HFBoards

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

The Lockout Thread UPD 1/6 - framework of new CBA agreed to

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-04-2012, 04:15 PM
  #1
Tkachuk4MVP
23 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,473
vCash: 500
The Lockout Thread UPD 1/6 - framework of new CBA agreed to

Mods move this if need be, but I thought it would be nice to have an all-purpose lockout thread.


So I'll start off by asking, does anyone have faith that this won't wipe out the entire season?

Tkachuk4MVP is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 04:33 PM
  #2
gonegonegone*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Diego
Country: United States
Posts: 3,338
vCash: 500
this season is toast imo. i cannot believe we have had 2 lockouts in a decade. that is remarkable. nhl deserves to flame out and die.

luckily we have the giants (YAY!) and the nineres to entertain us until feb! after which we can see which of the three legitimate nba teams wins the championship i guess. shrug.

gonegonegone* is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 04:51 PM
  #3
Tkachuk4MVP
23 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by endy View Post
this season is toast imo. i cannot believe we have had 2 lockouts in a decade. that is remarkable. nhl deserves to flame out and die.

luckily we have the giants (YAY!) and the nineres to entertain us until feb! after which we can see which of the three legitimate nba teams wins the championship i guess. shrug.


For all of the crap that the PA is getting for not offering a counterproposal, there's something to be said for the hardline stance that they are taking. If the owners really have no qualms about locking the league out twice in this short of a span (and in the midst of record-breaking revenues), then there has to be legitimate concern that they will do the exact same thing when the next CBA expires.

Tkachuk4MVP is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 05:40 PM
  #4
VP and GM
Bill Says Hey Baby!
 
VP and GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at home
Country: United States
Posts: 5,508
vCash: 500
I'm trying to be positive that we'll see at lest 40 games of a regular season. We'll see,
news / speculation today that the NHL may cancel larger chunks of games past 14 day segments in the future if talks are not "warm" :-(

VP and GM is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 07:26 PM
  #5
slocal
Global Moderator
It stinks!
 
slocal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Osos, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
Mods move this if need be, but I thought it would be nice to have an all-purpose lockout thread.


So I'll start off by asking, does anyone have faith that this won't wipe out the entire season?
Lockout discussions on team boards are fine.


As for the topic, I'm still optimistic about this not cancelling out our season. Then again, I'm always hoping for a happy ending. I would really like for the NHL sponsors to get angry and threaten the NHL, but I've yet to hear of that happening (the opposite from what I've read).

__________________

"there's nothing good about dubstep." - The Nemesis
slocal is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 07:38 PM
  #6
gonegonegone*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Diego
Country: United States
Posts: 3,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
For all of the crap that the PA is getting for not offering a counterproposal, there's something to be said for the hardline stance that they are taking. If the owners really have no qualms about locking the league out twice in this short of a span (and in the midst of record-breaking revenues), then there has to be legitimate concern that they will do the exact same thing when the next CBA expires.
the nhl is a really messed up league finance wise, you have 6 or so teams making a ton of money and everyone else losing it. if u go by share of overall revenue, then 24 teams are going to be losing money every season just to hit the salary floor while 6 are making a killing. tv rights are a total joke so the league can't prop up fail teams like the nfl can. i honestly don't know if the nhl is even really viable to be honest long term. i can think of no solution short of massive redistribution, but can't see the nucks and ml agreeing to anything on the scale that is needed.

gonegonegone* is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 12:07 AM
  #7
TheDanceOfMaternity
Registered User
 
TheDanceOfMaternity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,369
vCash: 500
I'm strangely apathetic. Maybe it's because a) I am not dependent on my parents anymore and thus way to broke to go to almost any game and b) the sharks are probably done as true contenders.

I tend to lean towards the owners when most of them are losing money, but i'm not a complete supporter when they give out ginormous contracts anyway. Should 5.5 for Matt Carle be the standard for a decent at best 2nd paring defenseman?

I can't really fault Bettman though because he is dealing with a PA boss with no intention of even negotiating. The season is probably done and it's straight up embarrassing. That's another thing. In 2004 I was a big cheerleader for the NHL, but since then, despite record setting revenues, it hasn't brought itself back to respectability, and we are seeing why right now.

TheDanceOfMaternity is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 12:25 AM
  #8
Spacemania
Recovering Spammer
 
Spacemania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Signpost Forest, YT
Country: United Nations
Posts: 28,309
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Spacemania
I give it a month honestly... if there is nothing by then I get the impression that enough people are content to let another season go by to get their way. Even if the season does happen, how many of the players can/will come back?

__________________

When you do things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.
Spacemania is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:35 AM
  #9
Mafoofoo
:facepalm:
 
Mafoofoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 13,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemania View Post
I give it a month honestly... if there is nothing by then I get the impression that enough people are content to let another season go by to get their way. Even if the season does happen, how many of the players can/will come back?
I think all these lockout contracts have clauses saying they can come back right away if the lockout ends.

Mafoofoo is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:32 AM
  #10
SJSharksfan39
Registered User
 
SJSharksfan39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,557
vCash: 338
There's a part of me that hopes this season does get wiped out. Maybe then they can work (Using that term lightly) on a long term solution so we don't have this issue every 6 years. I'll come back when there is Hockey, but right now, I don't care.

I think another reason why I am not that focused on hockey is because of the same reason as 2010, only this year it's a lot more more. In 2010, I really couldn't get into Hockey until at least after November 1st, because of the Giants in the world series. This year it's a lot more with the Giants and A's both in the playoffs, and the 49ers being one of the top teams in the NFL. It's hard to get excited about a sport that feels like it can't sustain itself when there are other sports and big events happening.

SJSharksfan39 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 05:49 AM
  #11
Inub0i
For the Alliance!
 
Inub0i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UC Irvine, Irvine
Country: United States
Posts: 8,649
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Inub0i Send a message via MSN to Inub0i Send a message via Skype™ to Inub0i
I'm hoping for a season, even if it starts late (November).

Inub0i is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:10 AM
  #12
Bizz06
#FireDougWilson
 
Bizz06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,055
vCash: 50
the NHL ownership group sickens me, many of them wouldnt be losing money if they learned to manage it properly, its not the players fault at all. 2 lockouts in 8 years clearly says that money is more important than the sport itself to them.

Bizz06 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:03 AM
  #13
LeeIFBB
Teflon Doug
 
LeeIFBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tanning Bed
Posts: 1,537
vCash: 500
Seems like there should be a Sharks' players abroad thread.

LeeIFBB is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:43 AM
  #14
Trojan35
Registered User
 
Trojan35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
For all of the crap that the PA is getting for not offering a counterproposal, there's something to be said for the hardline stance that they are taking. If the owners really have no qualms about locking the league out twice in this short of a span (and in the midst of record-breaking revenues), then there has to be legitimate concern that they will do the exact same thing when the next CBA expires.
The players are right to not make another offer. Here's been my interpretation of the negotiations:

Players are under contract at $53
League says: $20
Players say: How about $50?
League says: $20
Players say: How about $49?
League says: $20

If you were negotiating, would you keep making offers if you're the players? Owners haven't been negotiating in good faith, so I don't expect the players to make another offer anytime soon.

Trojan35 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:44 AM
  #15
Trojan35
Registered User
 
Trojan35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slocal View Post
Then again, I'm always hoping for a happy ending.
This is a winner.

Trojan35 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 12:16 PM
  #16
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizz06 View Post
the NHL ownership group sickens me, many of them wouldnt be losing money if they learned to manage it properly, its not the players fault at all. 2 lockouts in 8 years clearly says that money is more important than the sport itself to them.
How do the poor teams manage the money better in a cap system where the lower end of the cap is nearing 60 million?

Teams can manage there money better as is right now in only 1 or 2 ways. 1 is to make the entire team share the same room on the road, bus instead of fly. (2 biggest costs that has gone up, that isnt related to players salary's.

Teams can try not field a competitive team and just always run at the cap floor. But i am sure that is helping the islanders bottom line right?

The nhl is to much of a gate driven league to have, players taking up so much of the revenues. If the players want to stay at 57% then change the money they receive that from, instead of revenue it comes from profits (1 thing the players do not know the difference between).

Barrie22 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:56 PM
  #17
LeeIFBB
Teflon Doug
 
LeeIFBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tanning Bed
Posts: 1,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan35 View Post
The players are right to not make another offer. Here's been my interpretation of the negotiations:

Players are under contract at $53
League says: $20
Players say: How about $50?
League says: $20
Players say: How about $49?
League says: $20

If you were negotiating, would you keep making offers if you're the players? Owners haven't been negotiating in good faith, so I don't expect the players to make another offer anytime soon.
Haven't the negotiations gone almost the exact opposite of this except that both sides opened with scorched earth offers?

LeeIFBB is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:01 PM
  #18
Franchise13
Registered User
 
Franchise13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
Lots of people now popping up with the argument that Bettman shouldn't be blamed for what the owners want him to do/say. Which is true enough I suppose, but Bettman did negotiate/field the TV offers and got a pretty crappy deal. One of the major reasons why NHL is what it is, that TV contract sucks. Despite it's laundry list of faults, losing ESPN sucks. Having your games and playoff games on VS (...or NBC Network, whatever it's called now) sucks. NHL let it's pride get ahead of itself there, should've just given in to ESPN. Would've been more money in the long run, iirc, the contract offer was pretty fair also.

Now if the lockout passes 1/13/13, NBC can terminate the contract iirc.

This might actually work in the best interest of the NHL. BOG can use it as a means to remove Bettman (loss of contract) and NHL's new commish can negotiate a real contract. Lots of things would have to happen for this to take place, but it's certainly possible.

As I've said all along: Simply put, NFL prints money and the players took a cut. NBA is worth more than the NHL and the players took a cut. What makes NHLPA think they will be different?

Don Fehr is a great negotiator. I wouldn't want him negotiating my release if I ever got taken hostage. He'd "win" sure, but I'll be missing an arm and a leg by the time he does.


Last edited by Franchise13: 10-05-2012 at 02:07 PM.
Franchise13 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:46 PM
  #19
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franchise13 View Post
Lots of people now popping up with the argument that Bettman shouldn't be blamed for what the owners want him to do/say. Which is true enough I suppose, but Bettman did negotiate/field the TV offers and got a pretty crappy deal. One of the major reasons why NHL is what it is, that TV contract sucks. Despite it's laundry list of faults, losing ESPN sucks. Having your games and playoff games on VS (...or NBC Network, whatever it's called now) sucks. NHL let it's pride get ahead of itself there, should've just given in to ESPN. Would've been more money in the long run, iirc, the contract offer was pretty fair also.

Now if the lockout passes 1/13/13, NBC can terminate the contract iirc.

This might actually work in the best interest of the NHL. BOG can use it as a means to remove Bettman (loss of contract) and NHL's new commish can negotiate a real contract. Lots of things would have to happen for this to take place, but it's certainly possible.

As I've said all along: Simply put, NFL prints money and the players took a cut. NBA is worth more than the NHL and the players took a cut. What makes NHLPA think they will be different?

Don Fehr is a great negotiator. I wouldn't want him negotiating my release if I ever got taken hostage. He'd "win" sure, but I'll be missing an arm and a leg by the time he does.
I blame both sides equally, but I don't like inaccuracies.

Not close. The highest US total on ESPN was $120mil IIRC. NBC is $200mil with much more coverage. And ESPN could drop games or cut into them and did so. In the last decade, the total national TV package, Canada and US, has gone from $120-$150mil to ~$350mil. ESPN was going to cut their fee to the NHL in their last contract to <$60mil/year after the last lockout.

As a percentage of league revs, NHL players take home more than the other big 3 sports by a mile.

Double occupancy on the road in 5 star hotels is written into the CBA. Single occupancy after 10years/600games.

The league has a revenue disparity problem because it is primarily a gate driven league and has less rev sharing than the other 3 major sports. Solve that issue and work stoppages don't have to be on the table. They need to have a pool of about $350mil to at least be comparable to the least of the other 3 major sports in sharing. Neither side has even approached that number. With the salary floor at $54mil, we know that it takes ~$35mil in non-player payroll items to run a team. That is $89mil total with a cap floor payroll. Look down the Forbes numbers (not entirely accurate) on the BOH forum to understand that there are a lot of teams that can't break even having to spend $89mil.

The cap floor as a percentage is accelerating faster than the cap and cap midpoint. It promotes a daunting challenge to the lesser revenue teams.

All teams will benefit from a healthy league of 30 or more teams. The national footprint is part of the deal for national TV. And the NHL was very late to the game in expansion. That is part of their problem with their TV deal. They were late in establishing a national identity. They are on track in terms of their increases to hit the NBA timeline in terms of that national TV deal. It isn't a matter of a guy coming in, snapping his fingers and having the deal appear out of thin air.


The league is not financially healthy as a whole. Only the NBA is even close to the issues of the NHL. Player payroll has to be reduced as a percentage such that the league nets a minimum of about $210-240mil in profits, about double what they are now, to get into the ballpark where sharing will fix the issues. Without profits or the potential to be profits team values will plummet and teams will fold (not just Phoenix) because no one will come forth as owners.

IMO, the general investment landscape is changing. Soon, it will no longer be possible to sell teams based on expected capital appreciation. They will need to show break even or some profit to attract potential owners. It isn't just sports.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 03:14 PM
  #20
Franchise13
Registered User
 
Franchise13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
SBJ had the ESPN offer at higher than 120m (regardless it was an informal offer either way, i'm sure it was a ballpark figure regardless) and I'll argue that the exposure from ESPN is worth far more than the difference.

Yes, ESPN only guaranteed 1 Reg Season game/wk, therefore "minimizing" it in importance mainly because NHL Reg season overlaps NFL/CFB coverage. NBC got the offer because it offered "feature" hockey.

Well it's featured Hockey games on VS gets outdrawn by HS Football game of the week on ESPN2 (same network that NHL Reg Season games would've been on.) I'm sure ESPN would be more accommodating to showing NHL highlights if it had a stake in the NHL. Those human interest storiy, 10-15min specials, are great for the casual fan interest. Instead Hockey is froze out on ESPN coverage and gets the bare minimum.

I don't think it's inaccurate to say the NHL did so because it thought higher of itself and it's growth than what the fact showed. They didn't even return a counter offer to ESPN. If they pushed I'm sure a deal would've been reachable, or at least ESPN would've been leverage for a better deal from NBC, or Fox or whomever. I don't blame ESPN for making the offer it made, it had all the leverage in the world. Despite that, the NHL should've stayed at the negotiating table, and see what they could've gotten.

EDIT:

For the casual fan who is not watching the NHL yet, ESPN would've been perfect as a interest catalyst. Those are the fans the NHL needs to get. It's great to be able to provide better service/product for fans you already have, but you need to draw new ones too. NHL is terrible on multiple fronts at drawing and keeping newer people to hockey. It's cult like status within the hardcore fanbase/media doesn't help ease new fans as well. Hockey media seems to have this chip on their should for whenever hockey is slighted (or they feel it's been slighted) or whenever hockey isn't heralded like they feel it should be. No other major sports media have that littleman syndrome going. Not exactly the most welcoming environment. This is one area that I think ESPN does wonders with: the casual fan. Their catering to the casual fans tends to turn off more hardcore viewers from their highlight shows/talk shows, but meh, it works for the network as a whole.

If an institution is in trouble fiscally it has two options: grow your revenue base, and/or cut costs. I stand that ESPN was a better option at the former than NBC was, despite the money upfront.


Last edited by Franchise13: 10-05-2012 at 04:05 PM.
Franchise13 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 03:57 PM
  #21
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franchise13 View Post
SBJ had the ESPN offer at higher than 120m (regardless it was an informal offer either way, i'm sure it was a ballpark figure regardless) and I'll argue that the exposure from ESPN is worth far more than the difference.

Yes, ESPN only guaranteed 1 Reg Season game, therefore "minimizing" it in importance mainly because NHL Reg season overlaps NFL/CFB coverage. NBC got the offer because it offered "feature" hockey.

Well it's featured Hockey games on VS gets outdrawn by HS Football game of the week on ESPN2 (same network that NHL Reg Season games would've been on.) I'm sure ESPN would be more accommodating to showing NHL highlights if it had a stake in the NHL. Those human interest storiy, 10-15min specials, are great for the casual fan interest. Instead Hockey is froze out on ESPN coverage and gets the bare minimum.

I don't think it's inaccurate to say the NHL did so because it thought higher of itself and it's growth than what the fact showed. They didn't even return a counter offer to ESPN. If they pushed I'm sure a deal would've been reachable, or at least ESPN would've been leverage for a better deal from NBC, or Fox or whomever. I don't blame ESPN for making the offer it made, it had all the leverage in the world. Despite that, the NHL should've stayed at the negotiating table, and see what they could've gotten.

EDIT:

For the casual fan who is not watching the NHL yet, ESPN would've been perfect as a interest catalyst. Those are the fans the NHL needs to get. It's great to be able to provide better service/product for fans you already have, but you need to draw new ones too. NHL is terrible on multiple fronts at drawing and keeping newer people to hockey. It's cult like status within the hardcore fanbase/media doesn't help ease new fans as well. Hockey media seems to have this chip on their should for whenever hockey is slighted (or they feel it's been slighted) or whenever hockey isn't heralded like they feel it should be. No other major sports media have that littleman syndrome going. Not exactly the most welcoming environment. This is one area that I think ESPN does wonders with: the casual fan. Their catering to the casual fans tends to turn off more hardcore viewers from their highlight shows/talk shows, but meh, it works for the network as a whole.

If an institution is in trouble fiscally it has two options: grow your revenue base, and/or cut costs. I stand that ESPN was a better option at the former than NBC was, despite the money upfront.
ESPN was underbidding on the NHL. I am also sure that ESPN/ABC placed a bid against the last NBC/VS contract in the last round of negotiations. Bettman has set up an environment sans lockout that is conducive to getting that big national TV $. It is an issue of time frame. The NHL was dramatically behind the eightball regards TV when he came on board almost two decades ago. They are catching up. He is using capitalism at its finest to create a competitive bidding environment for TV money.

FTR, ESPN has been notoriously cheap when they are not competing for services. It shows in their non-prime programming. It also tends to show in their broadcast talent.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 04:01 PM
  #22
Franchise13
Registered User
 
Franchise13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
ESPN was underbidding on the NHL. I am also sure that ESPN/ABC placed a bid against the last NBC/VS contract in the last round of negotiations. Bettman has set up an environment sans lockout that is conducive to getting that big national TV $. It is an issue of time frame. The NHL was dramatically behind the eightball regards TV when he came on board almost two decades ago. They are catching up. He is using capitalism at its finest to create a competitive bidding environment for TV money.

FTR, ESPN has been notoriously cheap when they are not competing for services. It shows in their non-prime programming. It also tends to show in their broadcast talent.
Agreed. But they are dealing from a position of strength and it makes sense to do so.

I do find it funny that they just let Erin Andrews walk and not care, lol. She's terrible anyway. They were competitive with Beadle but hard to compete with getting on a show on network TV.

Franchise13 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 04:32 PM
  #23
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franchise13 View Post
Agreed. But they are dealing from a position of strength and it makes sense to do so.

I do find it funny that they just let Erin Andrews walk and not care, lol. She's terrible anyway. They were competitive with Beadle but hard to compete with getting on a show on network TV.
I used to live in LA and then NY and had some contact with talent. The two companies that were absolutely horrific in treatment of talent and predatory in business practices were ESPN and Disney. It wasn't close. Funny that they are under the same umbrella now.

If ESPN is currently run the way that they used to be, cutting a deal with them is like cutting a deal with the devil.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 04:52 PM
  #24
Franchise13
Registered User
 
Franchise13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I used to live in LA and then NY and had some contact with talent. The two companies that were absolutely horrific in treatment of talent and predatory in business practices were ESPN and Disney. It wasn't close. Funny that they are under the same umbrella now.

If ESPN is currently run the way that they used to be, cutting a deal with them is like cutting a deal with the devil.
Our firm does some representation of Disney talent and I agree. Disney is terrible in some respects. We represent a few sports media personalities too, though I don't know enough to really comment.

ESPN is extremely selective on which talents it does and doesn't treat well. The MNF crew is treated and paid amazing, but others aren't. Why would Gruden go back to coaching? He gets paid better and works less hours. Goes with the politics of the business, like with all businesses.

I won't judge Disney/ESPN too harshly as I'm sure those wronged by ESPN/Disney might exaggerate a little. In the end, it's just business, and I've accepted it as a norm. If both companies were so terrible to work for, they'll bleed talent. They haven't lost anyone irreplaceable yet, so we'll see.

I will say though, anyone that's close to cutting a major deal with ESPN has probably made a deal with the devil a long time ago.

Like I've said it's just business, can't take things too personally either way.

Franchise13 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 05:12 PM
  #25
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franchise13 View Post
Our firm does some representation of Disney talent and I agree. Disney is terrible in some respects. We represent a few sports media personalities too, though I don't know enough to really comment.

ESPN is extremely selective on which talents it does and doesn't treat well. The MNF crew is treated and paid amazing, but others aren't. Why would Gruden go back to coaching? He gets paid better and works less hours. Goes with the politics of the business, like with all businesses.

I won't judge Disney/ESPN too harshly as I'm sure those wronged by ESPN/Disney might exaggerate a little. In the end, it's just business, and I've accepted it as a norm. If both companies were so terrible to work for, they'll bleed talent. They haven't lost anyone irreplaceable yet, so we'll see.

I will say though, anyone that's close to cutting a major deal with ESPN has probably made a deal with the devil a long time ago.

Like I've said it's just business, can't take things too personally either way.
What got me with Disney is that they used to go after "new" talent for their movies. Studio contract for five years or more at less than market to break in (50s and 60s). If the actor was successful they were stuck with the exclusivity and could usually expect to be used less. it was great in that they got a lot of new names and gave people a chance who would not have got the chance otherwise. But the scale and exclusivity was very extreme. They were actually splurging* grabbing mid-level names for lead roles on one-off deals. They were also fairly predatory in their dealings with cartoonists, pretty much sweatshop type.

Edit: By splurging I mean market level contracts, not huge megastar deals.

I knew a few that worked for different companies and by treatment, I saw few that just dropped their contracts rather than continue with Disney and went into other professions. I didn't see that drop out rate with other companies.


Last edited by SJeasy: 10-05-2012 at 05:36 PM.
SJeasy 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 01:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.