HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The lockout thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-14-2012, 04:02 PM
  #26
Martyros
Registered User
 
Martyros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Holly Hood
Country: Armenia
Posts: 5,436
vCash: 500
I went to buy NHL 13 and the store locked me out.

Martyros is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 04:07 PM
  #27
Martyros
Registered User
 
Martyros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Holly Hood
Country: Armenia
Posts: 5,436
vCash: 500
How about instead of a lockout, we have a lockin? Everyone enters an arena, and doesn't get out until they resolve the situation.

Martyros is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 04:17 PM
  #28
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bunny Foo Foo View Post
But that is just AEG. Every owner doesn't own their arena and most of the entertainment industry.
Sure but like I said, if you are losing millions when the league plays and breaking even or losing less than you would if you play, what incentive do those owners have to resolve this on the player's terms?

I don't doubt that there are franchises that are harmed by a lockout but by and large, it is the players who stand to lose the most starting tomorrow.

Buddy The Elf is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 04:29 PM
  #29
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 19,868
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martyros View Post
How about instead of a lockout, we have a lockin? Everyone enters an arena, and doesn't get out until they resolve the situation.
Nicely played



Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
Sure but like I said, if you are losing millions when the league plays and breaking even or losing less than you would if you play, what incentive do those owners have to resolve this on the player's terms?

I don't doubt that there are franchises that are harmed by a lockout but by and large, it is the players who stand to lose the most starting tomorrow.
Agreed

Gentle Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 04:34 PM
  #30
Inner Turbulence
Registered User
 
Inner Turbulence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Country: Denmark
Posts: 337
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Inner Turbulence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
But regardless, I think everybody knows the NHL's percentage is going to fall. The players themselves have offered to take it back to 52% already. Both sides are at fault, both sides have good ideas, but right now they are refusing to even look at each other's solution.
The players suggestion of "52%" is based on an average growth of 7.1%. Also, as far as I can tell they never offered anything based on percentages. They base their offer on actual dollar amounts. They take what they have now, add 2%, 4% and 6% in each of the 3 next years and consider that a concession. If there is no growth or even a decline in the league revenue, they still want that increase. It's a non-starter IMO.

I am sure if they were looking at actual offering "52% of Revenue" a deal could be struck pretty quickly. The two sides would be quite close.

But, you're right. Both sides are at fault. The NHL's initial proposal was too harsh. Their aim to go for something like a 50-50 split (which I think is what they were aiming at - like NFL and NBA) - but With the extended ELC, 10 years before UFA status etc. Reducing the players' rights ... it's too one-sided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
But the real main point of my post was why we, as fans, do we need to take sides? We should be looking at it objectively and trying to see the best for everybody, including us. Neither side knows everything, is entirely honest or necessarily even wants what is ultimately best. But both have part of the picture. Hopefully we can see that, and eventually they will as well.
I agree. No point taking sides. I want the two sides to agree a mutually reasonable deal for the next 37 years or so. But both sides wants to grab as big a slice of the pie as possible. HOPEFULLY they will realize that noone wins if they kill another season - or even half a season - or a quarter season. There's nothing gained by entrenching and "showing unity and force". Who cares. Sit down. Work out a deal. Play hockey.

I still think the players are overplaying their hand. Hopefully their objective is "only" to squeeze out another percentage or two - not something even more dramatic, like the salary cap. Or standing firm on their own idea that the rich teams should subsidise the poor teams in order to allow the players to keep getting paid the big bucks.

Inner Turbulence is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 04:36 PM
  #31
Inner Turbulence
Registered User
 
Inner Turbulence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Country: Denmark
Posts: 337
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Inner Turbulence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
Sure but like I said, if you are losing millions when the league plays and breaking even or losing less than you would if you play, what incentive do those owners have to resolve this on the player's terms?

I don't doubt that there are franchises that are harmed by a lockout but by and large, it is the players who stand to lose the most starting tomorrow.
Bingo, Buddy. You hit the nail on the head. It's what I keep asking myself - what is the players hoping will happen ?

Inner Turbulence is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 09:02 PM
  #32
DontgoZiggy
Registered User
 
DontgoZiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
I don't understand all the finer details, but I find it difficult not to side with the players. They have signed contracts for set amounts, agreed upon numbers. Now the owners are trying to reduce what is owed to them. How is that fair? If the owners were concerned about the direction their expenditure on salary cap was heading, why do they offer the contracts? Each individual owner doesn't have to spend up to the cap limit. If a player is too expensive to re-sign, trade him to another organisation that can afford them. Eventually the teams that can afford to spend up to the cap will run out of cap space and players hoping to screw every last dime out of their team will run out of teams to be traded to. They will have to sign at a more reasonable figure or play in another league
If the owners don't like losing money, sell the team to someone that doesn't mind pumping money into it.

DontgoZiggy is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 09:04 PM
  #33
Chazz Reinhold
Registered User
 
Chazz Reinhold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Stanley Cup
Country: United States
Posts: 6,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontgoZiggy View Post
I don't understand all the finer details, but I find it difficult not to side with the players. They have signed contracts for set amounts, agreed upon numbers. Now the owners are trying to reduce what is owed to them. How is that fair? If the owners were concerned about the direction their expenditure on salary cap was heading, why do they offer the contracts? Each individual owner doesn't have to spend up to the cap limit. If a player is too expensive to re-sign, trade him to another organisation that can afford them. Eventually the teams that can afford to spend up to the cap will run out of cap space and players hoping to screw every last dime out of their team will run out of teams to be traded to. They will have to sign at a more reasonable figure or play in another league
If the owners don't like losing money, sell the team to someone that doesn't mind pumping money into it.
At the risk of simplifying this too much, how are the owners going to make money if they let all their talent go because they don't want to pay their contract demands? It's pretty hard to field a competitive team without spending money first.

Chazz Reinhold is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 09:32 PM
  #34
KopitarFAN
Reno Sucks!
 
KopitarFAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 9,409
vCash: 500
Anybody have any idea what impact(if any) all that business in Quebec would have league wide?

KopitarFAN is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 09:42 PM
  #35
Vamos Rafa
ˇVamos!
 
Vamos Rafa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Clay Court
Country: Spain
Posts: 10,947
vCash: 500
I remember when some posters (on LGK) were saying that the NHLPA made a mistake by hiring Fehr.

Vamos Rafa is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 10:42 PM
  #36
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
Fehr almost ruined baseball. It's no surprise he's playing with the NHL now.
IMO, Fehr did ruin baseball. Teams like the Pirates will rarely if ever make the playoffs much less win a World Series.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 10:49 PM
  #37
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 12,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
IMO, Fehr did ruin baseball. Teams like the Pirates will rarely if ever make the playoffs much less win a World Series.
People are giving Fehr way too much credit.

Baseball has so little labor disputes now cause; lots of owners are happy spending 30mill-50mill on payroll and collecting that luxury tax check.

If Baseball had a salary floor, They would have a lockout every single CBA till that Salary floor was gone. Or the competitive model changed.

Fehr is not the reason the Pirates suck, the owner is. There is a reason Baseball doesn't have a Salary Cap, It's because the majority of owners know it comes with a Salary floor.

Lots of owners in Baseball have discovered the dirty dark secret of; you can field a lousy team for decades, and fans will still show up to the ballpark.

After all, it is America's past time.


Last edited by damacles1156: 09-14-2012 at 11:26 PM.
damacles1156 is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 11:11 PM
  #38
Chazz Reinhold
Registered User
 
Chazz Reinhold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Stanley Cup
Country: United States
Posts: 6,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156 View Post

Fehr is not the reason the Pirates suck, the owner is. There is a reason Baseball doesn't have a Salary Cap, It's because the majority of owners know it comes with a Salary floor.

Lots of owners in Baseball have discovered the dirty dark secret of; you can field a lousy team for decades, and fans will still show up to the ballpark.

After all, it is America's past time.
That big fat revenue sharing check is a big incentive for owners of small market teams not to spend a lot of money...

Chazz Reinhold is offline  
Old
09-14-2012, 11:19 PM
  #39
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 12,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz Reinhold View Post
That big fat revenue sharing check is a big incentive for owners of small market teams not to spend a lot of money...
Exactly.

Baseball has the best of both worlds. They get a nice Luxury tax check, and they don't have to spend a lot on salary. Cause there is no floor.

Technically under Baseball's CBA they are not allowed to use the check for payroll. But they can hide how they spend it cause Baseball doesn't exactly enforce that type of thing.


Last edited by damacles1156: 09-14-2012 at 11:25 PM.
damacles1156 is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 01:40 AM
  #40
DontgoZiggy
Registered User
 
DontgoZiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz Reinhold View Post
At the risk of simplifying this too much, how are the owners going to make money if they let all their talent go because they don't want to pay their contract demands? It's pretty hard to field a competitive team without spending money first.
Suck for a couple of years, acquire top draft picks, rely on young guys on elc's. Keep revolving the door on players that are after too much and cash them in on more youngsters and picks. It would be painfully tedious to lose top talent that is too expensive to re-sign. But at the end of the day If you can't afford to pay the players as much, don't sign them to the contract in the first place. Most teams acquire their loyal players that take paycuts to stick around, reward them with the ice time and don't invest as much into "mercenary" players that don't care what team they play for.

DontgoZiggy is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 01:48 AM
  #41
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bunny Foo Foo View Post
That looks a lot like Bill Daly. Nice find!
Nice find? That's the "Okay.." guy! He is an easy find on the interwebs!

Jason Lewis is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 01:53 AM
  #42
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,431
vCash: 500
Doesn't the MLB have basically the same CBA in place that they had before the strike?

johnjm22 is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 02:52 AM
  #43
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,037
vCash: 500
I was devastated by the last lockout, not going to care as much this time.

I don't care if they play again until after the BCS National Championship Game and Super Bowl. I would begin to notice at that point.

The NHLPA and it's membership are living in some bizarro world. Do they not see the financial crisis currently engulfing pretty much the entire western world. And what a slap in the face to the fans by hiring Donald Fehr, the guy who was behind the cancellation of the 1994 World Series.

Herby is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 02:55 AM
  #44
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 19,868
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
Doesn't the MLB have basically the same CBA in place that they had before the strike?
The players avoided a salary cap with the strike. I think they also got better revenue sharing

Gentle Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 03:12 AM
  #45
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 26,211
vCash: 3578
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
I was devastated by the last lockout, not going to care as much this time.

I don't care if they play again until after the BCS National Championship Game and Super Bowl. I would begin to notice at that point.

The NHLPA and it's membership are living in some bizarro world. Do they not see the financial crisis currently engulfing pretty much the entire western world. And what a slap in the face to the fans by hiring Donald Fehr, the guy who was behind the cancellation of the 1994 World Series.
I agree about not caring as much and Fehr, but I disagree with the whole bizarro/financial crisis, pity the owners part. They got a more than reasonable deal during the last CBA negotiation, the league is pulling in $3.5 billion and making a tidy profit. If you are going to argue economy and smaller markets hurting, then you should be siding with the players, because they are the ones arguing for $250 million in increased revenue sharing, more than Bettman & co.

__________________

“Every good army needs a couple of criminals.” - Dean Lombardi
Telos is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 10:31 AM
  #46
kingsholygrail
Interference = Cup
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 42,705
vCash: 500
I think what bothers me the most is how little the two sides are engaging. The NFL managed to put something together in the final hour to save their season because everyone knew no football was no good for anyone. I wish these two sides would get that with hockey.

kingsholygrail is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 10:42 AM
  #47
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156 View Post
People are giving Fehr way too much credit.

Baseball has so little labor disputes now cause; lots of owners are happy spending 30mill-50mill on payroll and collecting that luxury tax check.

If Baseball had a salary floor, They would have a lockout every single CBA till that Salary floor was gone. Or the competitive model changed.

Fehr is not the reason the Pirates suck, the owner is. There is a reason Baseball doesn't have a Salary Cap, It's because the majority of owners know it comes with a Salary floor.

Lots of owners in Baseball have discovered the dirty dark secret of; you can field a lousy team for decades, and fans will still show up to the ballpark.

After all, it is America's past time.
Fehr is the architect of the MLB system. The luxury tax, the relegation of the smaller market teams to farm club status. That all comes from Fehr's desire to have the big market teams pay ridiculous salaries and the big market teams' desire to go along. It isn't good for MLB, and is why they lost me as a fan long ago.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 10:45 AM
  #48
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telos View Post
I agree about not caring as much and Fehr, but I disagree with the whole bizarro/financial crisis, pity the owners part. They got a more than reasonable deal during the last CBA negotiation, the league is pulling in $3.5 billion and making a tidy profit. If you are going to argue economy and smaller markets hurting, then you should be siding with the players, because they are the ones arguing for $250 million in increased revenue sharing, more than Bettman & co.
The league is not making a tidy profit. Any business that is paying 57% of their REVENUE to the employees and then has large operating expenses on top of that is going to struggle to make a profit.

More revenue sharing among the owners is necessary, some of that should come at the expense of the players since it is their jobs that are being saved in the smaller markets.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 11:23 AM
  #49
BallPointHammer
Franchise Enforcer
 
BallPointHammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 796
vCash: 500
Kings Remain Champions FOREVER!?!?

1. The owners don't spend "their" money, they spend the money of all the people who pay for the goods and services the owners are selling.
2. Billionaires don't become billionaires by "losing" money.
3. Even if an owner's team has less revenue than expenses and is then responsible for making up the difference, "that" money came from somewhere else also.
4. No economic system that has ever existed is honest and fair unless every dollar is accounted for, everyone involved is willingly responsible and accountable and everyone has a say in making the rules to be followed.
5. Money matters are ridiculously easy to understand and manage if people will allow it to be that way. At the end of the day or month or year the ledger says plus or minus or even. That's it. Don't need an accounting degree. Don't need to be a lawyer.

Conclusion: All owners are selfish, dishonest, egotistical, power hungry and insecure. All players are fortunate to make a good living playing a game they love and none would rather have a "regular job". Fans, including me, will never unite and organize in order to stand their ground regarding the absurdity of pro sports "labor" disputes.

BallPointHammer is offline  
Old
09-15-2012, 11:47 AM
  #50
BehindEnemyLines
2012&2014 CHAMPS
 
BehindEnemyLines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: OC, CA
Country: Romania
Posts: 1,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
I fault the players. I'm not smart enough to understand all the moving parts but I have little sympathy for grown men playing a game and getting paid upwards of $1m that I love to play and have to PAY for the priviledge to play. When I don't get a raise at work or if I was going to be laid off because the company is going under, I have ZERO recourse. None at all.

The way I understand it, the difference in percentages between the owners and players offers would be wiped out if a season is lost. Seems like they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. But again, what do I know? BTW.. the owners OWN the friggin' businesses. This isn't auto workers or construction workers being taken advantage of with unfair labor practices.

Also, when the baseball strike happened years ago, why were replacement players allowed to be used? Can the NHL do that? I'd absolutely still watch if they did. Hell, I mighte even try out to be the Kings next Westgarth (punching bag). I think i'd be pretty good at getting my ass kicked nightly.
Well said. I totally agree with you.

BehindEnemyLines 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 11:44 AM.

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.