HFBoards

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

The 2012-2013 NHL Lockout Discussion Thread

View Poll Results: Will there be any NHL games before 8/15/13?
Heck yeah! 11 44.00%
Only on my Playstation 14 56.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-16-2012, 03:57 PM
  #26
hbk
HFBoards Sponsor
 
hbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP View Post
True but that came as a result of somewher in the process of the union decertifying, which is something we may see with the NHLPA in this case.
NHLPA knows they have to give. They are dragging their feet to minimize the pain and to try to keep as much of the revenue as possible. Their strategy has been to avoid the core issue and delay negotiations in hopes that the can stay above that 50% mark. It may work.

hbk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 07:54 PM
  #27
Rutkowski
Registered User
 
Rutkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
So what you're saying is that the CBA that the owners cancelled a season over and got everything they wanted on it is too good for the players so now we gotta do it all over again because somehow they'll do it right this time?

Guess what? Even if the players' cut were down to 20% the owners would still lock them out the next time the CBA is up for negotiation.

Rutkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 09:42 PM
  #28
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 45,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutkowski View Post
So what you're saying is that the CBA that the owners cancelled a season over and got everything they wanted on it is too good for the players so now we gotta do it all over again because somehow they'll do it right this time?

Guess what? Even if the players' cut were down to 20% the owners would still lock them out the next time the CBA is up for negotiation.
The owners didn't get "everything they wanted". There was a very long negotiation, if you will recall. So long that we lost an entire season. At the end of that entire saga the players did not just go ahead and accept the initial league offer, believe it or not.

A good example of how, exactly, the players didn't get kicked around quite so bad as many seem to believe is just how great they've got it now. The previous CBA did not go far enough in the owners' favor, obviously. We are essentially right back where we started, in many ways.

__________________
This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 09:46 PM
  #29
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 45,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk View Post
NHLPA knows they have to give. They are dragging their feet to minimize the pain and to try to keep as much of the revenue as possible. Their strategy has been to avoid the core issue and delay negotiations in hopes that the can stay above that 50% mark. It may work.
The problem is that both sides seem to have vastly different ideas of what fifty percent means.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 10:05 PM
  #30
SniperHF
Global Moderator
 
SniperHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 16,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
The problem is that both sides seem to have vastly different ideas of what fifty percent means.
Sounds like a discussion on the BoH ownership thread

SniperHF is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 10:10 PM
  #31
hbk
HFBoards Sponsor
 
hbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
The problem is that both sides seem to have vastly different ideas of what fifty percent means.
Bettman dropped the redefined HRR in the last offer.

hbk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 12:42 AM
  #32
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutkowski View Post
So what you're saying is that the CBA that the owners cancelled a season over and got everything they wanted on it is too good for the players so now we gotta do it all over again because somehow they'll do it right this time?

Guess what? Even if the players' cut were down to 20% the owners would still lock them out the next time the CBA is up for negotiation.
Agreed, and her is how to avoid it: What Fehr could do, is bargain for a long term deal, say 12-15 years. In exchange for a long term deal, which the owners would like, he can get a few more percentage points for the players today. Fehr could tell the existing players that he is bargaining for them today but maybe giving up some of the future for guys not in the league yet. He really is not, but the plot might work.

What Fehr would really be doing is this: Looking long and hard at the last CBA. If the players had the last deal to do over, they would have signed early(not missed a season) and for a longer period of time, say 10-12 years. The old deal worked pretty well....

Fehr is currently trying to fix an NHL owner problem of small market revenues by forcing more revenue sharing. The NHL of course wants to fix it through player payroll reductions. The NHLPA, at the end of the day can not force/fix this problem. What they can do, is structure around it with a longer deal. That way, the small market team revenue/earnings model, and the move a franchise/fold a franchise/where do we expand, all of those issues can no longer be taken out of the players payroll for say 12- 15 years. It becomes an owner/NHL problem to fix.

The avg player salary today is 2.4 mill for 5 years. That is an avg pay of 400k per month, starting in October for 6 months. Total income would be 12 mill avg. The NHL is offering a 10% reduction today, which would be a 1.2 mill career deduction. With just 3 months (October -December) of missed pay, the players have the 10% reduction. The NHLPA missing any pay is absolutely stupid at this point, careers are to short for it too make any sense.

cobra427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 01:41 AM
  #33
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 7,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk View Post
I disagree. Based on the freshly negotiated deals with NFL and NBA the market has been set that players should get 48-50% of revenues. The NHL is overpaying and all the NHLPA is doing is distract from that fact. They have no grounds to ask for more.
No, I expect players share to be right around 50%. I was talking about current contracts, unless I'm not understanding what is being suggested completely.

awfulwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 07:22 AM
  #34
hbk
HFBoards Sponsor
 
hbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awfulwaffle View Post
No, I expect players share to be right around 50%. I was talking about current contracts, unless I'm not understanding what is being suggested completely.
If players were offering 50 we wouldn't be in a lockout.

hbk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 10:22 AM
  #35
Colt45Blast
It works every time!
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 26,998
vCash: 466
This is a prediction from one of the former owners of an NHL franchise.

https://twitter.com/StuSiegel/status/247693176670928896

Quote:
Stu Siegel ‏@StuSiegel
My prediction: the NHL owners are going to regret the lockout when Fehr pulls the salary cap off the table.
I did say along time ago that when Fehr was brought in that he was anti-salary cap and I beleive he was going to try and get rid of it.

That could still be the case and if that turns out to be, then **** is going to get very very real.

Colt45Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 10:53 AM
  #36
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 45,947
vCash: 500
This labor dispute, for me, really comes down to the San Jose Sharks.

Solidly built, and run team. Really the model franchise for expansion in the modern era.

Sold out every single home game last season and failed to turn a profit. Canadian fans will say "raise ticket prices". Really? That's the solution to profit inequality and a league where the majority of teams are struggling? To raise ticket prices and further alienate what precious few fans the game is clinging to in the united states? Absurd. Is jacking up prices really the appropriate strategy in this climate?

So what, then? The players seem to think there should be expanded revenue sharing. Really? For the Sharks? A wildly popular and successful team that sells out every game. That team generates a ton of revenue. What they don't generate is profit. I'm all for expanded revenue sharing, and i think it is vital, but the San Jose Sharks should not be anywhere near that conversation. They should be a rags to riches story, not a well fare baby.

No, I think it is pretty clearly a question of cost. I think the price is appropriate for the market, and I think the product is of excellent quality. I don't think it makes any sense to increase price or to reduce quality. I think both are exactly where they need to be to operate a very successful franchise. The problem is cost. They spend too much to run the show. So let's look at what they are spending on. What is their biggest expense? Players. Very obviously they are paying players too much.

Paul Bissonnette said on his twitter yesterday that he'd gladly take a pay cut if they'd lower ticket prices for fans but stated that the owners never would. He should put his money where his mouth is.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:03 AM
  #37
Naurutger
Registered User
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,346
vCash: 1454
All I know is if I woke up this morning and saw this month's payment for my tickets I would have gone berserk; heard some teams might still be collecting.

Naurutger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:04 AM
  #38
Colt45Blast
It works every time!
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 26,998
vCash: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
This labor dispute, for me, really comes down to the San Jose Sharks.

Solidly built, and run team. Really the model franchise for expansion in the modern era.

Sold out every single home game last season and failed to turn a profit. Canadian fans will say "raise ticket prices". Really? That's the solution to profit inequality and a league where the majority of teams are struggling? To raise ticket prices and further alienate what precious few fans the game is clinging to in the united states? Absurd. Is jacking up prices really the appropriate strategy in this climate?

So what, then? The players seem to think there should be expanded revenue sharing. Really? For the Sharks? A wildly popular and successful team that sells out every game. That team generates a ton of revenue. What they don't generate is profit. I'm all for expanded revenue sharing, and i think it is vital, but the San Jose Sharks should not be anywhere near that conversation. They should be a rags to riches story, not a well fare baby.

No, I think it is pretty clearly a question of cost. I think the price is appropriate for the market, and I think the product is of excellent quality. I don't think it makes any sense to increase price or to reduce quality. I think both are exactly where they need to be to operate a very successful franchise. The problem is cost. They spend too much to run the show. So let's look at what they are spending on. What is their biggest expense? Players. Very obviously they are paying players too much.

Paul Bissonnette said on his twitter yesterday that he'd gladly take a pay cut if they'd lower ticket prices for fans but stated that the owners never would. He should put his money where his mouth is.
Good argument but to be fair with the Sharks, despite the claims of a loss there is a very sweetheart lease in place where those loses are easly covered by what is made by the other events at HP Pavilion. In the end, the Sharks are still on very solid ground.

Colt45Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:12 AM
  #39
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 45,947
vCash: 500
That's not a "but" that's an "and". You completely supported my argument. If theyve got a "sweetheart lease" then they have even fewer expenses and player salary represents an even higher percentage of their overall operating cost. It just makes it even more apparent that they are paying players much more than they are worth.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 12:44 PM
  #40
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
That's not a "but" that's an "and". You completely supported my argument. If theyve got a "sweetheart lease" then they have even fewer expenses and player salary represents an even higher percentage of their overall operating cost. It just makes it even more apparent that they are paying players much more than they are worth.
I hate using the word "worth" in situations like this because it's an abstract concept that people evaluate differently. Perhaps a better way to describe it is the the SJ players seem to be getting paid more than a good business model suggests they should.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 12:46 PM
  #41
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP View Post
This is a prediction from one of the former owners of an NHL franchise.

https://twitter.com/StuSiegel/status/247693176670928896



I did say along time ago that when Fehr was brought in that he was anti-salary cap and I beleive he was going to try and get rid of it.

That could still be the case and if that turns out to be, then **** is going to get very very real.
Don't see it happening. The players don't want to lose the entire season, and the NHLPA insisting on no salary cap is the primary reason the last lockout cost an entire year.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 03:02 PM
  #42
ScottsdaleYote
Registered User
 
ScottsdaleYote's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Fehr did massive damage to MLB at the expense of his players, so why not ruin the NHL? He's "good" at his job in that he's a very good negotiator and he holds out to put as much leverage on the owners as possible (arguably he 'won' every collective bargaining negotiation over the owners while he ran the union). But his problem is that the NHL is not like MLB where you have enough owners making massive money that they break the resolve of the minority of owners who lose money. It's the opposite in the NHL, and he will see a tougher stance from NHL owners, many of whom are equally or better off during a lockout than playing the season because of high player costs - you don't have the nice TV revenue deals MLB has.

Regarding the salary cap - you have 2 sports where you have very good competitive balance consistently: NFL, NHL. You have 2 sports where you have a significant imbalance in talent and a few haves with many have nots - NBA, MLB. Guess which 2 have a hard salary cap? Removal of the hard cap would kill this sport. You'd have the big market and Canadian teams (while their economy is in great shape) driving up the cost of players where you'd have a gross competitive imbalance, and you'd lose a number of franchises as a result.

That being said, I actually believe PHX could survive OK in this setup as long as current management stays in place. It would cost us an OEL when he gets to free agency, but as long as we keep the pipeline full of good prospects we'd be OK...we'd just be facing all-star teams about 10-15 times a year. CBJ though? Gone. Nashville? Probably gone. Carolina, Tampa and Florida? Probably all gone. When the canadian dollar isn't as strong? See ya Edm (remember they essentially sold Gretsky because of financial problems) and Winnipeg. You might as well re-trench to the 1980s. What kind of TV deal do you get then?

ScottsdaleYote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 05:38 PM
  #43
hbk
HFBoards Sponsor
 
hbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP View Post
This is a prediction from one of the former owners of an NHL franchise.

https://twitter.com/StuSiegel/status/247693176670928896



I did say along time ago that when Fehr was brought in that he was anti-salary cap and I beleive he was going to try and get rid of it.

That could still be the case and if that turns out to be, then **** is going to get very very real.
That would be ruled as not bargaining in good faith.

hbk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 07:49 PM
  #44
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutkowski View Post
Guess what? Even if the players' cut were down to 20% the owners would still lock them out the next time the CBA is up for negotiation.
That's what I believe, the league is viewed as a 2nd tier pro team in most of the U S. The BofG want to pay the players accordingly, no matter what Canada and a few U S based teams think. Time for separation...

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 09:21 PM
  #45
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 8,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
That's what I believe, the league is viewed as a 2nd tier pro team in most of the U S. The BofG want to pay the players accordingly, no matter what Canada and a few U S based teams think. Time for separation...
If you're inferring what I think you are, that is a pretty short sighted fix.

Sinurgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 09:35 PM
  #46
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 45,947
vCash: 500
Haha. The Canadian dollar is strong today so it will be strong forever. The American dollar is weak today so it will be weak forever. Whatever the circumstance is at this moment is the natural order of things.

Anyone remember when Winnipeg was relocated to Phoenix shortly after Quebec moved to Denver? It was before Edmonton and Calgary were viewed as the next two on the chopping block.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 09:51 PM
  #47
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,330
vCash: 500
The big problem with the expired CBA is that is exchanged a disparity of competition for a disparity of revenues.

I posted this on the business forum, but in 2010 the Toronto Maple Leafs paid something like 25% of their revenue to the players. Conversely, teams like the Coyotes & Islanders paid nearly 75% of their revenue to the players.

The rich owners screwed over the rest of the league by averaging out the amount given to the players equally. The rich owners got the same product with less spending which caused the salaries to increase and hurt the poorest teams.

If every team paid 50% (or whatever % they agree to) of their revenues to the players with a cap in place to balance the competition then you would see the Leafs paying up to $40M on the cap but then another $50M to the players due to the revenues. Teams like the Coyotes and Islanders could survive (better, not 100% healthy) if they were only required to give up 50% of their revenues and not 75%. For those that didn't see my previous post on the topic, the extra $50M from Toronto would come similar to the escrow to be properly divided up among the players. They players get their share, the owners get their share, but the most successful teams pay the highest amount towards the players.

The Cap and tying player costs to revenue was the owners idea, so that's why I throw it back to them that they did it wrong the first time and if they do it right this time we could start seeing hockey. It's rather simple really.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 12:39 PM
  #48
Naurutger
Registered User
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,346
vCash: 1454
Only 6 more days until we play the Kings at home!!!!, oh wait the doors are still locked.

I selected the 5% Coyotes Cash option for the balance remaining on my tickets. So if it only goes 2 months (less is great more is not) then I will have enough to buy a small beer...its something.



Last edited by Naurutger: 09-18-2012 at 12:45 PM.
Naurutger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 12:56 PM
  #49
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 7,587
vCash: 500
I'm hoping for the lockout to end, because October 18th, I have a lady friend in town and nothing more to get the sexual juices flowing than a good ol' fashioned hockey game!!

awfulwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 04:06 PM
  #50
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,330
vCash: 500
I'm not that concerned about losing the start of the season but I would be disappointed if we lost the whole season. I kind of like the idea of upgrading my season tickets with the savings in games lost, and the first 2-3 months of the season are the busiest for me personally.

My biggest issue is that they fix this once and for all. No more bandaid solutions that only fix 1/2 the problem.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:00 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.