HFBoards

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

When will this lockout end? (all lockout talk here)

View Poll Results: When will the lockout end?
Sometime between Oct-nov 49 18.08%
Sometime between Dec-jan 90 33.21%
Season canceled 132 48.71%
Voters: 271. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2012, 06:25 PM
  #51
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue And Orange View Post
Really? Can you prove that. Because I recall the league making record profit last year. And the NHL being at an all-time high.
This is the part the players dont want to understand. Every time its brought up, they cover their ears and la la la it away.

Certain teams made record profits.

24 other teams lost money.

Unfortunately for the players, those 24 other teams have 24 votes.

AM is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 07:57 PM
  #52
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,486
vCash: 408
I voted for some time in December, but, I almost voted for season cancelled. It all comes down to when the players fold. I don't think the owners will move much. they might agree to an immediate rollback of only 3.5% this year and move towards 7% in subsequent years, reaching 50-50 in about 4 years. but, i believe the owners are demanding immediate rollbacks of some sort and there will not be NHL hockey until the players capitulate.

Up the Irons is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 09:04 PM
  #53
The Head Crusher
Retired
 
The Head Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,457
vCash: 383
Send a message via MSN to The Head Crusher
At this point I fear the season will be lost.

__________________
The Head Crusher is online now  
Old
10-02-2012, 09:50 PM
  #54
OilerNut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,959
vCash: 500
With the way the players are acting, probably multiple seasons.

OilerNut* is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 10:00 PM
  #55
Soli
Moderator
Supervision Required
 
Soli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,129
vCash: 500
Corey Potter happened to be on my flight out of Edmonton this morning. Wished him good luck in Vienna.

For what it's worth, he said in passing that he expected the lockout to last atleast another month and a half.

Soli is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 10:17 PM
  #56
Bryanbryoil
Moderator
 
Bryanbryoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 55,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OilerNut View Post
With the way the players are acting, probably multiple seasons.
At this point I have a hard time disagreeing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soli View Post
Corey Potter happened to be on my flight out of Edmonton this morning. Wished him good luck in Vienna.

For what it's worth, he said in passing that he expected the lockout to last atleast another month and a half.
After that all bets are off, and if the owners grow tired of the NHLPA's crap they might very well cancel the season which I doubt many NHLPA members are for.

__________________
Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated
Bryanbryoil is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 10:58 PM
  #57
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryanbryoil View Post
At this point I have a hard time disagreeing.



After that all bets are off, and if the owners grow tired of the NHLPA's crap they might very well cancel the season which I doubt many NHLPA members are for.
Well the thing I had not considered, but I think it was Mike Johnson who talked about it on That's Hockey - it's that the players don't see these upcoming 5-10 cancelled games as lost. He said (paraphrasing here) that the players feel that the season can just get extended a couple of weeks and a few games squeezed in here and there throughout the season - so from their perspective, they can still earn their entire contract this year.

So this comment about a month and a half makes a bit more sense now. Next week I believe will be their first missed paycheck, and even to the end of this month, that would only be between 7-10 games that would need to be re-scheduled, so I think THAT is what the players view as a crucial timeframe.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:20 PM
  #58
shai04
Registered User
 
shai04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: St. Albert
Country: Canada
Posts: 169
vCash: 500
With conflicting scheduling dates at the various NHL venues, they can't exactly re-schedule and move games from the start of the season to the end. It's completely unrealistic for Mike Johnson or the players to think that.

I really don't think the players understand what is about to happen to them. The NHL owners have other businesses to run and their money keeps pouring in. Players do not.

20-24 teams lose money ever year. Record REVENUE does not mean the same thing as profit. Last season also saw record EXPENDITURE. On the whole a few (6-8) teams make some money, the rest are big losers.

Those money losing teams hold a majority of votes, and thanks to Bettman's super majority clause, he only needs 8 votes to decline a contract proposal.

In the end we the fans lose a season, and the players will get taken to the wood shed again. They were offered a better contract before the lockout began in 2004 than they ended up settling for after the lost season in 2005.

I'd even suggest the NHL start negotiating with the players instead of the NHLPA. If you as an individual would like to return to work and get paid under the terms of our previous offer, we'd love to have you. Start dividing the players with the offer of paychecks. How many of the borderline guys, or near-retirement guys want to see another lost season of salaries so that the minority of players might see an increase in their top end salaries.


Sound clip below sums it up. Players have lost touch with reality.


http://soundcloud.com/mark-spector-show/nhl-players-public-service

shai04 is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:25 PM
  #59
Bryanbryoil
Moderator
 
Bryanbryoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 55,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoogaar23 View Post
Well the thing I had not considered, but I think it was Mike Johnson who talked about it on That's Hockey - it's that the players don't see these upcoming 5-10 cancelled games as lost. He said (paraphrasing here) that the players feel that the season can just get extended a couple of weeks and a few games squeezed in here and there throughout the season - so from their perspective, they can still earn their entire contract this year.

So this comment about a month and a half makes a bit more sense now. Next week I believe will be their first missed paycheck, and even to the end of this month, that would only be between 7-10 games that would need to be re-scheduled, so I think THAT is what the players view as a crucial timeframe.
Well then the players are likely in for a rude awakening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shai04 View Post
With conflicting scheduling dates at the various NHL venues, they can't exactly re-schedule and move games from the start of the season to the end. It's completely unrealistic for Mike Johnson or the players to think that.

I really don't think the players understand what is about to happen to them. The NHL owners have other businesses to run and their money keeps pouring in. Players do not.

20-24 teams lose money ever year. Record REVENUE does not mean the same thing as profit. Last season also saw record EXPENDITURE. On the whole a few (6-8) teams make some money, the rest are big losers.

Those money losing teams hold a majority of votes, and thanks to Bettman's super majority clause, he only needs 8 votes to decline a contract proposal.

In the end we the fans lose a season, and the players will get taken to the wood shed again. They were offered a better contract before the lockout began in 2004 than they ended up settling for after the lost season in 2005.

I'd even suggest the NHL start negotiating with the players instead of the NHLPA. If you as an individual would like to return to work and get paid under the terms of our previous offer, we'd love to have you. Start dividing the players with the offer of paychecks. How many of the borderline guys, or near-retirement guys want to see another lost season of salaries so that the minority of players might see an increase in their top end salaries.


Sound clip below sums it up. Players have lost touch with reality.


http://soundcloud.com/mark-spector-show/nhl-players-public-service
Solid post.

Bryanbryoil is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:28 PM
  #60
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shai04 View Post
With conflicting scheduling dates at the various NHL venues, they can't exactly re-schedule and move games from the start of the season to the end. It's completely unrealistic for Mike Johnson or the players to think that.
Oh I don't disagree. Don't misunderstand my post as support or endorsement of that line of thinking. I think they're out to lunch if they don't think they're going to feel the loss of the pre-season games, and like you said - it can get a little tricky to re-schedule games, especially for the teams that share arenas with NBA teams.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:29 PM
  #61
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryanbryoil View Post
Well then the players are likely in for a rude awakening.
Yup. Unless they want to play a full pre-season first, then maybe

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:30 PM
  #62
Bryanbryoil
Moderator
 
Bryanbryoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 55,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoogaar23 View Post
Oh I don't disagree. Don't misunderstand my post as support or endorsement of that line of thinking. I think they're out to lunch if they don't think they're going to feel the loss of the pre-season games, and like you said - it can get a little tricky to re-schedule games, especially for the teams that share arenas with NBA teams.
Exactly, scheduling for a 30 league team with other sports and events involved = a nightmare.

Bryanbryoil is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:30 PM
  #63
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shai04 View Post
20-24 teams lose money ever year. Record REVENUE does not mean the same thing as profit. Last season also saw record EXPENDITURE. On the whole a few (6-8) teams make some money, the rest are big losers.
Thanks for posting that. I keep seeing people using profit and revenue as synonyms like they are interchangeable.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:34 PM
  #64
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,855
vCash: 500
Surprising how many people here are mention multiseason lockout i just dont see it happening at all
The average nhl player salary is something like 2.5 million maybe a little less then that sure top end players like malkin well play and make decent money in russia and probably have money from past seasons but i actually think many nhler's will quickly start feeling the pains of a lockout players like ryan jones or ben eager or andy sutton and thats just edmonton, a lockout might not be so bad for younger guys hoping for a good deal for their futures but other low end players may not have much time left in this league and might be prepare to take a bit less (theo peckham)
Bettman was saying a while back that even a short lockout (month or two probably) would cost players more then ifmthey were to take the deal the owners offered, i think this lockout will end before the new year and despite how united themplayers seem now they will cave and take less maybe not so much less but something like 51-40% is what i see
I really hope im not so wrong about this i want to see a season i want to watch my oilers and i want to watch playoff hockey

402 is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:35 PM
  #65
Bryanbryoil
Moderator
 
Bryanbryoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 55,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoogaar23 View Post
Thanks for posting that. I keep seeing people using profit and revenue as synonyms like they are interchangeable.
If 6-8 teams make money and the rest break even or worse something is wrong. That said how could it go so wrong when the owners pretty well dictated the past CBA? Lowe's killing of the cheap 2nd contract alone couldn't have ruined the owners plan could it? IMO getting the Phoenix situation solved will help at least some.

Bryanbryoil is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:41 PM
  #66
Gret99zky
Worst Thread Ever
 
Gret99zky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gamma Quadrant
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,108
vCash: 12257
These players will change their tune when the wives and girlfriends start to see the money ain't coming in and the diamond and shoe collection gets put on hold.

Gret99zky is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:41 PM
  #67
TheBusDriver
Private Eyes
 
TheBusDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,189
vCash: 500
During December is my bet

TheBusDriver is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:58 PM
  #68
Section337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,367
vCash: 500
If they make it to December, they might as well stay out the entire year. Although it may be one way to guarantee meaningful Oiler hockey in January.

Section337 is offline  
Old
10-02-2012, 11:59 PM
  #69
shai04
Registered User
 
shai04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: St. Albert
Country: Canada
Posts: 169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryanbryoil View Post
If 6-8 teams make money and the rest break even or worse something is wrong. That said how could it go so wrong when the owners pretty well dictated the past CBA? Lowe's killing of the cheap 2nd contract alone couldn't have ruined the owners plan could it? IMO getting the Phoenix situation solved will help at least some.
The problem is the whole system of teams negotiating with professional represented and unionized players

In a competitive league with limited available talent, market forces will dictate that owners will have to pay more than any given player is worth in terms of on-ice results.

Player Agents, and the NHLPA coerce the players into maximizing their pay based on comparable contracts around the league. What this means is that any player willing to sign for less than a comparable level of salary, would be told to reconsider on the grounds that he is harming the NHLPA membership, etc. I scored 30 goals, other 30 goal scorers get 6M, I wont take anything less than 6M. (fail to mention that this imaginary player was a winger on a line with #99 and #66 and still only scored 30 goals... context of performance really really really matters)

Most player backers will argue that the owners have put themselves into this situation of escalating costs. The reality is that the players are the root of the problem.

If the owners put into place a system which would limit pay increases, by say agreeing that 2nd contracts could not exceed X years and Y dollars, or by allowing teams to negotiate amongst themselves for the services of a player, (ie: we want to pay him this much, if you don't offer him a contract we won't offer one to this other player... or we wont draft this guy we know you covet... etc) then problem solved right?

Wrong, the NHLPA and player agents would be filling COLLUSION charges within moments of any policy amongst owners to limit the "free market" activities of players.

IN effect, the players are using agents and the NHLPA to distort and manipulate the market place, while at the same time blaming the owners for the results and preventing any sensible measure that would control escalating salaries and ultimately improve the health of the game in the majority of markets.

shai04 is offline  
Old
10-03-2012, 12:10 AM
  #70
I am the Liquor
Fire Mact
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by shai04 View Post
The problem is the whole system of teams negotiating with professional represented and unionized players

In a competitive league with limited available talent, market forces will dictate that owners will have to pay more than any given player is worth in terms of on-ice results.

Player Agents, and the NHLPA coerce the players into maximizing their pay based on comparable contracts around the league. What this means is that any player willing to sign for less than a comparable level of salary, would be told to reconsider on the grounds that he is harming the NHLPA membership, etc. I scored 30 goals, other 30 goal scorers get 6M, I wont take anything less than 6M. (fail to mention that this imaginary player was a winger on a line with #99 and #66 and still only scored 30 goals... context of performance really really really matters)

Most player backers will argue that the owners have put themselves into this situation of escalating costs. The reality is that the players are the root of the problem.

If the owners put into place a system which would limit pay increases, by say agreeing that 2nd contracts could not exceed X years and Y dollars, or by allowing teams to negotiate amongst themselves for the services of a player, (ie: we want to pay him this much, if you don't offer him a contract we won't offer one to this other player... or we wont draft this guy we know you covet... etc) then problem solved right?

Wrong, the NHLPA and player agents would be filling COLLUSION charges within moments of any policy amongst owners to limit the "free market" activities of players.

IN effect, the players are using agents and the NHLPA to distort and manipulate the market place, while at the same time blaming the owners for the results and preventing any sensible measure that would control escalating salaries and ultimately improve the health of the game in the majority of markets.
To a degree what you are saying is true, but players cannot sign for more than what they are offered.

The owners are responsible for the salary escalation. Maybe not all of them directly. But it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the barrel.

If two or three teams offer the Bobby Holik's of the world 9mill, then like a pebble thrown in the pond, the waves spread out and soon guys are comparing themselves to Bobby Holik and want to know where their 9mill is.

The cap was implemented to help save the owners from themselves. Problem seems to be they had to entice the players with an unsustainable revenue percentage in order to get them to capitulate to the cap.

Now that the owners won that battle, they are setting their sights on adjusting the revenue %.

The players are just along for the ride. They can either accept what the owners are offering, or lose money until they accept what the owners are offering.

Or they could look for jobs at Safeway.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
10-03-2012, 12:14 AM
  #71
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
To a degree what you are saying is true, but players cannot sign for more than what they are offered.

The owners are responsible for the salary escalation. Maybe not all of them directly. But it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the barrel.

If two or three teams offer the Bobby Holik's of the world 9mill, then like a pebble thrown in the pond, the waves spread out and soon guys are comparing themselves to Bobby Holik and want to know where their 9mill is.

The cap was implemented to help save the owners from themselves. Problem seems to be they had to entice the players with an unsustainable revenue percentage in order to get them to capitulate to the cap.

Now that the owners won that battle, they are setting their sights on adjusting the revenue %.

The players are just along for the ride. They can either accept what the owners are offering, or lose money until they accept what the owners are offering.

Or they could look for jobs at Safeway.
And as you so clearly stated - the owners can't be trusted to deal amongst themselves when it comes to offering contracts and have created the massive gulf between those that have and those that give contracts that they can't afford.

Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-03-2012, 12:59 AM
  #72
taunting canadian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
This is the part the players dont want to understand. Every time its brought up, they cover their ears and la la la it away.

Certain teams made record profits.

24 other teams lost money.

Unfortunately for the players, those 24 other teams have 24 votes.
Actually, if 24 teams with 24 votes are losing money, that's probably good news for the players, who are arguing that the owners have the ability to fix the problem with increased revenue sharing. I'm sure the money-losing teams wouldn't mind increased revenue sharing.

Basically, it supports the idea that the root of any financial problem the NHL has is the disparity in revenue between teams, not the overall revenue/costs, if the league as a whole is profitable but so many teams can't manage. The league has the option of proposing revenue sharing, or simply reducing the cap floor, to solve this problem, if it's really as big a problem as they claim it is.

taunting canadian is offline  
Old
10-03-2012, 01:02 AM
  #73
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by taunting canadian View Post
Actually, if 24 teams with 24 votes are losing money, that's probably good news for the players, who are arguing that the owners have the ability to fix the problem with increased revenue sharing. I'm sure the money-losing teams wouldn't mind increased revenue sharing.

Basically, it supports the idea that the root of any financial problem the NHL has is the disparity in revenue between teams, not the overall revenue/costs, if the league as a whole is profitable but so many teams can't manage. The league has the option of proposing revenue sharing, or simply reducing the cap floor, to solve this problem, if it's really as big a problem as they claim it is.
There is one other option - contraction...not sure the NHLPA wants this to be discussed. (hello Phoenix)

Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-03-2012, 01:18 AM
  #74
I am the Liquor
Fire Mact
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by taunting canadian View Post
Actually, if 24 teams with 24 votes are losing money, that's probably good news for the players, who are arguing that the owners have the ability to fix the problem with increased revenue sharing. I'm sure the money-losing teams wouldn't mind increased revenue sharing.

Basically, it supports the idea that the root of any financial problem the NHL has is the disparity in revenue between teams, not the overall revenue/costs, if the league as a whole is profitable but so many teams can't manage. The league has the option of proposing revenue sharing, or simply reducing the cap floor, to solve this problem, if it's really as big a problem as they claim it is.
Or they could de-link the cap from revenues.

Offer them a cap of 30million per team, no cap floor. Maximum salary of 3mill per year/player.

Dont like it, move your wife and kids to Russia and take your chances.

Or go work at Safeway.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
10-03-2012, 01:21 AM
  #75
Wheathead
Formally a McRib
 
Wheathead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,144
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Wheathead
I have great difficulties seeing the 2012/2013 season being played. They're too far apart right now and they're drifting further apart with every stupid argument they have. Fehr and the union won't crack like Goodenow did in 04/05. Bettman, Daly, and Jeremy Jacobs (the tightwad owner that is in charge of the BoG) aren't going to crack either.

If you think this is ugly now, the ugliest is yet to come, boys and girls.

Take a seat, grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.

Wheathead 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 01:47 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.