The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
No last ditch attempt to avoid lockout (CBA Negotiation discussion thread) - Part III
Yea I dont like when the players take to the media and say stuff like "screw bettman!" "fans should unite and speak up!" but maybe in different words haha.
it also annoys me when the casual fan just yells "screw bettman" or whatever when they dont even know the details of the situation(and yes bettman is part of the problem.).
"The owners are GREEDY!!!"
Yea... because it's completely asinine for them to expect a profit after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a team...
the reason I'm for them more is because they're the side working more towards a CBA that will stabliize the league in the long run. I think people would be surprised how much the players are willing to negotiate once the NHL actually puts up an offer with significant revenue sharing and cost cutting like doing something with money losing teams (in other words the NHL actually giving up a concession based on the last CBA and not their earlier offer and making some type of gesture to show that this same situation won't repeat itself down the line).
Also the argument that "players will lose more $ by having a lockout rather than just accepting a pay cut therefore they should just take 48.5%" doesn't really apply this time as well once it becomes a matter of principle and about the other side's premise for needing the pay cut being invalid in the 1st place (at least in the PA's opinion).
I don't see the NHL negotiating this until the % is sorted out. However it is something that's needed, and it needs to be significant if the NHL is going to continue with this quest for parity.
Note: To those advocating a 50/50 split; that would still be a 12.28% reduction in the players' share.
Only if it's an immediate drop in year one. Realistically the NHL will have to phase that in. 54% year 1, 50/49 year 2. With the growth the players are projecting, they won't lose a dime.
After the Bettman interview, I am totally on the owners side and totally understand their frustration. What I dislike about them is locking the whole 2004 season out, getting what they want and hasn't helped.
Seriously. I'm still trying to figure out what having "no athletic skill" has to do with anything.
They really need to stop these Tweets, they're just making themselves look silly.
Yeah coming off as dumb and douchy jocks sure as hell won't help them.
Get this over with and get them on the ice so they can stop trying to put together sentences and start playing with sticks 'cause communicating is clearly not playing to their strengths.
I hope hockey season will start soon.
May I ask some questions in this thread? I'm just don't know very good the situation about lockout and I don't understand a lot.
Is Gary Batman the owner of the NHL? Shareholder of control packet of shares? Or elected president? Why he represents the league?
They say that about 50% goes to players. I guess salaries.
And 50% goes to league. Where exactly these 50% go? Player pensions, helping teams with financial troubles? Or is it exactly net profit (minus 50% taxes) of Gary Batman?
Does CBA include term of participating players in the Olympics?
Yea I dont like when the players take to the media and say stuff like "screw bettman!" "fans should unite and speak up!" but maybe in different words haha.
it also annoys me when the casual fan just yells "screw bettman" or whatever when they dont even know the details of the situation(and yes bettman is part of the problem.).
3 lockouts in under 20 years, 2 in under a decade.
3 lockouts in under 20 years, 2 in under a decade.
All that needs to be said.
Bettman can go **** himself.
To me, it sounds like when you hear the word lockout, you automatically assume it's 100% Bettman's fault.
To be honest, I've slowly been following the information leading up to this point, and from the beginning I've been in favour of the owners and as this whole thing goes on, I can't help but stand by them more. Perhaps it's because I feel the owners should be more in control considering they're the ones dishing out the cheques to the players. Not to mention, the stall tactics (if you can call it that) by the PA haven't exactly put a positive light on themselves.
To me, it sounds like when you hear the word lockout, you automatically assume it's 100% Bettman's fault.
To be honest, I've slowly been following the information leading up to this point, and from the beginning I've been in favour of the owners and as this whole thing goes on, I can't help but stand by them more. Perhaps it's because I feel the owners should be more in control considering they're the ones dishing out the cheques to the players.
No league should be in a position to have their 2nd lockout in under a decade.
It's beyond pathetic and it starts with the man at top and that man's name is the Commissioner, Gary Bettman.
I hope hockey season will start soon.
May I ask some questions in this thread? I'm just don't know very good the situation about lockout and I don't understand a lot.
Is Gary Batman the owner of the NHL? Shareholder of control packet of shares? Or elected president? Why he represents the league?
They say that about 50% goes to players. I guess salaries.
And 50% goes to league. Where exactly these 50% go? Player pensions, helping teams with financial troubles? Or is it exactly net profit (minus 50% taxes) of Gary Batman?
Does CBA include term of participating players in the Olympics?
Bettman is the elected commissioner, which is the head executive of the NHL. He is elected by the board of governors which is made up of the owners of all teams.
There's a CBA FAQ thread a few stickies down..
Currently the players get 57% and the owners get 43% of all hockey related revenues minus about 60m that go towards player pensions and other benefits.
Helping teams with financial troubles comes from the owners share of the money.
Players taking part in the olympics is included in the CBA
No league should be in a position to have their 2nd lockout in under a decade.
It's beyond pathetic and it starts with the man at top and that man's name is the Commissioner, Gary Bettman.
Something just is not right.
Obviously something isn't right, but this sounds more like a blind hatred than anything. Each lockout is different and based on what I've read so far, it sounds like the NHLPA is the one slowing the process down. Not to mention, the NHL can't even play without a CBA because Fehr was the one who went on strike before the playoffs in baseball.
Bettman is the elected commissioner, which is the head executive of the NHL. He is elected by the board of governors which is made up of the owners of all teams.
3 lockouts in under 20 years, 2 in under a decade.
All that needs to be said.
Bettman can go **** himself.
Not arguing with you that he's part of the problem, he is but really this problem has two sides.
the 04-05 lockout actually really benefitted the league in the long-run, both in parity and revenues have grown quite a bit since then.
but still, I doubt many of us even remember the 95 season and really a half lock-out isnt nearly as big of a deal as a whole season lost. I dont care if we only get 60-70 games this year, that's still quite a bit of hockey.
The players are to blame too, they were making as someone said around 70% of the revenue pre-lockout, that is unsustainable and them being stubborn is why that whole season was cut in the first place.
So, in the past year and a half, Major League Baseball is the only one of the four major North American professional sports leagues that hasn't locked out its players. In case, people haven't noticed, there has been a move in pro sports away from player strikes to ownership lockouts. This is because it usually places the work stoppage in the offseason or the early part of the season where the leverage is usually with the owners as opposed to allowing the players to strike which would would be more likely to occur mid-season when the players would have more leverage. Has there been a strike since the 1994 MLB strike?
So, in the past year and a half, Major League Baseball is the only one of the four major North American professional sports leagues that hasn't locked out its players. In case, people haven't noticed, there has been a move in pro sports away from player strikes to ownership lockouts. This is because it usually places the work stoppage in the offseason or the early part of the season where the leverage is usually with the owners as opposed to allowing the players to strike which would would be more likely to occur mid-season when the players would have more leverage. Has there been a strike since the 1994 MLB strike?
the NFL ref strike this year maybe? haha I dont think there has been a strike since then but correct me if i'm wrong.
the NFL ref strike this year maybe? haha I dont think there has been a strike since then but correct me if i'm wrong.
The NFL ref strike a non-issue. It's not costing the league a cent. It's not like fans are boycotting the games because of the officiating. Yeah, every blown call gets a lot more attention now, but it only LOOKS worse because a blown call becomes a headline with a replacement ref, but isn't even mentioned when the regular ref blows it.
If the NHL refs struck I would just scoff at them. Yeah, the replacement refs will suck, but how is that different then the regular ones? IIRC a ref tackled a devils defenseman in the STANLEY CUP FINALS in a play and that directly led to a goal.
