HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

The lockout thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-19-2012, 11:07 AM
  #151
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,566
vCash: 500
Mike Modano on the lockout...

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/83...m-last-lockout

Quote:
"In hindsight, it wasn't worth it," he told ESPN The Magazine for a story gauging former players' opinions of the last lockout. "It was a waste of time. We thought we were stronger than we were. We started falling apart as the months clicked by."
Quote:
"I would say (to them) that it's not a battle you're going to feel like you're going to win," he said. "It's a negotiation. You feel at some point that both sides will be upset about what they have to give up."
This is my biggest beef with the NHLPA. They have little to no power and they are cutting their nose off to spite their face. It doesn't mean the owners are benovolent or altruistic. It means the players are screwed any way you slice it. The players want the money the owners have. As long as their are owners losing money under an agreement, they have zero interest in resolving this. The owners are already rich. They have tons of money and that didn't happen by accident. The players have a finite amount of time to earn millions. Missing a year or two is going to hurt EVERY player worse than it will hurt ANY single owner. At the end of this, every owner will still be rich and the players will all be worse off. Anything they are trying to recoup in negotiations is going to be lost if the season is lost. All the owners have to do is push it past December and the players have lost AGAIN.

I liked this article too...

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/83...pidity-lockout

Quote:
Would that the players were not so hung up on their history as victims. Yes, they took it on the chin seven years ago with a 24 percent rollback on salaries and a salary cap they said they'd never play under. Get over it. Their constant reminders of what they gave up last time rings hollow, given that only one-third of the players currently in the league were around then. It might have been unpleasant, but that history is moot when it comes to finding a way to get this settled.
Quote:
Would that the owners weren't so two-faced, signing player after player to contracts they want to abolish under a new CBA. Think of the gall of a guy like Boston owner Jeremy Jacobs, head of the NHL's board of governors, signing Tyler Seguin to a six-year deal in the days before the end of the current CBA while sitting at the table demanding that contracts be capped at five years.

Would that there were more thoughtful, creative leadership from within the ownership group. This marks the third lockout under commissioner Gary Bettman. When locking the players out at the risk of permanently impairing the game -- especially a game that has so much going for it -- becomes your default position, that's not leadership, that's arrogance. Surely, in spite of a unanimous show of support for Bettman's strategy, not all 30 owners or ownership groups believe in this scorched-earth strategy. Where are the dissenters' voices in this? Where is the voice of the forward-thinking from within the ownership ranks?

Buddy The Elf is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 11:18 AM
  #152
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
Sure the owners have made attempts at talking, and nobody can deny that the NHLPA hired Fehr to fight against getting the shaft, but the owners got pretty much everything they wanted last time around, and now they want even more from the players? Where's the bargaining? Nobody forced the owners to give Kovalchuk, Suter, Parise, etc. 100 million plus contracts, yet they're crying poverty. Here's a novel idea: if the league can't support these types of contracts, don't give them out... It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
There are teams that can afford it though, and the cap is tied to their revenue. That makes it expensive for the teams that have to get to the floor. Plus, if you want the talent, you have to pay for it. If you don't keep up(which you pretty much have to do with the floor pretty close to the ceiling) with the teams that can afford it, you don't get the player, then the fans get angry, then the fans don't show up.
This.

I just don't understand how the NHLPA could look at the books of teams who are losing money, and project to lose money in the future and say..."Well tough you ****ers you got what you wanted last time. We want no cuts, we don't care if the agreement bankrupts teams."

At this point the NHLPA isn't even negotiating. They are being stubborn little kids with too long a memory. The NHL, granted the owners have made bad decisions with money in many an instance, have TRIED to negotiate. They have made concessions. That is the biggest things to me. They were willing to say, okay look we will take pieces out or alter our deal to better suit you but you have to meet us halfway. NHLPA has just sat there and said "nu-uh"

Jason Lewis is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 11:31 AM
  #153
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
This.

I just don't understand how the NHLPA could look at the books of teams who are losing money, and project to lose money in the future and say..."Well tough you ****ers you got what you wanted last time. We want no cuts, we don't care if the agreement bankrupts teams."

At this point the NHLPA isn't even negotiating. They are being stubborn little kids with too long a memory. The NHL, granted the owners have made bad decisions with money in many an instance, have TRIED to negotiate. They have made concessions. That is the biggest things to me. They were willing to say, okay look we will take pieces out or alter our deal to better suit you but you have to meet us halfway. NHLPA has just sat there and said "nu-uh"
Read that second article i posted by Burnside. He pretty much says it all in my opinion. There is plenty of blame to go around from the players, to the owners and Bettman who I think everyone agrees deserves quite a bit to blame in this.

The bottom line is the players just don't have the power they think they do and until they understand that, they are only going to put themselves in worse position. When a guy like Mike Modano comes out and says it wasn't worth it the last time, I really hope that doesn't fall on deaf ears but I feel like there isn't a whole lot of brain power within the groups of players.

I'd just like to ask them 1) what specifically do they want to happen and 2) do you think that really will happen the longer this goes?

If the owners said "Screw it, we're holding out until they cave in even if it takes two years". I can absolutely assure you the players will be the first to fold. They just have too much at stake. When a third of the league (what has been reported) is better off not playing, than playing. Why would they meet ANY of the players demands?

Buddy The Elf is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 11:31 AM
  #154
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
This.

I just don't understand how the NHLPA could look at the books of teams who are losing money, and project to lose money in the future and say..."Well tough you ****ers you got what you wanted last time. We want no cuts, we don't care if the agreement bankrupts teams."

At this point the NHLPA isn't even negotiating. They are being stubborn little kids with too long a memory. The NHL, granted the owners have made bad decisions with money in many an instance, have TRIED to negotiate. They have made concessions. That is the biggest things to me. They were willing to say, okay look we will take pieces out or alter our deal to better suit you but you have to meet us halfway. NHLPA has just sat there and said "nu-uh"
The players are so stubborn and stupid, they would rather lose money and jobs rather than take a little less.

It appears to me that this all stems from some behind-the-scenes cry-babies deep within the PA who have chips on their shoulders and who harbor resentment with the league from the past.

Sad.

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 11:37 AM
  #155
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Gentle Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 18,814
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
This.

I just don't understand how the NHLPA could look at the books of teams who are losing money, and project to lose money in the future and say..."Well tough you ****ers you got what you wanted last time. We want no cuts, we don't care if the agreement bankrupts teams."
They aren't saying that. The NHLPA is asking for more and meaningful revenue sharing which (in their ideas) would mitigate some of the gap between the haves and "have nots"


Quote:
At this point the NHLPA isn't even negotiating. They are being stubborn little kids with too long a memory. The NHL, granted the owners have made bad decisions with money in many an instance, have TRIED to negotiate.
You could say the same about the owners.
The owners stance has been we're taking HRR from 57-43% (which is about a 25% pay cut). Now even though the owners have offered to increase the % from 43, they are calling any revenue sharing talk "a distraction"
You do realize that the other 3 major sports all have it and it is much more meaningful than the NHLs


Quote:
They have made concessions. That is the biggest things to me. They were willing to say, okay look we will take pieces out or alter our deal to better suit you but you have to meet us halfway. NHLPA has just sat there and said "nu-uh"
The NHL has said "nu-_h" to any revenue sharing...they are both at fault

Gentle Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 11:37 AM
  #156
Ollie Weeks
Registered User
 
Ollie Weeks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sioux Lookout, NWO
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,690
vCash: 500
I found this on the main board a couple days ago, no idea if its made the rounds, but its an interesting prediction at the time it was written:

Paul Kelly Firing Proves NHLPA Will Never Learn (August 31, 2009)

Quote:
Since Kelly took over on Oct. 24, 2007, the NHLPA appeared to be in harmony, or was at least more harmonious than in the past. But in recent months, a group consisting of the union’s legal counsel -- Ian Penny, ombudsman Buzz Hargrove and chairman of the union’s advisory board Ron Pink -- built a list of concerns regarding Kelly’s leadership. The purpose of this list was to ultimately convince the 30-member board of player reps to oust Kelly from his position with the union, which they did successfully during a lengthy meeting that ran from late Sunday afternoon until early Monday morning.
Quote:
Hargrove, Penny, Pink, Pulver and Lindros represent the old guard of the NHLPA, one that was confrontational, hard-lined and more concerned with money than the overall well-being of the union and the game. They come from a time when chaos and greed ruled the players’ association and still believe the union conceded too much after the 2004-05 lockout.

Ironically, Kelly, who has become the scapegoat for those concessions, had nothing to do with negotiating the current collective bargaining agreement, while Penny was one of the main lawyers involved. But this group decided to tarnish Kelly’s image with the players by pointing to what they believe was too cozy a relationship between Kelly and NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly. Hargrove, Penny and Pink also claim that Kelly never made enough effort to get to know the players and members of the union.

According to sources, part of this group’s desire to get rid of Kelly also stemmed from Kelly ordering an internal audit (by a top former FBI forensic accountant) of the players' association's expenses during the previous three years before he took over. That audit was still ongoing prior to Kelly’s dismissal. Sources claim that through the audit, Kelly discovered that then-interim leaders Penny and Lindros were spending millions of dollars of the union’s money. Lindros ended up resigning, but word is, that move fueled this attack on Kelly, and Lindros was very much involved. Kelly also beat out Pink for the executive director job, and the belief is that Pink is still sour over that.
Quote:
This was just a scheduled meeting to update the players on certain issues and just simple stuff to discuss,” said the source. “Now they come in and probably some of them are not as connected as others, and they could be duped into voting out probably the best leader they’ve ever had.”

Unfortunately, as Conway pointed out, the 30 player reps that voted Kelly out Monday didn’t realize or appreciate what they had in Kelly. A hard-liner will now take over, and the cold war between the NHL and the NHLPA will resume. When the current collective bargaining agreement expires on Sept. 15, 2011, fans may be in for some more wrangling between the union and the NHL.

Ollie Weeks is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 11:44 AM
  #157
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Weeks View Post
I found this on the main board a couple days ago, no idea if its made the rounds, but its an interesting prediction at the time it was written:

Paul Kelly Firing Proves NHLPA Will Never Learn (August 31, 2009)
Quote:
Hargrove, Penny, Pink, Pulver and Lindros represent the old guard of the NHLPA, one that was confrontational, hard-lined and more concerned with money than the overall well-being of the union and the game. They come from a time when chaos and greed ruled the players’ association and still believe the union conceded too much after the 2004-05 lockout.
There's the PA behind-the-scenes trouble-makers right there.

Fehr is their man and they pull his strings to do their bidding.

Their names are never out there, so they never take any heat for any of the problems that they're creating.

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:13 PM
  #158
The Tikkanen
Pest
 
The Tikkanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yorba Linda
Country: United States
Posts: 6,375
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to The Tikkanen
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
The players are so stubborn and stupid, they would rather lose money and jobs rather than take a little less.

It appears to me that this all stems from some behind-the-scenes cry-babies deep within the PA who have chips on their shoulders and who harbor resentment with the league from the past.

Sad.
And you have to factor in how weak their union in when everybody just ups and signs over seas. Unless they start their own league I don't see their stance here, they have no leverage.

The Tikkanen is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:21 PM
  #159
Bandit
Registered User
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 5,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
This.

I just don't understand how the NHLPA could look at the books of teams who are losing money, and project to lose money in the future and say..."Well tough you ****ers you got what you wanted last time. We want no cuts, we don't care if the agreement bankrupts teams."
Because the teams are bankrupting themselves. NJ is having all kinds of financial problems and that didn't stop them from signing Kovalchuk. This is the same thing as with the last lockout, the owners show no financial responsibility with these contracts (insane for a group of billionaires) and they want to be bailed out of their own stupidity by giving it to the players in the butt. Do the owners forget they they are footing the bill for a a franchise to keep it afloat? That should be a reminder to the teams that can afford these huge contracts that maybe they shouldn't be giving them out.

Besides, wasn't this the whole point of the feckin' salary cap (and the last lockout)? To keep teams from being able to spend wildly (i.e. protect them from themselves)? Fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
The players are so stubborn and stupid, they would rather lose money and jobs rather than take a little less.
If every year at your performance review, your boss came to you and said "we need you to take a little less, just be happy you still have a job", would you be cool with that? Somehow I doubt it.

Bandit is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:29 PM
  #160
TonySCV
Moderator
One More Time
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,875
vCash: 500
Tolensky: Since 2002-03, NHL revenue has grown 5.7% per year. Player costs have only grown 2.5% per year. The NHL claims it's losing money but for that to be true, all other costs would have had to grown at over 7% per year. That's over 177% greater than player costs have increased.

TonySCV is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:16 PM
  #161
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
Tolensky: Since 2002-03, NHL revenue has grown 5.7% per year. Player costs have only grown 2.5% per year. The NHL claims it's losing money but for that to be true, all other costs would have had to grown at over 7% per year. That's over 177% greater than player costs have increased.
7% is substantial, but in the last 5 years, the cost for everything has skyrocketed, mostly due to the enormous increase in fuel costs over that time. Also, I'm not so sure about that 2.5% number for player costs. The cap has risen 75% since 2005 alone. Just 2 years ago, one team was spending 60M on payroll. Last year, over half the league was.

I always question numbers that some pubs put out, especially Forbes, because most of the time they don't make sense. Not sure who Tolensky is, but he sounds like an agent. Those numbers are a reach at best.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:20 PM
  #162
Pucknut50
Registered User
 
Pucknut50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
Mike Modano on the lockout...

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/83...m-last-lockout





This is my biggest beef with the NHLPA. They have little to no power and they are cutting their nose off to spite their face. It doesn't mean the owners are benovolent or altruistic. It means the players are screwed any way you slice it. The players want the money the owners have. As long as their are owners losing money under an agreement, they have zero interest in resolving this. The owners are already rich. They have tons of money and that didn't happen by accident. The players have a finite amount of time to earn millions. Missing a year or two is going to hurt EVERY player worse than it will hurt ANY single owner. At the end of this, every owner will still be rich and the players will all be worse off. Anything they are trying to recoup in negotiations is going to be lost if the season is lost. All the owners have to do is push it past December and the players have lost AGAIN.

I liked this article too...

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/83...pidity-lockout
Buddy,

You just cannot lie down and cry uncle. Players don't expect to get 100% of what they want. They are just making a point and willing to sit out until the owners give something. This strike will end like every other strike just the time frame is the question. Sit back and wait it out. I love hockey like everyone else here but for me life does not begin and end with Hockey. Well some of you it may but for me I have college football, Pro football, Baseball, basketball, running a business, helping kids with homework, a wife, and trying to get my ass up and stay in shape. I refuse to cry or be angry.

Pucknut50 is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:26 PM
  #163
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
7% is substantial, but in the last 5 years, the cost for everything has skyrocketed, mostly due to the enormous increase in fuel costs over that time. Also, I'm not so sure about that 2.5% number for player costs. The cap has risen 75% since 2005 alone. Just 2 years ago, one team was spending 60M on payroll. Last year, over half the league was.

I always question numbers that some pubs put out, especially Forbes, because most of the time they don't make sense. Not sure who Tolensky is, but he sounds like an agent. Those numbers are a reach at best.
That's why they conveniently used 02-03, before the 04-05 lockout when players salaries were over 70% of revenue...

__________________


Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:36 PM
  #164
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
If every year at your performance review, your boss came to you and said "we need you to take a little less, just be happy you still have a job", would you be cool with that? Somehow I doubt it.
Every year?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was around 8 years ago the last time the players were asked to take a cut, and I read that only about one-third of the players then are still in the league now.

Among those players, using the example of a 2.5% raise every year, as stated previously in the thread, over the last eight years, that would be 20% raise.

Also take into account the min salary at, what, $600k-$700k?

Compare that to how the average American has done over the last eight years.

Many people HAVE had to put up "just be happy you still have a job".

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:56 PM
  #165
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
Because the teams are bankrupting themselves. NJ is having all kinds of financial problems and that didn't stop them from signing Kovalchuk. This is the same thing as with the last lockout, the owners show no financial responsibility with these contracts (insane for a group of billionaires) and they want to be bailed out of their own stupidity by giving it to the players in the butt. Do the owners forget they they are footing the bill for a a franchise to keep it afloat? That should be a reminder to the teams that can afford these huge contracts that maybe they shouldn't be giving them out.

Besides, wasn't this the whole point of the feckin' salary cap (and the last lockout)? To keep teams from being able to spend wildly (i.e. protect them from themselves)? Fail.

This honestly isn't about teams being able to spend big money on big players.

The New Yorks and the Philadelphias of the league are fine. They will continue to push the envelope and spend spend spend because they don't get in financial trouble for it.

But how does that make a competitive league? Well, I think in the NHL's eyes...they want everyone one day, every team to be able to spend to the cap. That way EVERYONE is competitive.

The way that baseball works, and the way Donald Fehr wants the NHL to work according to his comments, isn't competitive in my eyes.

Baseball allows teams to spend whatever they want, and yes, the money they spend over the soft cap is distributed. Every body wins right? Well not really. With unlimited spending what's to keep the New York Rangers from throwing ungoldy money at every single free agent, landing them and paying that penalty, ala the New York Yankees?

There isn't anything. BUT the important thing that the players are hearing is this:

With unlimited spending what's to keep the New York Rangers from throwing ungoldy money at every single free agent

The players see dollar signs in this situation. And the league doesn't get any more competitive, it actually gets rather uncompetitive. The big rich teams will continue to be big and rich, and the Kansas City Royals, and the Pittsburgh Pirates of the world will continue to be poor, and really have no chance of signing valuable free agents. They will remain irrelevant in any form of competition.

The Salary cap isn't intended to protect GMs from themselves, in a sense it is, but in reality it's an attempt to keep the league more competitive by saying, "Hey, you can't spend that much money on players. We want everyone to have a chance."

At this point, the top end teams meet the standard, but with the current state of revenue sharing, entry-level contracts, arbitration, and increased salary demands year after year, the small market team is getting further and further away from ideal model, just by nature of Economic darwinism if you want to look at it that way.

At the current moment, the only way that the league sees fixing this is rolling back salaries and redistributing the pie so EVERYONE has a more of a chance. They want the league to stay competitive, and they want the big and small market teams to both be able to have chances at big players.

The NHLPA seemingly wants what baseball has, which again in my opinion, does not promote league growth, nor does it promote any sort of competitiveness.

Baseball is probably the least competitively diverse sport out there next to International soccer which has a free market transfer as well which promotes complete inequality and suffering of the small market team.


Quote:
If every year at your performance review, your boss came to you and said "we need you to take a little less, just be happy you still have a job", would you be cool with that? Somehow I doubt it.
Will people for the love of god please stop comparing this to every day jobs and every day American living.

These guys are the furthest from it. This is a special circumstance. Very special. You can't even begin to compare my 9.75 an hour, 800 dollars a month part time job in retail to a professional hockey player making 600K on a league minimum contract. You can't compare a performance review of an NHL player who has an agent, two houses, and an advertising deal with Reebok to a guy who works 9-5 for 45k a year as a mechanic.

You aren't even comparing apples and oranges at this point, or even apples and giraffes...you are comparing apples and quantum physics.


Last edited by Jason Lewis: 09-19-2012 at 02:02 PM.
Jason Lewis is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 02:04 PM
  #166
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
Mike Modano on the lockout...

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/83...m-last-lockout


time-ponder-complete-stupidity-lockout[/url]
You should post this on the main board.

A little talk from a star player that went thru the last lockout.

The players can whine all they want, but they don't realize how good they have it.

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 03:12 PM
  #167
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
Because the teams are bankrupting themselves. NJ is having all kinds of financial problems and that didn't stop them from signing Kovalchuk. This is the same thing as with the last lockout, the owners show no financial responsibility with these contracts (insane for a group of billionaires) and they want to be bailed out of their own stupidity by giving it to the players in the butt. Do the owners forget they they are footing the bill for a a franchise to keep it afloat? That should be a reminder to the teams that can afford these huge contracts that maybe they shouldn't be giving them out.

Besides, wasn't this the whole point of the feckin' salary cap (and the last lockout)? To keep teams from being able to spend wildly (i.e. protect them from themselves)? Fail.
It was but clearly there are loopholes that some teams are exploiting at the expense of the lower revenue teams. If the revenue goes up (along w/ the CAP and CAP floor) because big market teams or even the NJD's of the league keep spending wildly, how is that fair for the smaller market teams?

Something needs to happen to keep those teams afloat or they just need to start contracting or moving teams to more profitable markets. Bettman doesn't want them moved and the players don't want them contracted. Something has to give. But again, it is my opinion that the guys with the money have the power. In that article that Burnside wrote, I believe he made mention that the NHL players get a bigger percentage than the other three major sports in the US. There has to be a way to bridge that gap but for the NHLPA to put off negotiations until the 11th hour tells me they weren't negotiating in good faith from the get go.

I'm not blaming the players for everything because the owners have made this a mess but I fail to see how the players come out of this as winners right or wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
If every year at your performance review, your boss came to you and said "we need you to take a little less, just be happy you still have a job", would you be cool with that? Somehow I doubt it.
No but what recourse do any of us have? That is why the players are out of touch with reality and why a lot of fans can't sympathize with them. I can not relate to their problems nor the owners. But again, the guys with the money have the power and they didn't get their money owning a hockey team. They more than likely have all the time in the world to wait this out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pucknut50 View Post
Buddy,

You just cannot lie down and cry uncle. Players don't expect to get 100% of what they want. They are just making a point and willing to sit out until the owners give something. This strike will end like every other strike just the time frame is the question. Sit back and wait it out. I love hockey like everyone else here but for me life does not begin and end with Hockey. Well some of you it may but for me I have college football, Pro football, Baseball, basketball, running a business, helping kids with homework, a wife, and trying to get my ass up and stay in shape. I refuse to cry or be angry.
It isn't the end of the world and quite frankly, I'm a lot less disappointed this time. In fact, I actually expected this and would not be shocked to see the season cancelled again. That is pathetic though. The owners and players are entitled to run their business into the ground if that is what they want to do. I'm voting with my wallet and will take a year off spending money on the NHL the minute a regular season game is cancelled. That is my choice and I hope other fans will do the same. At the end of the day, what happens to the players and owners isn't of any consequence to me except for the fact that I may not get to watch the NHL this year. That is their choice and mine to tell them that I don't appreciate it. If people did actually boycott like they did in baseball following that strike, they might actually think about us next time. Maybe... I won't hold my breath.

If you haven't already, read the Burnside article because he basically pointed the finger at everyone involved and that is the truth. It is a slap in the face to the fans that shell out tons of money year in and year out. Especially Kings fans who watched a lot of miserable hockey over the years up until the past few seasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
You should post this on the main board.

A little talk from a star player that went thru the last lockout.

The players can whine all they want, but they don't realize how good they have it.
And he can't be the only one. The lockout basically sent Jeremey Roenick and Brett Hull into retirement. That is partially their fault but they can't stop their bodies from aging. I think a lot of players shared Modano's feelings after the last lockout. It just makes me wonder what the player believe they'll get out of it this time?

Buddy The Elf is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 03:20 PM
  #168
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,566
vCash: 500
What is really pathetic about this whole situation is we sit here and debate the merits of either side while they don't even bother talking to each other. Both sides should be locked in a room trying to figure out a way to bridge the gaps instead they both want to sit there and hope the other side is going to cave in. That isn't going to happen and the longer they wait, the more people they are going to piss off in the process. The progress the NHL has made in the states since the lockout hangs in the balance. I personally do think there will be backlash this time around. Social media wasn't as popular during the last lockout and I could see a fan boycott growing on Twitter or Facebook. I know people have already tried to get the wheels in motion on that so I guess we'll see what comes of it, if anything.

Buddy The Elf is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 03:25 PM
  #169
KopitarFAN
Reno Sucks!
 
KopitarFAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
What is really pathetic about this whole situation is we sit here and debate the merits of either side while they don't even bother talking to each other. Both sides should be locked in a room trying to figure out a way to bridge the gaps instead they both want to sit there and hope the other side is going to cave in. That isn't going to happen and the longer they wait, the more people they are going to piss off in the process. The progress the NHL has made in the states since the lockout hangs in the balance. I personally do think there will be backlash this time around. Social media wasn't as popular during the last lockout and I could see a fan boycott growing on Twitter or Facebook. I know people have already tried to get the wheels in motion on that so I guess we'll see what comes of it, if anything.
I agree.

I would definitely take part in that if I actually had to pay for my tickets and stuff. Maybe if/when this happens after my retires in 20 years or so, I will.

KopitarFAN is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 03:46 PM
  #170
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KopitarFAN View Post
I agree.

I would definitely take part in that if I actually had to pay for my tickets and stuff. Maybe if/when this happens after my retires in 20 years or so, I will.
Oh i'd still take free tickets but I'm not donating anything towards either sides cause the moment a regular season game is cancelled. I'll smuggle in my beverages and eat beforehand should I get some free tickets.

Buddy The Elf is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 03:49 PM
  #171
RonSwanson*
Gadfly
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Food 'N Stuff
Country: United States
Posts: 8,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
There isn't anything. BUT the important thing that the players are hearing is this:

With unlimited spending what's to keep the New York Rangers from throwing ungoldy money at every single free agent?

The players see dollar signs in this situation. And the league doesn't get any more competitive, it actually gets rather uncompetitive. The big rich teams will continue to be big and rich, and the Kansas City Royals, and the Pittsburgh Pirates of the world will continue to be poor, and really have no chance of signing valuable free agents. They will remain irrelevant in any form of competition.

The Salary cap isn't intended to protect GMs from themselves, in a sense it is, but in reality it's an attempt to keep the league more competitive by saying, "Hey, you can't spend that much money on players. We want everyone to have a chance."

At this point, the top end teams meet the standard, but with the current state of revenue sharing, entry-level contracts, arbitration, and increased salary demands year after year, the small market team is getting further and further away from ideal model, just by nature of Economic darwinism if you want to look at it that way.
Maybe the KC Royals and Pitt Pirates of the NHL shouldn't be in business then.

You could say they got a raw deal being in a city that doesn't support them (Phoenix, for example), but that's not the fault of the NY Rangers and Maple Leafs of the world. IMHO, the successful teams shouldn't have to foot the bill for the unsuccessful teams.

RonSwanson* is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 03:52 PM
  #172
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
Tolensky: Since 2002-03, NHL revenue has grown 5.7% per year. Player costs have only grown 2.5% per year. The NHL claims it's losing money but for that to be true, all other costs would have had to grown at over 7% per year. That's over 177% greater than player costs have increased.
Why would he pick 2002-03 as the starting point instead of since the last lockout? Probably because it doesn't look as good for the players if they use numbers since the lockout.

The media and agents are the worst at spreading this kind of propaganda.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 03:56 PM
  #173
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonSwanson View Post
Maybe the KC Royals and Pitt Pirates of the NHL shouldn't be in business then.

You could say they got a raw deal being in a city that doesn't support them (Phoenix, for example), but that's not the fault of the NY Rangers and Maple Leafs of the world. IMHO, the successful teams shouldn't have to foot the bill for the unsuccessful teams.
Yup.. the players benefit from the smaller market teams. The Columbus Blue Jackets aren't making the Toronto Maple Leafs any money. They are making the players money though. So if I own the Maple Leafs, why should I give one penny back to these small teams that can't stay afloat on their own? If the players want those teams to be viable, the Cap floor has to go in which case I would guess the players would ask that the ceiling goes as well.

Buddy The Elf is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 04:06 PM
  #174
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Gentle Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 18,814
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
Yup.. the players benefit from the smaller market teams. The Columbus Blue Jackets aren't making the Toronto Maple Leafs any money.
They are though. The Leafs make money from them an opponent. They raise the value of the TV deal that every team gets a share of, and I am sure there are a few other ways


Quote:
They are making the players money though. So if I own the Maple Leafs, why should I give one penny back to these small teams that can't stay afloat on their own? If the players want those teams to be viable, the Cap floor has to go in which case I would guess the players would ask that the ceiling goes as well.
This is when I get to the small market complaint from every sport that isn't football. They are the farm team for the large market teams. Big market teams pay small market teams through revenue sharing to develop their talent prior to UFA

Gentle Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 04:17 PM
  #175
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bunny Foo Foo View Post
They are though. The Leafs make money from them an opponent. They raise the value of the TV deal that every team gets a share of, and I am sure there are a few other ways




This is when I get to the small market complaint from every sport that isn't football. They are the farm team for the large market teams. Big market teams pay small market teams through revenue sharing to develop their talent prior to UFA
If the Blue Jackets (or whoever isn't making money) didn't exist, the Leafs would still make money. Plenty of it. My guess is the players that make a sum of $50m+ on that payroll gross more than the Leafs or any other team does because of the BJ's existence.

Buddy The Elf 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 06:17 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.