HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

View Poll Results: Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
The owners 144 48.65%
The NHLPA 152 51.35%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-05-2012, 08:49 AM
  #51
JaymzB
Registered User
 
JaymzB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 2,605
vCash: 500
The players, because the current structure and offer from the owners will not solve any issues. Unless massive revenue sharing is involved, the owners offer of 47-49% of revenues will not help the small market teams in the long run. I can’t see any way that revenue growth will not mainly occur in the “Rich” markets, and because of that, at the end of this CBA we will be looking at the exact same lockout situation.

Right now, all the owners proposal does is put more money into the pockets of Rich owners.

JaymzB is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 08:52 AM
  #52
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,864
vCash: 500
I wanna support the players in the face of corporate America, but I can't believe how unwilling they are to even just split revenues down the middle, 50/50. A workforce demanding over half of a corporation's revenues in exchange for services rendered sounds off base and greedy to me. Also, I don't think they deserve some kind of premium for also being the "product", or whatever modern entertainment analogy the NHLPA is trying to fly with these days. I don't think even the most expensive cast in Hollywood ever walks away with over half of the box office revenues/merchandising/whatever from a movie (certainly not contractually guaranteed before filming even starts, lol), so where the hell are they going with that one anyway.

And it's hard to blame the league for trying to step in and put the brakes on player salaries (nothing they could do in this regard until the old CBA expired, anyway). The agents that players hire to negotiate are just as much to blame for the bulk of players who are getting paid more than they're "worth", and driving the "average" salary up through selective league-wide use of "comparables" in negotiations. Team A rewards loyal Player B with a generous contract (for example), and now Players C, D, E, F, etc league-wide "deserve" that or more because they're "better" - regardless of the situation/context. It's getting ridiculous.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:14 AM
  #53
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I wanna support the players in the face of corporate America, but I can't believe how unwilling they are to even just split revenues down the middle, 50/50. A workforce demanding over half of a corporation's revenues in exchange for services rendered sounds off base and greedy to me. Also, I don't think they deserve some kind of premium for also being the "product", or whatever modern entertainment analogy the NHLPA is trying to fly with these days. I don't think even the most expensive cast in Hollywood ever walks away with over half of the box office revenues/merchandising/whatever from a movie (certainly not contractually guaranteed before filming even starts, lol), so where the hell are they going with that one anyway.

And it's hard to blame the league for trying to step in and put the brakes on player salaries (nothing they could do in this regard until the old CBA expired, anyway). The agents that players hire to negotiate are just as much to blame for the bulk of players who are getting paid more than they're "worth", and driving the "average" salary up through selective league-wide use of "comparables" in negotiations. Team A rewards loyal Player B with a generous contract (for example), and now Players C, D, E, F, etc league-wide "deserve" that or more because they're "better" - regardless of the situation/context. It's getting ridiculous.
As much as Hollywood can make ridiculous money with just having a know name in one of their blockbusters, they can also make huge amount of money with unknowns. Which wouldn't be the case with ANY team in the NHL.

As for Agents driving the increased salaries, it's still the owners who pay out the contracts. No one is forcing them (NSH let Joel Ward go UFA) to give in. In reality, it's the owners who are increasing players salaries with their internal competition. The agents are just benefiting from this competition.

I agree that players are partially to blame for the greed, but at same time, i have hard time calling someone greedy when they are asked to reduce their income, especially for such a non essential industry as entertainment.
I mean, the consequences of their salaries and revenue share will be that weak teams are going to be unsustainable, which is ok with me, it's not comparable to austerity measures we see in essential industries, and i think the players know that, and so does the NHL, thus the NHL's insanely aggressive approach to this new CBA.

uiCk is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:25 AM
  #54
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
I support the players, with a caveat.

I think the players are, and will be, willing to move to a 50-50 revenue sharing split. However the owners want that split to occur next year, as opposed to phasing it in over a couple of years. Which means that everybody that has a valid contract as of now, including all those players who signed just this past summer, will not get paid the full value of their contracts. They'll have to take a paycut, in other words. I read somewhere that the owners handed out close to one billion worth of contracts this summer alone. To me it's bad faith negotiating to tell somebody that you are going to pay them a certain amount, and then less than three months later tell them that they are making too much and you're not going to honor their contract.

Which brings me to another point; the league, as a whole, is supposedly profitable. Yes, the profits are centered in a few teams, but still, as a whole it supposedly made more money than it lost. Which again, says to me that the players shouldn't have to take a pay cut. How would you like if it you were working in the Montreal branch of a company, and your boss came up to you and said the following;

"Johnny, I know the Montreal branch made huge sales last year, and we were able to make a $22 million profit in this branch alone, but the Phoenix office did not do so well (who knew they didn't need portable heaters down there??), and they lost $2 million. Sure, the company as a whole still made a profit, but we need everybody in the Montreal branch to take a 10-15% paycut beginning next year.

I know I wouldn't be too happy about it, and even less so once I found out that my company was STILL going to try to sell heaters in Phoenix, AND they weren't actually going to give any of that Montreal pay-cut money to the Phoenix branch. Instead it was going to be used to give the Montreal VP a nice, big fat raise.

Now the caveat; the players have to be willing to eventually come down to 50%. I don't know the math, but let's assume that at 54% next year everybody makes the money that their contract says they should make. So next year drop to 54%. Now the year after, drop to 52%, or whatever it is to ensure that everybody still gets their agreed-upon contracts, with whoever is up for a new contract forced to take a smaller deal. Then 51%, then 50%. Do it that way, and everybody's contracts are honored, and eventually the league gets down to the 50% they say they need to get down. The league isn't about to go under, it can survive 2-3 more years making less than 50%, especially knowing they will get there eventually. If the players are not willing to accept that, then I revoke my support of them. But right now they have it.


Last edited by JohnnyReb: 10-05-2012 at 09:34 AM.
JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:34 AM
  #55
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
As much as Hollywood can make ridiculous money with just having a know name in one of their blockbusters, they can also make huge amount of money with unknowns. Which wouldn't be the case with ANY team in the NHL.
Hollywood wouldn't make huge amounts of money unless the unknowns were talented, and(/or) people wanted to see them in droves. I don't see how the NHL would be much different if the unknowns came in and proved to be very talented and entertaining. Surely it can't be proven that one is actually "more probable" than the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
Now the caveat; the players have to be willing to eventually come down to 50%. I don't know the math, but let's assume that at 54% next year everybody makes the money that their contract says they should make. So next year drop to 54%. Now the year after, drop to 52%, or whatever it is to ensure that everybody still gets their agreed-upon contracts, with whoever is up for a new contract forced to take a smaller deal. Then 51%, then 50%. Do it that way, and everybody's contracts are honored, and eventually the league gets down to the 50% they say they need to get down. The league isn't about to go under, it can survive 2-3 more years making less than 50%, especially knowing they will get there eventually. If the players are not willing to accept that, then I revoke my support of them. But right now they have it.
You know what, I totally agree that this is, realistically, what would have to happen (or similar). I also agree that signed contracts should be honoured, so the league's hand is forced in that way (imo) for sure.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 10-05-2012 at 09:56 AM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:48 AM
  #56
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,763
vCash: 500
Owners.

The owners get 47% of total revenue but pay 100% of all league costs.

If they meet at 50-50, the players would drop 7%. That means that Crosby goes from 8.7 million to 8.1 and the league minimum would go from 550k to about 515k. I have alot of trouble feeling any sympathy at all for the players to be honest.

Someone should really give the players a math lesson too. They are willing to lose 100% of their salary just to make sure they dont lose 7% in salary.


I just wish one of these reporters had the stones to ask the real questions we all have. They all just gather and listen to both sides spew the same garbage over and over.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:53 AM
  #57
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
Owners.

The owners get 47% of total revenue but pay 100% of all league costs.

If they meet at 50-50, the players would drop 7%. That means that Crosby goes from 8.7 million to 8.1 and the league minimum would go from 550k to about 515k. I have alot of trouble feeling any sympathy at all for the players to be honest.

Someone should really give the players a math lesson too. They are willing to lose 100% of their salary just to make sure they dont lose 7% in salary.
One could make the same argument for Geoff Molson. He's willing to lose what? $20 million in profit, so he can save an extra 7% in salary costs? How many years will it take him to recoup the profits from his lost season?

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:59 AM
  #58
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
One could make the same argument for Geoff Molson. He's willing to lose what? $20 million in profit, so he can save an extra 7% in salary costs? How many years will it take him to recoup the profits from his lost season?
However, that lost profit is only for the duration of the strike. That 7% is for every year of the CBA. That's an important consideration, as losing $20 million to get the right deal done by next month might be worth saving 7% (=$4.5 million of cap this season - increasing toward the future) each of the next 5 years.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:01 AM
  #59
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
One could make the same argument for Geoff Molson. He's willing to lose what? $20 million in profit, so he can save an extra 7% in salary costs? How many years will it take him to recoup the profits from his lost season?
This whole thing isnt about the Habs, or Leafs, or the teams who make money. This is about the 10-12 teams who barely break even and the 5 who lose massive amounts of cash.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:02 AM
  #60
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
This whole thing isnt about the Habs, or Leafs, or the teams who make money. This is about the 10-12 teams who barely break even and the 5 who lose massive amounts of cash.
True dat.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:31 AM
  #61
Milhouse40
Registered User
 
Milhouse40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
100% for the Owners!

Why.....history!!
Players flushed a full season working against the implantation of the Salary Cap
Salary Cap was a good thing (even for them) in the end.

Some poeple talks about the stupid contract given by the owners.
Well, you might want to go back in time.

Cause last time around, the players accepted the salary cap in exchange of no limitation on contract. So who gave the ability to create these stupid contract in the first place: THE PLAYERS.

Owners used it......but that's a war out there, in every sports, there will always be betting war for the best players avalaible.....

Why do u think the owners wants to put limitations on contract (like the 5 years limit?)?
And why do you think the players don't want that?

And some believe that the players got the best idea to make the league better with their offer, while they're asking to keep the "no limitations on contract" which was the biggest problems in the league for the last 3-4 years.

Salary Cap (owners) helped the games in many many ways
No limitation on contract (players) almost destroys everything.

So right now, who's having a bad time.

Owners have to answer to all those companies that helped generated that 3.3 billions
hockey revenues. They gotta take care of the others employees still on the payroll (from the marketing departement to the security to the scoreboard technician).

On the other side....players are sipping coffee, writing on twitter, playing a little hockey here and there and trying to convince everybody that this time.....they are right (cause last time around, they were so wrong).

I'm not following them at all!!

The players are asking for no rollback.........
Last time, they cost the owners 2.2 billions in revenues and they cost the fans a full season fighting a salary cap which made the LNH a league where everybody stands a chance to win......and ended up with the biggest piece of the pie for it.

Milhouse40 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:35 AM
  #62
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,159
vCash: 827
I pick the NHLPA. The owners are *******s. Actually scratch that, Bettman is main evil.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:47 AM
  #63
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Hollywood wouldn't make huge amounts of money unless the unknowns were talented, and(/or) people wanted to see them in droves. I don't see how the NHL would be much different if the unknowns came in and proved to be very talented and entertaining. Surely it can't be proven that one is actually "more probable" than the other.
Dunno. Take Super 8 for example, movie by jj abrams. bunch of unknow actors, grossed in 5x the intital budget.
People go see movies for other reasons then just actors (special effects, marketing strategies, directors, studios, movie 'genre'). And what makes a movie profitable is not the talent level of actors. if no, 99% of blockbusters would not be profitable, because all the 'talent' is usually observed in foreign and independent cinema, theater, etc.

Most teams would fold in no time if they had replacment players come in. The importance of the "actors" in hockey is x100 more valuable to it's industry then the movie industry, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
This whole thing isnt about the Habs, or Leafs, or the teams who make money. This is about the 10-12 teams who barely break even and the 5 who lose massive amounts of cash.
Pretty much the only reason we are in a lock out. And it's not even about the teams that break even, since IMO can't expect to make profit with all sports franchises, but more about those 5 teams that are losing massivly, for YEARS, due to bad speculation of bettman and the owners that keep believing in his speculation of growing markets in desert and palm tree environments.

uiCk is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:47 AM
  #64
niftymove
Registered User
 
niftymove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 350
vCash: 500
The players.
I just can't choose the NHL....they could had negociation talks while keeping the season alive. This lock-out is simply brutal.

niftymove is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:53 AM
  #65
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by denidd View Post
The players.
I just can't choose the NHL....they could had negociation talks while keeping the season alive. This lock-out is simply brutal.
IMO, the threat of NHLPA going on strike prior to the PO's seems reasonable to me. And anyways, if true that NHL wanted to negotiate prior last season, i think these arguments cancel each other out.

uiCk is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:55 AM
  #66
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by denidd View Post
The players.
I just can't choose the NHL....they could had negociation talks while keeping the season alive. This lock-out is simply brutal.

And lose more money? Also if the season goes ahead as usual, what happens when or if the players drag their butts like they are now? or if they go on strike in April, at playoff time when its all owners profits at stake???

There is a reason the players want to play under the current deal and that reason is that they know they have the better of the deal. The owners are smart to do it this way.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:57 AM
  #67
Milhouse40
Registered User
 
Milhouse40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by denidd View Post
The players.
I just can't choose the NHL....they could had negociation talks while keeping the season alive. This lock-out is simply brutal.
And let the players the power to strike mid-season costing the owners the playoffs (like the 1994 baseball strike Fehr organise back then)?

Don't beleive everything Ferh and his parrot are saying......

Milhouse40 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:58 AM
  #68
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,948
vCash: 500
The players easily because they're actually trying to address what's wrong with the game- that the small market teams still can't afford to do business. Rolling back player salaries like they did during the last CBA will just bring us back here again next time. As a fan, I want the game fixed because otherwise this won't stop. Solving this problem is the key issue, whether the owners want to admit it or not. The owners are money hungry. So are the players, but they're showing they care more about the game. If the owners need more money to make revenue sharing more viable, then I ask the players to roll back some salary for the good of the game. Just asking the players to take a lower cut is stupid.

Ginu is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:01 AM
  #69
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
The players easily because they're actually trying to address what's wrong with the game- that the small market teams still can't afford to do business. Rolling back player salaries like they did during the last CBA will just bring us back here again next time. As a fan, I want the game fixed because otherwise this won't stop. Solving this problem is the key issue, whether the owners want to admit it or not. The owners are money hungry. So are the players, but they're showing they care more about the game.
how so?

They say they want to fix the problems but what they mean is they want to find a way for the league to be ok while still making 57% of revenues.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:06 AM
  #70
Ishmael
Registered User
 
Ishmael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
Owners.

The owners get 47% of total revenue but pay 100% of all league costs.
Not total revenue, 43% of hockey-related revenue. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I bet it's significant.

To me, it's pretty close to the banking collapse in the US - the rich made mistakes and handed the consquences onto the people; in the NHL, the owners made bad business decisions putting/keeping teams in bad markets, so they're trying to get players to cover their mistakes.

The players have the main point exactly right: revenue sharing is what is needed. Gradual reduction in player share to get it closer to 50% over time.

The greedy owners can't share, so they try and take from others. Uber-wealthy greed knows no limit or morals.

No idea how anyone could support the owners in this. I can see not supporting the players either, but I can't see actually supporting the owners.

Ishmael is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:07 AM
  #71
Milhouse40
Registered User
 
Milhouse40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
The players easily because they're actually trying to address what's wrong with the game- that the small market teams still can't afford to do business. Rolling back player salaries like they did during the last CBA will just bring us back here again next time. As a fan, I want the game fixed because otherwise this won't stop. Solving this problem is the key issue, whether the owners want to admit it or not. The owners are money hungry. So are the players, but they're showing they care more about the game.
Oh yeah are your sure??

Do you think the last 3-4 years of stupid contract is good for the games....giving 10-12 years contracts with a gigantic signing bonus for players is good for the games?

Leaving no chance for the small market to grab good players is good for the game?

And the players (who you defend on this) try to keep the status quo in this departement, they don't want to change aanything (cause that's what they asked in exchange of the salary cap) while the owners tries to stop this non-sense.

With the players offers:

Players don't loose anything
Big market don't make more money
Small market will get help IF and only IF the league made more revenues

If the league make less money than the previous years:

Payers don't loose anything
Big market loose profits
Small market dies.........

Milhouse40 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:09 AM
  #72
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,643
vCash: 50
Both sides are in it for themselves but at the end of the day, when the owners are happy the league is healthier. When the players are happy, we don't get any of the runoff.

They can all go **** themselves though.

Bill McNeal is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:10 AM
  #73
Ishmael
Registered User
 
Ishmael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
And lose more money? Also if the season goes ahead as usual, what happens when or if the players drag their butts like they are now? or if they go on strike in April, at playoff time when its all owners profits at stake???
I don't think the players would have went on strike before the playoffs. They would have no sympathy or support from the fans. That would be unbelievably bad from a PR POV.

Also, escrow should cause an auto rollback of their salaries, so they would lose money. League revenues would come in lower due to no playoff revenue, so all escrow moneis would go back to the owners.

Ishmael is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:12 AM
  #74
Milhouse40
Registered User
 
Milhouse40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
Not total revenue, 43% of hockey-related revenue. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I bet it's significant.

To me, it's pretty close to the banking collapse in the US - the rich made mistakes and handed the consquences onto the people; in the NHL, the owners made bad business decisions putting/keeping teams in bad markets, so they're trying to get players to cover their mistakes.

The players have the main point exactly right: revenue sharing is what is needed. Gradual reduction in player share to get it closer to 50% over time.

The greedy owners can't share, so they try and take from others. Uber-wealthy greed knows no limit or morals.

No idea how anyone could support the owners in this. I can see not supporting the players either, but I can't see actually supporting the owners.


When someone buys a team for $520 millions......should he make more money than the one who bought another team at $140 millions????

Higher is the risk
Better should be the reward

I.m not saying somekind of help is out of the question.....they are some revenues-sharing as we speak between the teams. NHLPA just don't anything to do with it.

Nerver forget.......according to the numbers in Forbes......Scott Gomez make more moneys than 21 teams last year....is that crazy enough for you!!!!!

Milhouse40 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:27 AM
  #75
Bad Natey
#feelthelove
 
Bad Natey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Habville
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,004
vCash: 500
At the end of the day, I hope they all lose money, regardless. Two lockouts in less than 10 years is very frustrating as a fan, especially when there will probably be another lockout in 5-6 years.

Bad Natey 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 01:37 PM.

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.