netted them linkage between revenues and player costs. To get that, they had to make concessions elsewhere (UFA years, etc). What the owners didn't have the foresight to see though, was just how catastrophic to the league the formula that the NHL and NHLPA came up with to calculate HRR and in turn the cap would be to all the teams that don't see their revenue grow at the rate of the big teams. So it's not like the owners got exactly what they wanted. They got the type of system they wanted, but they screwed up in figuring out how all the math was going to work.

Don't get me wrong, the players also gave back last time too with the salary rollback. But to put all the blame on the owners because this is "their system" seems a little off to me.

I have a hard time getting on the players side because even with all their rhetoric in wanting to be "partners" and "working to solve issues together", I have never seen a proposal from the NHLPA that has the PA take on any risk. The NHLPA says they want to be partners, but they are always on the positive side of the ledger. They never find themselves on the negative side.

Until the players want to create a system where they share the risks with the owners and accept profit AND losses, I fail to see how they are truly "partners".

For instance, how would the players like the owners to come back and basically agree with the player proposal but with the caveat that each owner makes 2 times the maximum player salary per year "guaranteed" before they determine how much money is available to pay the players?

Huffer is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 04:40 PM
  #113
allan5oh
Plan the parade
 
allan5oh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,655
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
Until the players want to create a system where they share the risks with the owners and accept profit AND losses, I fail to see how they are truly "partners".
The latest CBA that the NHLPA has some of that. I'm on the players side for this. The problem isn't between the players and owners, it's between the well off owners and small revenue owners. I refuse to say small-market because some of the very large market owners are in trouble too.

I'm not really a fan of revenue sharing, just seems like socialism to me. Do I think Phoenix can be successful financially with the right owners and management? Absolutely.

allan5oh is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 04:56 PM
  #114
broinwhyteridge
Registered User
 
broinwhyteridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,591
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
I don't understand when people say that the owners got "their system" last time and that it's all their fault that it doesn't work for them.

The owners went hard for "cost certainty" last time, which netted them linkage between revenues and player costs. To get that, they had to make concessions elsewhere (UFA years, etc). What the owners didn't have the foresight to see though, was just how catastrophic to the league the formula that the NHL and NHLPA came up with to calculate HRR and in turn the cap would be to all the teams that don't see their revenue grow at the rate of the big teams. So it's not like the owners got exactly what they wanted. They got the type of system they wanted, but they screwed up in figuring out how all the math was going to work.

Don't get me wrong, the players also gave back last time too with the salary rollback. But to put all the blame on the owners because this is "their system" seems a little off to me.

I have a hard time getting on the players side because even with all their rhetoric in wanting to be "partners" and "working to solve issues together", I have never seen a proposal from the NHLPA that has the PA take on any risk. The NHLPA says they want to be partners, but they are always on the positive side of the ledger. They never find themselves on the negative side.

Until the players want to create a system where they share the risks with the owners and accept profit AND losses, I fail to see how they are truly "partners".


For instance, how would the players like the owners to come back and basically agree with the player proposal but with the caveat that each owner makes 2 times the maximum player salary per year "guaranteed" before they determine how much money is available to pay the players?
You are so on target with this post it hurts.

broinwhyteridge is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 04:58 PM
  #115
Hobble
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatSaveJesus View Post
So what happens to the money us season ticket holders are paying if there is no season or half a season next year? Do we get our money back?

I would assume any money paid to TNSE for season tickets will just pay for the remainder of the season, and any extra will go towards next seasons tickets? Maybe if we make the playoffs, there will be an option to put that extra cash towards playoff tickets?!?

That would make sense to me, but I am not a businessman.

Hobble is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 05:08 PM
  #116
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
I don't understand when people say that the owners got "their system" last time and that it's all their fault that it doesn't work for them.

The owners went hard for "cost certainty" last time, which netted them linkage between revenues and player costs. To get that, they had to make concessions elsewhere (UFA years, etc). What the owners didn't have the foresight to see though, was just how catastrophic to the league the formula that the NHL and NHLPA came up with to calculate HRR and in turn the cap would be to all the teams that don't see their revenue grow at the rate of the big teams. So it's not like the owners got exactly what they wanted. They got the type of system they wanted, but they screwed up in figuring out how all the math was going to work.

Don't get me wrong, the players also gave back last time too with the salary rollback. But to put all the blame on the owners because this is "their system" seems a little off to me.

I have a hard time getting on the players side because even with all their rhetoric in wanting to be "partners" and "working to solve issues together", I have never seen a proposal from the NHLPA that has the PA take on any risk. The NHLPA says they want to be partners, but they are always on the positive side of the ledger. They never find themselves on the negative side.

Until the players want to create a system where they share the risks with the owners and accept profit AND losses, I fail to see how they are truly "partners".

For instance, how would the players like the owners to come back and basically agree with the player proposal but with the caveat that each owner makes 2 times the maximum player salary per year "guaranteed" before they determine how much money is available to pay the players?
Great post, sums up my views exactly. The players want the mega deals but dont realise the risks associated owning a team. Most of the owners share of revenue you go towards expenses and if the playera were true partners they would have to pay their share of these expenses. Lets be honest here most of the owners share goes back to the players both directly and indirectly. Teams spend a small fortune on travel and accomodation (benefit players who are pampered with regards to this. Do they really need luxary flights and five star hotels?) How much money do the owners apend on trainers nutritionests, sport psychologysts all in an effort to develope the players to their max potential. The players are the ones who primary gain from this as they inhance their value and are able to command more on the market. So in actuality the amount of money going to the players is way north of the 57% the players currently get.

The players get no sympathy from me, as a group they are pampered and short sited imo. They carry absolutely no risk they get paid no matter how terrible they play thanks to guaranteed contracts.

Yes the owners need to accept a better revenue sharing program but the players need to get off their high horse and get educated about what a true partnership is and be prepared to give back and accept some risk. End rant!

surixon is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 05:40 PM
  #117
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 1,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
The latest CBA that the NHLPA has some of that. I'm on the players side for this.
Actually, the NHLPA proposal does not have it. It has the players getting a guaranteed increase in the salary cap no matter how the league does. It de-links salaries and leage revenues.

Yukon Joe is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 05:47 PM
  #118
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
Great post, sums up my views exactly. The players want the mega deals but dont realise the risks associated owning a team. Most of the owners share of revenue you go towards expenses and if the playera were true partners they would have to pay their share of these expenses. Lets be honest here most of the owners share goes back to the players both directly and indirectly. Teams spend a small fortune on travel and accomodation (benefit players who are pampered with regards to this. Do they really need luxary flights and five star hotels?) How much money do the owners apend on trainers nutritionests, sport psychologysts all in an effort to develope the players to their max potential. The players are the ones who primary gain from this as they inhance their value and are able to command more on the market. So in actuality the amount of money going to the players is way north of the 57% the players currently get.

The players get no sympathy from me, as a group they are pampered and short sited imo. They carry absolutely no risk they get paid no matter how terrible they play thanks to guaranteed contracts.

Yes the owners need to accept a better revenue sharing program but the players need to get off their high horse and get educated about what a true partnership is and be prepared to give back and accept some risk. End rant!
The non-player costs were going to be my next point exactly.

How about the players propose a system where all the non player costs are accounted for FIRST. I.E. Flights, hotel, staff, rents, perks the owners pay to kiss the players you know whats, etc. And then AFTER that has all been paid, the owners and players can decide on whatever split they want (55-45, 52-48, whatever).

I know it's not anywhere near that simple because of the different costs in each city (NY vs Winnipeg).

Just wondering out loud if the players truly wanted to be partners why they wouldn't want something like this.

Because they want all of the rewards of high revenues and growth and none of the risk?

Huffer is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 06:02 PM
  #119
YWGinYYZ
Global Moderator
.
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,589
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
(...)

Because they want all of the rewards of high revenues and growth and none of the risk?
Bingo. True partners would share in the rewards and the risks - if they don't then it's an employee / employer relationship, with all risks on the employer side.

YWGinYYZ is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 06:10 PM
  #120
allan5oh
Plan the parade
 
allan5oh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,655
vCash: 50
That's not how business works. They're contractors, not partners or employees. If they say something along the lines of "we're partners in this" it's to reduce cost, but not necessarily player earnings.

They should in no way shape or form "share" business expense. How many owners were forced to spend money? It's all elective, and every penny spent benefits the business. There's a reason they have lots of trainers, 5 star hotels, team meals etc.. If it didn't benefit the business, they wouldn't do it.

Right now the problem is not player salaries, nor is it a lack of revenue league wide. The problem is small revenue teams (not small market). Better ownership and management would fix this, and benefit all owners and players.

Simply reducing players HRR share won't fix the problem either, because some teams revenue is so low that they wouldn't have a chance of breaking even, even with the owners proposed CBA.

allan5oh is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 06:35 PM
  #121
sully1410
#BandOfBeavers
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,921
vCash: 72
I totally agree. But I do see why the players want a new system, but tbh, I never thought of all the extra costs that the owner has to incure until Huffer mentioned it. I think that shoukd definitely be deducted from the pie before they start dividing what's left. If the players have costs that shoukd be set aside as well, not sure what those would be...but the point still stands.

On the other hand, the owners do garner a ton more revenue then just ticket sales and merchandise. I know at the Saddledome it costs 30bucks to park in the lots around there. Not sure about the MTS center. That's not including concessions, or any other crap that people but at the games. All if which is tragically over priced.

Maybe those expenses should be shared between the two.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for either side right now. The owners say they're hurting, but revenue sharing in the league sucks and they throw out huge contracts to players like their candy. But at the same time, how much money do you need to be payed to play hockey. Honestly.

Maybe I'm just naive or something, but all these hockey players started playing hockey and turned pro for their love of the game. I highly doubt that anyone if them was drive. Financially at the age if 17. They just want to play. What happened to that? When did the all mighty dollar suddenly become the most important thing to hockey players?

Granted I don't think they shoukd have to take a dry bum ****** everytime the CBA expires, but why not make a serious honest effort to meet in the middle and take a bit of a cut, in stead of giving yourselves garunteed raises for the next 3 years and taking your sweet ass time to even meet.

I always thought that the Stanley cup was the most important thing in hockey. I guess maybe I was wrong.

sully1410 is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 06:37 PM
  #122
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 33,570
vCash: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
Right now the problem is not player salaries, nor is it a lack of revenue league wide. The problem is small revenue teams (not small market). Better ownership and management would fix this, and benefit all owners and players.
I dont agree with this
In some cases, possibly...
However, there are also markets that hockey is the 4th 5th even 6th in line for sports bucks
The greatest ownership in the world wont make a nickel there

King Woodballs is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 06:48 PM
  #123
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
That's not how business works. They're contractors, not partners or employees. If they say something along the lines of "we're partners in this" it's to reduce cost, but not necessarily player earnings.

They should in no way shape or form "share" business expense. How many owners were forced to spend money? It's all elective, and every penny spent benefits the business. There's a reason they have lots of trainers, 5 star hotels, team meals etc.. If it didn't benefit the business, they wouldn't do it.

Right now the problem is not player salaries, nor is it a lack of revenue league wide. The problem is small revenue teams (not small market). Better ownership and management would fix this, and benefit all owners and players.

Simply reducing players HRR share won't fix the problem either, because some teams revenue is so low that they wouldn't have a chance of breaking even, even with the owners proposed CBA.
It's not so simple as that, you can have the best ownership group and management team in the league and still not make money. Look at Nashville, great ownership, terrific hockey ops department and they are hard pressed to turn a profit. If the system is broken which I think it is it doesn't matter the ownership in some these markets they will struggle to make money and compete. The mere fact that Philly almost got a away with that predatory atrocity of a contract attempt shows me all I need to know about the control structures that are currently in place to fisrter parrity.

Also the players are most certainly not contractors:. They have continually raised the point that they are partners and even if they didn't they have far too much say in the operations of the league to say that they arnt. You have players who sit on the competition comittee and make and pass rules that impact.the game. You have players who vetoed realignment because they didn't like it. You have the players who want a say in supplementary discipline now. For simple contractors they certainly want a degree control of the operations of the league. They also want a set percentage of the revenue, yet they don't want to assume any risk.

surixon is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 06:54 PM
  #124
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
That's not how business works. They're contractors, not partners or employees. If they say something along the lines of "we're partners in this" it's to reduce cost, but not necessarily player earnings.

They should in no way shape or form "share" business expense. How many owners were forced to spend money? It's all elective, and every penny spent benefits the business. There's a reason they have lots of trainers, 5 star hotels, team meals etc.. If it didn't benefit the business, they wouldn't do it.

Right now the problem is not player salaries, nor is it a lack of revenue league wide. The problem is small revenue teams (not small market). Better ownership and management would fix this, and benefit all owners and players.

Simply reducing players HRR share won't fix the problem either, because some teams revenue is so low that they wouldn't have a chance of breaking even, even with the owners proposed CBA.
There are Business models that have employers paying themselves a salary, and there are Business models that see employees or "contractors" paid very little salary and see their wages come in the form of profit. There are many ways to skin the cat so to speak.

And I don't necessarily see how having the owners pay all of these perks somehow benefits the business. Each owner is doing it because he has to. Because another owner is doing it. So it's only a benefit because each owner needs to do it to maintain competitive. It's like a cold war for player perks.

But to your point, that's kind of why I have no patience for the players and their "let's work together as partners" BS. IF it's not going to be a partnership, then I have no issue with a system that allows all the owners to make profits. They are taking the largest risks (financially speaking, I know the players take the physical risks. )

Off to the Bomber game!

Huffer is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 07:06 PM
  #125
allan5oh
Plan the parade
 
allan5oh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,655
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
It's not so simple as that, you can have the best ownership group and management team in the league and still not make money. Look at Nashville, great ownership, terrific hockey ops department and they are hard pressed to turn a profit. If the system is broken which I think it is it doesn't matter the ownership in some these markets they will struggle to make money and compete. The mere fact that Philly almost got a away with that predatory atrocity of a contract attempt shows me all I need to know about the control structures that are currently in place to fisrter parrity.
How could the CBA be possibly changed to help Nashville? I just don't see it happening. Even the owners CBA proposal probably wouldn't do enough to help the bottom revenue teams. Simply cutting player salary and rights won't do it.

Quote:
Also the players are most certainly not contractors:. They have continually raised the point that they are partners and even if they didn't they have far too much say in the operations of the league to say that they arnt. You have players who sit on the competition comittee and make and pass rules that impact.the game. You have players who vetoed realignment because they didn't like it. You have the players who want a say in supplementary discipline now. For simple contractors they certainly want a degree control of the operations of the league. They also want a set percentage of the revenue, yet they don't want to assume any risk.
And why are they wanting to make these decisions? For the betterment of the game. Not necassarily for more money nor for the benefit of the owners. This has little to do with the CBA or employee status.

They are contractors. That's how contractors operate. Do they receive their wages with taxes taken off like employees? I promise you they do not.

They sign an individual contract for each year they play.

allan5oh is online now  
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 10:30 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.