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, 05:33 PM
  #101
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
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.
Alan Eagleson's da best!

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 05:59 PM
  #102
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
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.
This is silliness. Fans are fans, whether they watch live or on tv or the internet.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:26 PM
  #103
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
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.
Ultimately the money comes from the fans. Fans give money to corporations whose products are advertised on the TV streams from which the league gets money. It is extremely straightforward, and I'm shocked you'd dismiss something so rudimentary as "categorically false".

There are zero independent factors in the process -- Every single factor is directly tied to other factors. The number of fans who watch determines how much the advertising spots go for, which determines how much money the league gets for its TV package.

Ultimately, revenues come from fans and taxpayers, with the exception of money-losing owners who pour some of their own cash into the system.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:31 PM
  #104
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,262
vCash: 500
Both sides will have to make concessions or there will be agreement and no season.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:43 PM
  #105
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
OK, I finally just checked the source. Page 162 of the CBA - http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf - HRR includes "All revenues received by a Club or a Club Affiliated Entity derived from the sale of NHL Regular Season and Playoff tickets"

So, yeah, playoffs count as part of the players' 57%. If they played under the current CBA while negotiating, to then strike for the playoffs, they would lose as much of their share as the owners would lose of theirs.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:49 PM
  #106
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Ultimately the money comes from the fans. Fans give money to corporations whose products are advertised on the TV streams from which the league gets money. It is extremely straightforward, and I'm shocked you'd dismiss something so rudimentary as "categorically false".

There are zero independent factors in the process -- Every single factor is directly tied to other factors. The number of fans who watch determines how much the advertising spots go for, which determines how much money the league gets for its TV package.

Ultimately, revenues come from fans and taxpayers, with the exception of money-losing owners who pour some of their own cash into the system.
There is such a disconnect between how money enters the corporate machine and ultimately gets assigned to cover operational costs/salaries, that there's no reason to exaggerate the degree to which a corporation should consider the special interests of its end consumers based on their financial input. They control the stage for the best professional hockey on the planet right now, and that carries a lot more weight.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:44 PM
  #107
Noob616
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,378
vCash: 500
I'm on the side of the players right now, but dear god the PA has got to do a better job of shutting these guys up on twitter. They are really shooting themselves in the foot every time they spew this "would you accept a 24% pay cut" crap. As if 24% off of a high six-figure/seven figure salary is the same as 24% off of a 40k salary.

And before someone calls me out about tax brackets, I completely understand. I politically disagree with graduated taxes but that's for another thread. All I'm saying is that these guys trying to portray themselves as blue collar lower class guys is going to skew public opinion back to the owners.

Noob616 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:45 PM
  #108
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,015
vCash: 500
A question for the supporters of the players over the owners.

Do you understand that YOU, not the owners, will be paying for any concessions made to players?

Sports is just like the real world. People clamor for soaking the corporations with higher taxes just like people say that the owners are too rich and need to pay out more.

Doesnt happen like that.

If a corporation is forced to pay higher taxes..........that higher payment is passed on down to YOU in the form of higher prices.

If an NHL owner is forced to pay more money to the players........that higher payment is passed on down to YOU in the form of higher ticket prices and concessions.

Think about reality for a moment and you may not be so eager to see the owners getting less revenue.

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 12:00 AM
  #109
Ryan O'Byrne
Registered User
 
Ryan O'Byrne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 908
vCash: 1241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
OK, I finally just checked the source. Page 162 of the CBA - http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf - HRR includes "All revenues received by a Club or a Club Affiliated Entity derived from the sale of NHL Regular Season and Playoff tickets"

So, yeah, playoffs count as part of the players' 57%. If they played under the current CBA while negotiating, to then strike for the playoffs, they would lose as much of their share as the owners would lose of theirs.
yes but if the players earnings equal the 57% of the regular season revenue before the playoffs then the players get back there withheld money the so called escrow. that is my understanding of how escrow works ,and if its right then the players lose nothing by striking and canceling the playoffs.

Ryan O'Byrne is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 12:24 AM
  #110
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,459
vCash: 500
Players have no right to demand 57% of the revenue. How on earth could this be 70-50. What a joke.

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 12:31 AM
  #111
Prairie Habs
Registered User
 
Prairie Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
A question for the supporters of the players over the owners.

Do you understand that YOU, not the owners, will be paying for any concessions made to players?

Sports is just like the real world. People clamor for soaking the corporations with higher taxes just like people say that the owners are too rich and need to pay out more.

Doesnt happen like that.

If a corporation is forced to pay higher taxes..........that higher payment is passed on down to YOU in the form of higher prices.

If an NHL owner is forced to pay more money to the players........that higher payment is passed on down to YOU in the form of higher ticket prices and concessions.

Think about reality for a moment and you may not be so eager to see the owners getting less revenue.
You think the fact that owners will charge fans more money after a lockout will earn their support from the fans?

The fact that players' concessions come out of their own pocket where as the owners will just bleed the fans makes me support the players more.

Maybe we should make an NHLFA (fans association) and go on strike until we can get a hard cap on tickets/merch/etc. Or should we just expect the players to bail us out when we spend to much money on stuff like the owners do?

Prairie Habs is online now  
Old
10-06-2012, 03:07 AM
  #112
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 9,905
vCash: 1707
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharks9 View Post
The NHLPA because they were willing to continue this season with the previous CBA, whereas the owners went to a lockout as their first resort instead of the last resort.
were you an expos fan? if you were, you wouldn't be saying that... were you alive in 94? the PA was asked LAST YEAR to start negotiation, that ****** nozzle fehr is that one that has forced this by jerking off in front of the mirror for a year. and the owners said they wouldn't play without a CBA because of fehr proven track record of striking before the playoff - oops, looks like i did the homework for you.

for me: 100% owners, a giant billboard-sized **** you to that wrinkled **** eating ****** donald fehr, a smaller **** you to the players in general for believing that snake oil selling old sack of ****, and a very minor **** you to the owners for being rich *******s

MasterDecoy is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 03:33 AM
  #113
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
A question for the supporters of the players over the owners.

Do you understand that YOU, not the owners, will be paying for any concessions made to players?

Sports is just like the real world. People clamor for soaking the corporations with higher taxes just like people say that the owners are too rich and need to pay out more.

Doesnt happen like that.

If a corporation is forced to pay higher taxes..........that higher payment is passed on down to YOU in the form of higher prices.

If an NHL owner is forced to pay more money to the players........that higher payment is passed on down to YOU in the form of higher ticket prices and concessions.

Think about reality for a moment and you may not be so eager to see the owners getting less revenue.
That's not how business works.

The owners are simply going to charge the most they can get away with, regardless of whether the players get 10% or 80% of revenue.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-06-2012, 03:44 AM
  #114
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
were you an expos fan? if you were, you wouldn't be saying that... were you alive in 94? the PA was asked LAST YEAR to start negotiation, that ****** nozzle fehr is that one that has forced this by jerking off in front of the mirror for a year. and the owners said they wouldn't play without a CBA because of fehr proven track record of striking before the playoff - oops, looks like i did the homework for you.

for me: 100% owners, a giant billboard-sized **** you to that wrinkled **** eating ****** donald fehr, a smaller **** you to the players in general for believing that snake oil selling old sack of ****, and a very minor **** you to the owners for being rich *******s
1) This isn't about the Expos.

2) If you feel bad about the Expos, don't blame Donald Fehr. Blame Brochu, blame the conglomerate Brochu was representing, blame the Montreal business community, Jeffrey Loria, David Samson, and MLB. Remember that there are 29 other MLB teams that survived the 1994 strike, and that Larry Walker, John Wetteland, Ken Hill, and Marquis Grissom were all willing to stay but they were never even offered contracts, and that is simply not on Fehr.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-06-2012 at 03:57 AM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-06-2012, 04:20 AM
  #115
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 9,905
vCash: 1707
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
1) This isn't about the Expos.

2) If you feel bad about the Expos, don't blame Donald Fehr. Blame Brochu, blame the conglomerate Brochu was representing, blame the Montreal business community, Jeffrey Loria, David Samson, and MLB. Remember that there are 29 other MLB teams that survived the 1994 strike, and that Larry Walker, John Wetteland, Ken Hill, and Marquis Grissom were all willing to stay but they were never even offered contracts, and that is simply not on Fehr.
i blame fehr for essentially robbing the city of montreal of a world championship. i don't blame him for them leaving

MasterDecoy is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 04:23 AM
  #116
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 9,905
vCash: 1707
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
That's not how business works.

The owners are simply going to charge the most they can get away with, regardless of whether the players get 10% or 80% of revenue.
absolutely correct.

not a shot at anyone, but it's actually staggering how many people lack a basic understanding of economics

MasterDecoy is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 05:45 AM
  #117
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
i blame fehr for essentially robbing the city of montreal of a world championship. i don't blame him for them leaving
Fehr was doing his job of representing the players, and I'm sure there was nothing personal against Montreal.

With proper management, that team would have stuck together as Guerrero, Vasquez, Mota, and Martinez matured and would have won more championships.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-06-2012, 07:04 AM
  #118
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,700
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.


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.
Very well-said.

The players can take a salary rollback and it will change NOTHING in their lifestyles.

They will still have the nice house, sweet car, great vacations, hot wives and college tuition for the kids... ie. set for life

I love the players (most of them, anyways), but they are seriously being overpaid... a 10 to 20% rollback won't kill them.

Bust that union, Bettman!

Born in 1909 is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 07:27 AM
  #119
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan O'Byrne View Post
yes but if the players earnings equal the 57% of the regular season revenue before the playoffs then the players get back there withheld money the so called escrow. that is my understanding of how escrow works ,and if its right then the players lose nothing by striking and canceling the playoffs.
From what I can tell from my just-woke-up, pre-coffee read of page 152-159, it looks like you're partly right, in that the initial escrow payment occurs after the regular season, before the playoffs.

Then the playoffs have their own formula, then a "Supplemental Funding Phase," then "Final Escrow Disbursements." So if there was a strike called in the spring after playing the regular season, the players would still give up a big chunk of money they would otherwise be paid in the summer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
A question for the supporters of the players over the owners.

Do you understand that YOU, not the owners, will be paying for any concessions made to players?

Sports is just like the real world. People clamor for soaking the corporations with higher taxes just like people say that the owners are too rich and need to pay out more.

Doesnt happen like that.

If a corporation is forced to pay higher taxes..........that higher payment is passed on down to YOU in the form of higher prices.

If an NHL owner is forced to pay more money to the players........that higher payment is passed on down to YOU in the form of higher ticket prices and concessions.

Think about reality for a moment and you may not be so eager to see the owners getting less revenue.
It has been shown many times on these boards that ticket prices are related to supply and demand, not the other economics of the game. What we are willing to pay drives salaries, not the other way around. See the results of the last lockout - the commish was spouting your logic, that cost certainty would result in lower ticket prices - it turned out to be the opposite.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 07:31 AM
  #120
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Born in 1909 View Post
Very well-said.

The players can take a salary rollback and it will change NOTHING in their lifestyles.

They will still have the nice house, sweet car, great vacations, hot wives and college tuition for the kids... ie. set for life

I love the players (most of them, anyways), but they are seriously being overpaid... a 10 to 20% rollback won't kill them.

Bust that union, Bettman!
Who do you think has a nicer house, Ryan White or Geoff Molson?

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 07:40 AM
  #121
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Born in 1909 View Post
Very well-said.

The players can take a salary rollback and it will change NOTHING in their lifestyles.

They will still have the nice house, sweet car, great vacations, hot wives and college tuition for the kids... ie. set for life

I love the players (most of them, anyways), but they are seriously being overpaid... a 10 to 20% rollback won't kill them.

Bust that union, Bettman!
To bust the union would be to rid the NHL of the NHLPA entirely. If that happens say good-bye to the NHL as you know it: no entry draft; no entry level contracts; no RFAs; etc.

Let's say the (8) owners and Bettman "win" this fight and the new CBA is a 50/50 split and a 20% rollback on all contracts along with their wanted changes to ELC and UFA terms. When this contract expires, what stops the owners from demanding more? Capitulation is decapitation.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 07:50 AM
  #122
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
To bust the union would be to rid the NHL of the NHLPA entirely. If that happens say good-bye to the NHL as you know it: no entry draft; no entry level contracts; no RFAs; etc.

Let's say the (8) owners and Bettman "win" this fight and the new CBA is a 50/50 split and a 20% rollback on all contracts along with their wanted changes to ELC and UFA terms. When this contract expires, what stops the owners from demanding more? Capitulation is decapitation.
I was exaggerating in my previous comment about "busting" the union...

What I meant to say was that the NHLPA could be be cut down to size a little bit.

Born in 1909 is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 09:29 AM
  #123
habfaninvictoria
Registered User
 
habfaninvictoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 1,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcal64 View Post
The owners locked out the players because if they didn't, the players would have played the regular season, then went on strike during the playoffs, since they don't get paid and the owners make most of the profits during the playoffs. The owners would have had no leverage, with the players holding all the power.

Please don't listen to Fehr saying the players wanted to play, he didn't mention anything about the players wanting to play in the playoffs without a contract. I find it a joke that rich players are playing in Europe for practically free, taking away the livelyhood of fringe players. I wish they have replacement players, so that the players that lost their jobs with the NHL players going to Europe, come over here and take the NHL players jobs.
This is a credible threat... but.... this is not baseball. The majority of NHL players would run through a burning fire covered in oil for a chance at the cup.

As for the players going to europe... well ... the owners aren't honouring contracts, why should they. Also they want to stay in shape for when hockey does return... I've got no problems with most of them going over.... Markov however.... that's a bad call on his part, the habs treated him very well and he's going to risk injury and potentially never playing here again.

habfaninvictoria is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 09:34 AM
  #124
poetryinmotion
Registered User
 
poetryinmotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
The players side no question about it. Even though I don't really buy their sympathy pitch to the fans about it being entirely the owner's fault that there is a lockout in process.

poetryinmotion is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 11:44 AM
  #125
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Alan Eagleson's da best!
Huh? When was he ever commissioner of the NHL?

You might be confusing Bettman and Fehr's roles here...

Habsterix* 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 01:16 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.