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, 12:30 PM
  #76
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkeyeCB View Post
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.
New league! please, prutty please!

uiCk is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 12:32 PM
  #77
One Man Rock Band
T-Ross!!
 
One Man Rock Band's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Habville
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,062
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.
If a team loses money for 3-5 years straight, they should be moved. Simple as that.

If we had 10-12 Canadian NHL teams, the league and everyone involved would be richer.

One Man Rock Band is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:00 PM
  #78
Aurel Joliat
Registered User
 
Aurel Joliat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,609
vCash: 500
The NHLPA

Even without a deal, they are not obligated to be in lock-out. They can play but the NHL want a deal...

Aurel Joliat is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:14 PM
  #79
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,135
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.
1. Explain to me what Metallica playing the Arena in Columbus has anything to do with the hockey team losing money.

2. You really think revenue sharing is fair? Explain that to Goeff Molson or Rogers who own the 2 richest teams in the league. Who also paid 10 times as much for their teams as the owner of Columbus did. You think its fair now to say to Molson, "I know you paid 10 times more for your team than I did for mine but too bad, please share your revenues"

Oh and the players will not accept any form of reduction of salary or % of revenues that currently go to them. Thats why there is a lockout.

3. Here is an example of what players salary would be if they accepted a 7% reduction. Crosby goes from 8.7 million to 8.1 and the league minimum would go from 550k to about 515k.

you still feel bad for the players who get 57% of revenues and pay 0% of the costs. The players who are the only ones who have guaranteed salary? And accept no risks what-so-ever?

I feel 0% bad for them.

Now that being said I do not exactly feel bad for the owners either. Im just saying that 50-50 is fair for both sides.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:21 PM
  #80
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
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.

im pretty sure the escrow rules in place now only apply to regular season revenues.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:23 PM
  #81
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
1. Explain to me what Metallica playing the Arena in Columbus has anything to do with the hockey team losing money.

2. You really think revenue sharing is fair? Explain that to Goeff Molson or Rogers who own the 2 richest teams in the league. Who also paid 10 times as much for their teams as the owner of Columbus did. You think its fair now to say to Molson, "I know you paid 10 times more for your team than I did for mine but too bad, please share your revenues"

Oh and the players will not accept any form of reduction of salary or % of revenues that currently go to them. Thats why there is a lockout.

3. Here is an example of what players salary would be if they accepted a 7% reduction. Crosby goes from 8.7 million to 8.1 and the league minimum would go from 550k to about 515k.

you still feel bad for the players who get 57% of revenues and pay 0% of the costs. The players who are the only ones who have guaranteed salary? And accept no risks what-so-ever?

I feel 0% bad for them.

Now that being said I do not exactly feel bad for the owners either. Im just saying that 50-50 is fair for both sides.
That's difference between players and owners. The players sign contracts to NOT have to take any risk. The owners are businessmen, and by definition make money of risk.

if i work for company x, and sign a contract guaranteeing me x pay and x% revenues, you think i will bow down and take less then my contract states, because company x took bad risk ? where their only short term solution is to slash costs? The company made the contract, their risk, and they have to honor it.

uiCk is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:25 PM
  #82
Dysentery
Ottawa Senators
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,863
vCash: 500
I thought most on here would side with the owners...I guess I was wrong.

Dysentery is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:32 PM
  #83
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
That's difference between players and owners. The players sign contracts to NOT have to take any risk. The owners are businessmen, and by definition make money of risk.

if i work for company x, and sign a contract guaranteeing me x pay and x% revenues, you think i will bow down and take less then my contract states, because company x took bad risk ? where their only short term solution is to slash costs? The company made the contract, their risk, and they have to honor it.
Fair point, but for taking such a risk, there should be a fair reward for the business doing well. For example, 5-6 teams would be happy just to break even at the end of the season. They are not even asking for a huge profit, just to break even would be a miracle and save some teams.

I know that the owners agreed to the deal in place but what no one here is thinking of is how much the cost of running a league have gone up in the past 7 years. Do you know how much is costs to charter 30 planes and have jet fuel for the whole season. do you know how much 4 star hotel rooms are per night? they all use 300$ hockey sticks and I wonder how many they go through per season.

I fail to see any argument in this thread about why 50-50 is not fair to both sides.

The main difference to me is the players want to keep their 57% and the teams want to have enough money to stay in business.


Last edited by IceDaddy: 10-05-2012 at 01:40 PM.
IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:37 PM
  #84
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital O TEETEE 613 View Post
I thought most on here would side with the owners...I guess I was wrong.
Generally, I am able to see the owner side of things in business, but not here. The owners got the salary cap system they wanted in 2005, and today they are just being pigs.

BaseballCoach is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:43 PM
  #85
Mrpuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East Coast
Country: United States
Posts: 373
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.
This is well said and how I feel. Why do the players deserve more then a 50/50 split? I don't believe the NFL or the NBA even has what the NHLPA currently has.

Mrpuck is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:46 PM
  #86
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrpuck View Post
This is well said and how I feel. Why do the players deserve more then a 50/50 split? I don't believe the NFL or the NBA even has what the NHLPA currently has.
nope, the other 3 major sports are close to 50-50 I believe..

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:20 PM
  #87
dcal64
Registered User
 
dcal64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
Generally, I am able to see the owner side of things in business, but not here. The owners got the salary cap system they wanted in 2005, and today they are just being pigs.
I am sure the Habs and Leafs are ok with the current system, they make enough money.

It's the other teams that are losing money that are not happy.

Yes the system was fair when they signed it, but things happen, like jet fuel prices going through the roof, the US economy crashing. The system is no longer fair for the owners, they want the players to share some of their pain, but the players refuse, hope the strike lasts a long time, so the players lose as much money as some of the smaller teams are.

dcal64 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 03:11 PM
  #88
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebinne4pres View Post
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......
Both sides would have to agree to play out the season either will a 1 year extension of the present CBA in place or implement the new agreement when it's signed. I doubt the players would have any trouble agreeing to not walk out mid-season.

Frozenice is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 03:54 PM
  #89
Ryan O'Byrne
Registered User
 
Ryan O'Byrne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
Both sides would have to agree to play out the season either will a 1 year extension of the present CBA in place or implement the new agreement when it's signed. I doubt the players would have any trouble agreeing to not walk out mid-season.
Well some owners don't want to lose even more money then they are now by playing the season , and without a renewal of the expired cba i doubt Fehr would give up the huge leverage that a stike to cancel the playoff's would be. And the players and owners cant play and work out a deal along the way otherwise even with a no strike clause signed as there are players needing to be signed to play this year ,and without a cba deal in place how can gms know what they can do and cant do relating to contracts .So to me its a no go on all of those ideas

Ryan O'Byrne is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 04:22 PM
  #90
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrpuck View Post
This is well said and how I feel. Why do the players deserve more then a 50/50 split? I don't believe the NFL or the NBA even has what the NHLPA currently has.
I remember when Mathieu Darche was on "Le Match" he did talked about why the players didn't want a 50/50 split. Something about the number of players in the NHL and how many games they had to play compared to NBA and NFL.

EDIT: Actually, I think he meant the players are ready to go for 50/50 but just not immediately. A progressive decrease then reach 50/50 after 4-5 years.

EDIT2: Here's the interview with Darche on "Le Match". He will tell the difference why its not the same thing in the NBA(only have 12 players to pay) and NFL(way higher revenues).

http://tvasports.ca/video/recherche/.../1861420393001


Last edited by Rosso Scuderia: 10-05-2012 at 04:32 PM.
Rosso Scuderia is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 05:38 PM
  #91
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
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.
Bam. This, exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
im pretty sure the escrow rules in place now only apply to regular season revenues.
I'm pretty sure the opposite is true, that playoff revenue is considered part of HRR. If it is not, that should be another huge issue.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 05:44 PM
  #92
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
I remember when Mathieu Darche was on "Le Match" he did talked about why the players didn't want a 50/50 split. Something about the number of players in the NHL and how many games they had to play compared to NBA and NFL.

EDIT: Actually, I think he meant the players are ready to go for 50/50 but just not immediately. A progressive decrease then reach 50/50 after 4-5 years.

EDIT2: Here's the interview with Darche on "Le Match". He will tell the difference why its not the same thing in the NBA(only have 12 players to pay) and NFL(way higher revenues).

http://tvasports.ca/video/recherche/.../1861420393001
That's an interesting take on the issue, but I disagree with Darche. I think he is trying to apply morality to what are really just business negotiations. Each league has just pushed as hard as they can. It's more about leverage and will than right and wrong.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:05 PM
  #93
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,462
vCash: 500
Let's see... 30 already loaded owners that have hockey teams as a pastime while making billions with their primary interests or 740 players that I'm actually paying to watch and follow? I side with the players, thank you.

Fozz is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:12 PM
  #94
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
Dunno. Take Super 8 for example, movie by jj abrams. bunch of unknow actors, grossed in 5x the intital budget.
5X is a relative amount (if I spend $10 dollars making a film with some friends, and sell 10 DVDs for $5/each... success?!), and you're almost implying that the actors aren't talented because they're unknown. After the first wave of people went to see it, why did the rest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
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.
You're right. Talent is only one aspect of entertainment. And I doubt there's any way to sufficiently argue the importance of one vs the other to their respective fields. Does Hollywood have even half of its appeal without connection to names like Eastwood, Cruise, Jolie, Diaz, DiCaprio, etc? If replacement players played for 1/10th of the salaries, and were at least half as entertaining, I'm sure there's a business model that can be built around that which makes more than enough money - and probably molests the fan's wallet a lot less... for a while anyway. If it was the highest level of "pro" hockey that anyone could watch/attend in North America (even by "default"), it's hardly starting on a weak foot. Production value also plays a part in Hollywood's ability to draw viewers, but I'd argue that right there is yet another similarity in the analogy. Look what internet production has done for the spread of hockey.

I'm not suggesting or even lobbying for replacement players, but rather just continuing the argument, lol.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:14 PM
  #95
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcoasthabsfan View Post
I support neither side because in the end they only hurt the fans....poor rich players and boo hoo rich owners....
FYI the fans are the ones winning from this lockout.

Every dollar not currently going to the players and owners is a dollar staying in the fans' pockets.

Players and owners are losing billions of dollars. They're hurting.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:19 PM
  #96
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,794
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.
I'm led to believe that the waiting right now is actually for the players to come back with their counter-proposal, so...

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:22 PM
  #97
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
The owners get 47% of total revenue but pay 100% of all league costs.
No, fans and taxpayers pay 100% of league costs.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:24 PM
  #98
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Looking at how many have voted for the owners, it is painfully obvious to see that hockey is sick... Gimme the pre-Bettman NHL, without the BS.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:31 PM
  #99
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
I remember when Mathieu Darche was on "Le Match" he did talked about why the players didn't want a 50/50 split. Something about the number of players in the NHL and how many games they had to play compared to NBA and NFL.

EDIT: Actually, I think he meant the players are ready to go for 50/50 but just not immediately. A progressive decrease then reach 50/50 after 4-5 years.

EDIT2: Here's the interview with Darche on "Le Match". He will tell the difference why its not the same thing in the NBA(only have 12 players to pay) and NFL(way higher revenues).

http://tvasports.ca/video/recherche/.../1861420393001
If the owners get 50/50, they'll make another lockout in six years demanding 60/40.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:32 PM
  #100
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
No, fans and taxpayers pay 100% of league costs.
Maybe if you join links from indirect channel to indirect channel, but this is categorically false since neither directly accounts for the hundreds of millions of revenue resulting from TV/media deals. Yes, we watch, and yes we pay for cable, but there are too many steps and independent factors involved in between to make such a direction connection/statement.

Ohashi_Jouzu 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 12:42 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.