HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Islanders
Notices

2012-13 CBA Discussion Thread *NHL/NHLPA Please do Something!!*

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-27-2012, 05:56 AM
  #326
Riddick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,325
vCash: 500
If, lets say the season doesn't start on time, strome goes backto the ohl, would he be able to play on the NHL or would he locked into the ohl for the season?

Riddick is online now  
Old
09-27-2012, 06:29 AM
  #327
25yearfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 264
vCash: 500
NFL & refs reach agreement.... NEXT!

Glad to see NFL refs reach agreement on multi-year contract. Key quote in one of the articles:

And the impetus was clear after the Monday night game -- the NFL and NFL Referees' Association met for at least 25 of the subsequent 36 hours.

So, they had:
[a] officiating crises, culminating with a MNF glaring / game changing bad call for the world to see
[b] a bunch of folks locked up for most of a day and a half to push a deal to completion

Sounds easy enough.

I hope our crisis doesn't have to be full loss of a season - again.

25yearfan is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 08:17 AM
  #328
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riddick View Post
If, lets say the season doesn't start on time, strome goes backto the ohl, would he be able to play on the NHL or would he locked into the ohl for the season?
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406102

Quote:
If or when the NHL lockout ends, some of its teams will have a chance to bring up a pre-arranged number of CHL junior players for their lineups.

As reported by TSN Hockey Insider Bob McKenzie on Twitter and TSN's Insider Trading feature on Tuesday, NHL teams had to submit a short list last month of no more than two or three drafted CHL juniors they would like to recall if the work stoppage ends and a shortened season gets under way.

JKP is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 08:19 AM
  #329
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 25yearfan View Post
Glad to see NFL refs reach agreement on multi-year contract. Key quote in one of the articles:

And the impetus was clear after the Monday night game -- the NFL and NFL Referees' Association met for at least 25 of the subsequent 36 hours.

So, they had:
[a] officiating crises, culminating with a MNF glaring / game changing bad call for the world to see
[b] a bunch of folks locked up for most of a day and a half to push a deal to completion

Sounds easy enough.

I hope our crisis doesn't have to be full loss of a season - again.
Big difference: A lost NHL season doesn't move $150M worth of sports bets on a blown call. That's where the real pressure on the NFL likely came from...

JKP is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 08:41 AM
  #330
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrisUML View Post
Don't get me wrong, Im far from anti-union and understand both sides of the player/owner battle. I just don't think its right for state that "players must stand together", when they're really not standing together and many have more to lose than others.
And that's what, if the lockout drags on, will ultimately end it.

The 40% that made $1M or less (57% that made $2M or less) will freak out over the lost wages so that the elite 10% can protect their huge contracts and bank cash in Europe this year.

The players keep talking about revenue sharing, I'd be curious to see how they'd react to a proposal to double the minimum salary to $1.1M by reducing the maximum salary from 20% of the cap to 10% (14M to 7M)?

JKP is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 09:28 AM
  #331
Chapin Landvogt
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 12,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
The NHL wants the CBA such that even their weakest franchises are guaranteed to turn a profit without revenue sharing. This is the only issue in the CBA. Everything else is a distraction.
Then one has to ask, is that only achieved by having the players take a paycut at this point in time?

If I'm a player, I'm surely not buying it.

If I'm a player, I nonetheless know it's not getting better anywhere else on the planet, even after the paycut. Principle or not, one has to wonder if 'getting a wee bit shafted' still isn't the best route to go?

As for union politics, be they those in the States or those in i.e. Europe, I think people have a wide range of opinions on what unions are and have become since the day and age when they were first created and workers had little to no true rights (i.e. in the industrial revolution).

Obviously, there are plenty who feel unions in some industries have ultimately abused the powers that prior generations had faught so hard to gain in the first place. But I digress...

Quote:
They're obviously worried about their skills diminishing, and they're also addicted to competition. I find it ironic that fans love players who always compete and never take shifts off, but complain when these same players feel the need to find a place to compete at a high level during a lockout. The same character trait that produces Crosby's compete level requires him to find competition in the face of a lockout. It's not so hard to understand.
Whereas I do understand all of this thoroughly, I truly think there's too much hypocrisy involved in playing in another league for a small percentage of what you'd earn in the NHL, much less for free, risking serious injury in the process, because you and your union feel you should be getting, for example, 50% of the pie instead of 45% of the pie.

In addition, what are Kopitar and Berglund doing in Sweden's second division? What are Simmonds and Stewart doing in Germany's second division? These are ECHL style leagues where many players are earning little more than 1000-2000 Euros a month, so these NHLers certainly are not just simply keeping their skills fresh and on par with top competition.

They're arguably doing little more than a publicity stunt while maybe taking a job, but no less than ice time, from their 'hockey player brethren' who, again, could only dream of being where they are and have been.

If they want to keep themselves honed and their skill-level up, well then why not organize high-level practices and games with other locked-out NHLers whereever they're spending their time while being locked out? Their NHLPA could organize that, right? In towns like Montreal and Toronto, they could even get a license and start charging for entry - people in those towns would come in droves to see NHLers playing shinny.

Whatever, as a fan, I could generally care less about what happens to their 'competitive drive' during a lockout. In my book, that doesn't override the above-mentioned circumstances.

In any case, things are as they are and I'm ready for the year being lost. Heck, if I make it to Russia for the WJC, which could even be quite exciting knowing that boys like Strome and Reinhart could be in attendance there for Team Canada. There might even be another player or two from the Islanders system (say, Pedan?). Obviously a couple of other big-time talents will be on hand if the NHL season is lost.


Last edited by Chapin Landvogt: 09-27-2012 at 09:36 AM.
Chapin Landvogt is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 10:48 AM
  #332
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapin Landvogt View Post
If I'm a player, I nonetheless know it's not getting better anywhere else on the planet, even after the paycut. Principle or not, one has to wonder if 'getting a wee bit shafted' still isn't the best route to go?
Well, it certainly won't get any better, and it will get a lot worse if the players never exercise any leverage at all.

Quote:
Whereas I do understand all of this thoroughly, I truly think there's too much hypocrisy involved in playing in another league for a small percentage of what you'd earn in the NHL, much less for free, risking serious injury in the process, because you and your union feel you should be getting, for example, 50% of the pie instead of 45% of the pie.
I still don't understand this argument. Yeah, it would make sense to charge hypocrisy if the players were striking. But they're not - they're locked out. Playing in the NHL is not an option. You and other seem to be under mistaken belief that not accepting whatever arrangement the owners offer is tantamount to a strike. It's not. Labor negotiations are not unlike law - the side that is looking to fundamentally alter the status quo has to do the work to justify the change. That's sort of common sense. You and others are speaking almost as if the union is already busted, and the ordinary norms of negotiation are already completely discarded. I can assure you that is exactly the notion Fehr is concerned to combat.

If the argument is that the players disbanding and going off to odd places to play weakens the integrity of the union, especially those on the bottom end of the salary scale, this involves union DISCIPLINE, and that is a very valid critique. Indeed, you can bet that the sort of thing players are doing (div. 2 leagues, etc.) drives Fehr completely bonkers. It's hard to imagine this critique coming from people who think the players should cede to whatever the owners offer them. Instead, I would expect this critique from someone who argues in support of the players. But I seriously doubt that critics of the players would be somehow less loud if they stayed disciplined at home. They might take the players more seriously, and so the critiques would likely be harsher. They'd probably just call them a bunch of greedy, lazy, moochers.

I've seen a lot of this sort of populist anti-union anger in the last few years. It's as if cops, teachers, and (now) hockey players - not investment bankers and the governments who guarantee their solvency - who are responsible for the state of the economy.

People are completely dead to the way that monopolies manipulate labor *and* government to serve their ends, maximize their profits, and limit their risks. Obviously there are too few banks, and they've been involved in far too many things (insurance, investment banking), and that's a (unsolved) problem. But sports franchises, who also have their risks limited by the public, are a very small example of the same. They get additional revenue streams, access to prime real estate, tax concessions, and more for the privilege of maybe providing hockey entertainment if it financially suits them.

The fact that very few people on this board share this anger, I think, probably indicates that there are a lot of people on this board who work in banking, investment, insurance, etc. (Of course, it is Long Island.)

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 12:10 PM
  #333
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,880
vCash: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
And that's what, if the lockout drags on, will ultimately end it.

The 40% that made $1M or less (57% that made $2M or less) will freak out over the lost wages so that the elite 10% can protect their huge contracts and bank cash in Europe this year.
I'm pretty sure from all I've been reading about the contracts they're signing in Europe, that they really aren't making any money off these contracts and that almost all of the money goes to cover the insurance it costs to cover them playing in these other leagues.

I know its not the main point of argument but just wanted to point out that they really aren't just banking cash over there...

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 12:35 PM
  #334
Chapin Landvogt
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 12,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
If the argument is that the players disbanding and going off to odd places to play weakens the integrity of the union, especially those on the bottom end of the salary scale, this involves union DISCIPLINE, and that is a very valid critique. Indeed, you can bet that the sort of thing players are doing (div. 2 leagues, etc.) drives Fehr completely bonkers. It's hard to imagine this critique coming from people who think the players should cede to whatever the owners offer them. Instead, I would expect this critique from someone who argues in support of the players. But I seriously doubt that critics of the players would be somehow less loud if they stayed disciplined at home. They might take the players more seriously, and so the critiques would likely be harsher. They'd probably just call them a bunch of greedy, lazy, moochers.

I've seen a lot of this sort of populist anti-union anger in the last few years. It's as if cops, teachers, and (now) hockey players - not investment bankers and the governments who guarantee their solvency - who are responsible for the state of the economy.

People are completely dead to the way that monopolies manipulate labor *and* government to serve their ends, maximize their profits, and limit their risks. Obviously there are too few banks, and they've been involved in far too many things (insurance, investment banking), and that's a (unsolved) problem. But sports franchises, who also have their risks limited by the public, are a very small example of the same. They get additional revenue streams, access to prime real estate, tax concessions, and more for the privilege of maybe providing hockey entertainment if it financially suits them.

The fact that very few people on this board share this anger, I think, probably indicates that there are a lot of people on this board who work in banking, investment, insurance, etc. (Of course, it is Long Island.)

Cheers,

Dan-o
Again, good read.

I guess at the core of it all in this discussion, I just want the NHL up and running. I simply want to watch our Islanders again. That's probably the sentiment of a few others around here as well. If the players can keep strong and stick to their guns, which of course is their perrogative - and again, I feel full empathy for their vantage point this time around - I don't think the owners will ever fold. I just believe they have the much greater power to wait it out.

Thus, I don't see the NHL up and running until the players concede more than the owners, if not break entirely, regardless of what this means when it comes to 'Labor against The Machine'.

But heck, for all we know, maybe they've fundamentally come to an agreement that we'll hear about any day/week now. Then all of our discussing here will have been, well, for naught.

Chapin Landvogt is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 01:13 PM
  #335
25yearfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Big difference: A lost NHL season doesn't move $150M worth of sports bets on a blown call. That's where the real pressure on the NFL likely came from...
Absolutely correct. I wonder if the NHLPA is working to develop a larger degenerate gambler pool....

25yearfan is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 04:16 PM
  #336
Dutch Frost
Everything is Fine!!
 
Dutch Frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,584
vCash: 1130
When the biggest story is the NFL refs coming to an agreement and we dont even get a 10 second reference anywhere that clearly proves the NHL is DEAD and above all Gary Bettman should be fired!!

Dutch Frost is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 07:30 PM
  #337
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch Frost View Post
When the biggest story is the NFL refs coming to an agreement and we dont even get a 10 second reference anywhere that clearly proves the NHL is DEAD and above all Gary Bettman should be fired!!
You forget that Bettman works for the owners, who by all accounts are very happy with his performance. which is why they pay him so much.

JKP is offline  
Old
09-28-2012, 01:06 AM
  #338
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapin Landvogt View Post
Again, good read.

I guess at the core of it all in this discussion, I just want the NHL up and running. I simply want to watch our Islanders again. That's probably the sentiment of a few others around here as well. If the players can keep strong and stick to their guns, which of course is their perrogative - and again, I feel full empathy for their vantage point this time around - I don't think the owners will ever fold. I just believe they have the much greater power to wait it out.

Thus, I don't see the NHL up and running until the players concede more than the owners, if not break entirely, regardless of what this means when it comes to 'Labor against The Machine'.

But heck, for all we know, maybe they've fundamentally come to an agreement that we'll hear about any day/week now. Then all of our discussing here will have been, well, for naught.
Hopefully the talks over the weekend will make headway or else I fear the season will be lost.

I'm a union guy and believe strongly in the rights of employees to have a say in their working conditions and want to see them treated fairly in all aspects of working life, but I just cannot sympathize with pro-sports players who are already getting MORE than half of the revenues.

If this sports is to survive then teams must be financially viable and when the majority of NHL teams are losing money despite revenues being up then something is fundamentally wrong with the system and must be changed. In the end it doesn't really matter to me who wins as I too just want to watch hockey again.

IslesNorway is offline  
Old
09-28-2012, 09:08 AM
  #339
redbull
Expect more
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,612
vCash: 500
This is truly a tough one.

The owners know they can bully the players and that's what they're doing. The irony is, their enemy in this "system" (past CBAs) is not the players/union - it's themselves. The owners are the reason why their costs are out of hand, it's got little to do with % of revenues and everything to do with the supply/demand dynamics created by the CBA with player movements.

Limited free agency causes the demand/supply of difference makers to drive salaries way up. Those salaries are leveraged by agents/players to drive up their own salaries. The market is created NOT by a free market, but by a limited market where supply is constrained (by the CBA rules, in large part) - driving franchises into the red.

It's clear that half the franchises cannot be profitable under these rules.

It's also true that a handful of franchises (Leafs, Rangers) will make a fortune++ no matter what the rules are.

There is a solution that involves SOME revenue sharing and SOME drag on salaries.

I wonder how a tax system might work where a player who is signed to a contract above the league average is subjected to a tax that is redistributed to the other teams in some way.

So, league average annual salary is $1Million - for example.
If Tavares is signed for $6MM/year, then there's a "tax" on the $5MM difference (say 10%) which goes into a revenue share pool, which is then divided among the lower revenue teams in the NHL the following year.

Unless you have a system that allows the poorest teams to compete with the richest teams, with a narrower range of salary from the cap-to-floor, the league will never be a healthy one, with consistently profitable franchises.

redbull is online now  
Old
09-28-2012, 11:12 AM
  #340
original islander
Registered User
 
original islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
This is truly a tough one.

The owners know they can bully the players and that's what they're doing. The irony is, their enemy in this "system" (past CBAs) is not the players/union - it's themselves. The owners are the reason why their costs are out of hand, it's got little to do with % of revenues and everything to do with the supply/demand dynamics created by the CBA with player movements.

Limited free agency causes the demand/supply of difference makers to drive salaries way up. Those salaries are leveraged by agents/players to drive up their own salaries. The market is created NOT by a free market, but by a limited market where supply is constrained (by the CBA rules, in large part) - driving franchises into the red.

It's clear that half the franchises cannot be profitable under these rules.

It's also true that a handful of franchises (Leafs, Rangers) will make a fortune++ no matter what the rules are.

There is a solution that involves SOME revenue sharing and SOME drag on salaries.

I wonder how a tax system might work where a player who is signed to a contract above the league average is subjected to a tax that is redistributed to the other teams in some way.

So, league average annual salary is $1Million - for example.
If Tavares is signed for $6MM/year, then there's a "tax" on the $5MM difference (say 10%) which goes into a revenue share pool, which is then divided among the lower revenue teams in the NHL the following year.

Unless you have a system that allows the poorest teams to compete with the richest teams, with a narrower range of salary from the cap-to-floor, the league will never be a healthy one, with consistently profitable franchises.
Outstanding analysis. I hadn't considered that the limited number of free agents is driving up the cost. You're right since there are so few choices the rich teams overpay and the poor teams can't compete.

original islander is offline  
Old
09-28-2012, 12:42 PM
  #341
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
This is truly a tough one.

The owners know they can bully the players and that's what they're doing. The irony is, their enemy in this "system" (past CBAs) is not the players/union - it's themselves. The owners are the reason why their costs are out of hand, it's got little to do with % of revenues and everything to do with the supply/demand dynamics created by the CBA with player movements.

Limited free agency causes the demand/supply of difference makers to drive salaries way up. Those salaries are leveraged by agents/players to drive up their own salaries. The market is created NOT by a free market, but by a limited market where supply is constrained (by the CBA rules, in large part) - driving franchises into the red.

It's clear that half the franchises cannot be profitable under these rules.

It's also true that a handful of franchises (Leafs, Rangers) will make a fortune++ no matter what the rules are.

There is a solution that involves SOME revenue sharing and SOME drag on salaries.

I wonder how a tax system might work where a player who is signed to a contract above the league average is subjected to a tax that is redistributed to the other teams in some way.

So, league average annual salary is $1Million - for example.
If Tavares is signed for $6MM/year, then there's a "tax" on the $5MM difference (say 10%) which goes into a revenue share pool, which is then divided among the lower revenue teams in the NHL the following year.

Unless you have a system that allows the poorest teams to compete with the richest teams, with a narrower range of salary from the cap-to-floor, the league will never be a healthy one, with consistently profitable franchises.
Consider this one: if you remove the NYR and Toronto revenues and remove the Phoenix and NYI revenues from consideration, the average goes down, the cap stays lower and salaries are far more manageable (two great earners and two poor earners are removed from the bell curve, so the vast majority of teams are healthier in the past negotiations, correct?)

Maybe the last CBA could have worked better. Maybe something can be seen from both sides to keep everyone happy (save for the Leafs and Rangers).

And I'm fundamentally against the tax. The players earn it, the owners have to keep themselves in check. (call me a capitalist!) How do you allow the league to stay interesting when you punish success? I'll gladly watch poor teams suck if it means better hockey. And our team is poor and has sucked! Give Wang free money for not competing and what is his motivation to compete then?

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
09-28-2012, 08:08 PM
  #342
redbull
Expect more
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
Consider this one: if you remove the NYR and Toronto revenues and remove the Phoenix and NYI revenues from consideration, the average goes down, the cap stays lower and salaries are far more manageable (two great earners and two poor earners are removed from the bell curve, so the vast majority of teams are healthier in the past negotiations, correct?)

Maybe the last CBA could have worked better. Maybe something can be seen from both sides to keep everyone happy (save for the Leafs and Rangers).

And I'm fundamentally against the tax. The players earn it, the owners have to keep themselves in check. (call me a capitalist!) How do you allow the league to stay interesting when you punish success? I'll gladly watch poor teams suck if it means better hockey. And our team is poor and has sucked! Give Wang free money for not competing and what is his motivation to compete then?
Removing teams would achieve a healthier league, but nobody is interested in losing four markets and 80-100 NHL jobs for players...and I know that's not at all what you're suggesting. Really, the system needs to be scalable for more players and more franchises and all should be profitable. It's not like Starbucks that can just close stores that aren't profitable, move them to other markets. The complexities in running an NHL franchise (especially the arena) and the huge costs and upfront investment makes moving a team the absolute last resort (see: Phoenix and, thankfully, the NYI).

The league needs to be financially healthy, top to bottom, like the NFL.

This can only happen if the richer teams share SOME revenues with poorer teams, ideally not through market-specific things like gate receipts, ticket sales/boxes BUT probably with tv revenues, advertising, PPV etc. Unfortunately, these aren't as lucrative as they are, say, in the NFL, but the owners need to understand that healthy franchises benefits them as well. Nobody, Bettman included, should have to deal with so many teams losing money, so few potential owners for teams that are for sale -- unhealthy and that's what Bettman needs to fix in this CBA.

But it's not fair to take it all from the players. That's corporate bullying and something the players MUST stand together on.

I've been in a situation where I had to take a pay cut, because, according to my CEO, we were losing money and it was either that or mass layoffs. Yet, he somehow still managed to lease some fancy cars for the executive team and play golf four times a week and buy a boat and a condo in NYC and Florida --- okay, I'm ranting now.

The players have short careers, for the most part. Of the 700 jobs, there are a handful of players that will have 10-12 year careers but most will play 3-4 years, not make zillions, then retire. Losing a season can mean 25% of their entire earning potential for the vast majority of NHL players (who aren't stars). Losing 25% of ONE season is essentially a pay-cut. They're in a tough spot because they really can't win and the owners know it. So it's just a matter of time and the players and fans will get screwed every time.

But, the happy ending is that owners are greedy AND are super-competitive. So they'll always screw themselves by outbidding for players every chance they get. As long as the players can manage to maintain some form of player movement, free agency, it almost doesn't matter what cap or restriction the owners insist on. There will always be a way for agents to ensure they get rich on their commissions, and the players make more and more.

I don't like players making as much money as they do, despite what the owners might make. League revenues do not support payrolls that high, except for a few teams. I don't think it's healthy to have a few teams (like the Yankees, RedSox) bidding for the best players every year. The NHL needs some form of parity on spending and revenue sharing in order to survive. This means BOTH owners agreeing to share revenues and manage expenses. The only job of the system is to ensure that total player salaries don't render too many franchises unprofitable, not in the long term.

In terms of the cheap owners benefiting from revenue sharing. Well that's a concern for sure. Why reward failure? The worst teams are already getting the best players every year (thank you 2009!) via the draft, and I don't want Wangman getting a nice fat paycheck for futility...so maybe they will have to insist that any revenue share money must be spent over and above the cap floor, or some formula. They just need to get a bit creative, as long as they agree on the principle points, which they absolutely should agree on.

Posturing aside, this isn't a tough problem to resolve. Fehr and Bettman have egos and they love the attention.


Last edited by redbull: 09-28-2012 at 10:16 PM.
redbull is online now  
Old
09-29-2012, 12:25 AM
  #343
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,790
vCash: 500
Adam Proteau had some really interesting comments on how to solve the CBA issues
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...o-the-CBA.html

If they end up imposing a luxury tax then I'd much rather see them punished where it really hurts, in points deducted. If they had two points deducted for every million they exceed the cap then it would make them think twice.


Last edited by IslesNorway: 09-29-2012 at 12:32 AM.
IslesNorway is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 01:26 AM
  #344
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesNorway View Post
Adam Proteau had some really interesting comments on how to solve the CBA issues
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...o-the-CBA.html

If they end up imposing a luxury tax then I'd much rather see them punished where it really hurts, in points deducted. If they had two points deducted for every million they exceed the cap then it would make them think twice.
I've read in other articles,that the majority of owners want to keep as level a playing field as possible, want to deny big market teams a spending advantage.Hard to see them rolling over and allowing a luxury ax.

I don't care about limiting contracts to 7 yrs or banning NTC/NMC. They aren't worth the owners side fighting over imo, having to give up other issues to get them.

Since the last cba, AHL time now counts toward unrestricted free agency. So, I disagree that 7 yrs is a good number for both sides. I'm hoping this cba pushs that number to 10 yrs.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 12:11 PM
  #345
Tavaresfan91
Registered User
 
Tavaresfan91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,530
vCash: 500
how to i get my refund for the barclay center game now that its canceled? i bought them thorugh ticketmaster.

Tavaresfan91 is online now  
Old
09-29-2012, 01:04 PM
  #346
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavaresfan91 View Post
how to i get my refund for the barclay center game now that its canceled? i bought them thorugh ticketmaster.
Send your receipt to NHLPA

Seriously though, Ticketmaster or the Devils should refund you

IslesNorway is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 01:59 PM
  #347
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
Removing teams would achieve a healthier league, but nobody is interested in losing four markets and 80-100 NHL jobs for players...and I know that's not at all what you're suggesting. Really, the system needs to be scalable for more players and more franchises and all should be profitable. It's not like Starbucks that can just close stores that aren't profitable, move them to other markets. The complexities in running an NHL franchise (especially the arena) and the huge costs and upfront investment makes moving a team the absolute last resort (see: Phoenix and, thankfully, the NYI).

The league needs to be financially healthy, top to bottom, like the NFL.

This can only happen if the richer teams share SOME revenues with poorer teams, ideally not through market-specific things like gate receipts, ticket sales/boxes BUT probably with tv revenues, advertising, PPV etc. Unfortunately, these aren't as lucrative as they are, say, in the NFL, but the owners need to understand that healthy franchises benefits them as well. Nobody, Bettman included, should have to deal with so many teams losing money, so few potential owners for teams that are for sale -- unhealthy and that's what Bettman needs to fix in this CBA.

But it's not fair to take it all from the players. That's corporate bullying and something the players MUST stand together on.

I've been in a situation where I had to take a pay cut, because, according to my CEO, we were losing money and it was either that or mass layoffs. Yet, he somehow still managed to lease some fancy cars for the executive team and play golf four times a week and buy a boat and a condo in NYC and Florida --- okay, I'm ranting now.

The players have short careers, for the most part. Of the 700 jobs, there are a handful of players that will have 10-12 year careers but most will play 3-4 years, not make zillions, then retire. Losing a season can mean 25% of their entire earning potential for the vast majority of NHL players (who aren't stars). Losing 25% of ONE season is essentially a pay-cut. They're in a tough spot because they really can't win and the owners know it. So it's just a matter of time and the players and fans will get screwed every time.

But, the happy ending is that owners are greedy AND are super-competitive. So they'll always screw themselves by outbidding for players every chance they get. As long as the players can manage to maintain some form of player movement, free agency, it almost doesn't matter what cap or restriction the owners insist on. There will always be a way for agents to ensure they get rich on their commissions, and the players make more and more.

I don't like players making as much money as they do, despite what the owners might make. League revenues do not support payrolls that high, except for a few teams. I don't think it's healthy to have a few teams (like the Yankees, RedSox) bidding for the best players every year. The NHL needs some form of parity on spending and revenue sharing in order to survive. This means BOTH owners agreeing to share revenues and manage expenses. The only job of the system is to ensure that total player salaries don't render too many franchises unprofitable, not in the long term.

In terms of the cheap owners benefiting from revenue sharing. Well that's a concern for sure. Why reward failure? The worst teams are already getting the best players every year (thank you 2009!) via the draft, and I don't want Wangman getting a nice fat paycheck for futility...so maybe they will have to insist that any revenue share money must be spent over and above the cap floor, or some formula. They just need to get a bit creative, as long as they agree on the principle points, which they absolutely should agree on.

Posturing aside, this isn't a tough problem to resolve. Fehr and Bettman have egos and they love the attention.
And what works in this scenario is that IF they are forced to spend $5M in revenue sharing to a cap level $5M above the floor, they are in theory making the team more of a draw to improve their sales numbers and get them out of financial trouble.

But, like with Great Society programs like welfare, it's likely not gonna work. The teams have to get the right players and coaches and WIN to make more money, drawing more fan interest......and look how Wang spends his money and tell me it'll work?

But then I look at Phoenix and see them facing the SC Champ Kings in a great series after a few years of drek and think it may work.

Either way, the money is spent on the fans entertainment, whether well spent or not.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 02:21 PM
  #348
Riddick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,325
vCash: 500
you know what would make me 'ok' with this lockout(assuming it goes until novemberish)? Free center ice for the year. as it stands i'll probably not spend another dime on this team since i moved away...

Riddick is online now  
Old
09-29-2012, 02:33 PM
  #349
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riddick View Post
you know what would make me 'ok' with this lockout(assuming it goes until novemberish)? Free center ice for the year. as it stands i'll probably not spend another dime on this team since i moved away...
Yeah, they should make it free for this year.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 06:21 PM
  #350
Ziggy16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 999
vCash: 500
i was thinking that as well.. the nhl and nhlpa should chip in and give center ice free to those who want it for the season to say they are sorry for wasting our time .. what better publicity than free publicity...

Ziggy16 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 09:26 PM.

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.