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.
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
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.
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
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 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.
__________________
"It has not been a good day. I lost my glasses early this morning and I had to go buy a pair of 79 dollar reading glasses today. 79 bucks. You can literally get them at Costco, three-for-20." - Darryl Sutter's response to going up 2-0 in the series.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
