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
10-06-2012, 11:54 AM
  #126
vokiel
Nothing blind
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 8,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Robert Alan Eagleson (born April 24, 1933) is a disbarred Canadian lawyer, convicted felon in two countries, former politician, hockey agent and promoter.
lol I learn something every day.

vokiel is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 12:02 PM
  #127
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
You might be confusing Bettman and Fehr's roles here...
What's Fehr again? Executive director of the NHLPA?

I wonder if Eagleson ever held that position...

Pre-Bettman, Eagleson was in charge of the PA.


Last edited by Dr Gonzo: 10-06-2012 at 12:15 PM.
Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 12:09 PM
  #128
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post

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.
Actually the players are READY to accept a 50/50 split but a progressive decrease but the league want the players to drop from 57% to 49% immediately and that's not a 8% decrease but a 14% (8% of 57) of salary drop.

Rosso Scuderia is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 12:37 PM
  #129
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Habs View Post
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?
Put away the idealism and live in reality.

Owners and players understand that fans are needed or else there is not an NHL.

Once the game ends and the fans leave the building, do you think that either the owners or the players really and truly care about "the fans"?

This is a business. Plain and simple. And I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that there have been no negotiations going on where the topic was "But what about the fans"......Not from the players nor from the owners.

Sorry, but this is reality.

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 12:40 PM
  #130
Bad Natey
#feelthelove
 
Bad Natey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Habville
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
Actually the players are READY to accept a 50/50 split but a progressive decrease but the league want the players to drop from 57% to 49% immediately and that's not a 8% decrease but a 14% (8% of 57) of salary drop.
Didnt know about that. That would put me more on the players side. The owners signed the deal that got us to 57%, so live with it a few more years and you get what you want.

Bad Natey is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 12:42 PM
  #131
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,052
vCash: 500
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.

That post of mine was not an attempt to explain economics or business or why a product sells for the price that it does.

No, that post was a simply a statement of reality that if a business, or in this case, a hockey owner, is hit with higher costs of doing business, those costs will be passed on to the consumer.

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 01:51 PM
  #132
RC51
Registered User
 
RC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,770
vCash: 500
There are a few things that need changing.
no more contracts more then 5 years just to cheat the cap.
there should be a way for a team to get out of a bad contract ( gomez)
or a buy out at 1/2 price and not 3/2 price.
no way I want habs to raise ticket price just to pay for Yotes. the league has given some of these teams many years to get fans. If they just can't then MOVE THE TEAM and stop grabbing Habs money to prop up these teams. Give them a 5 year window and that's it. Make it into the black or you move.

RC51 is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 01:53 PM
  #133
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
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?



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.
i'll continue the argument then

5x is not relative in the case of super 8, where we are talking about investing 50 mill and coming out with 250 mil.

I'm also not suggesting that those actors don't have talent, i was merely pointing out that the correlation between actors talent level and probability of movie(s) is much lower then probability of NHL and talent level of the players. Also, most people won't notice a "good" actor from "great" actor. But most will make difference between a "good" hockey player and a "great" one.

Also, hollywood is much more about "image" then about talent. Cruise is a terrible actor, comparatively to real actors, like Gary Oldman, who can play a 500+ year old dracula, to a black guy in True Romance. Cruise cannot do what real actors can do. While Eastwood is one of my idols in cinema, he's product of great directing, Sergio Leone. What all those actors you list have in common is that they have good image. Good features, alot of blue eyes, and photogenic. There's reason why Hollywood is majorly about fake ****, blonde hair, blue eyes, and lots of connections. There is reason why uber talented actors like Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Steve Buscemi took 20+ years to get some recognition from general public. Movie's, in terms of business, Hollywood, is mostly about image. We there it's CGI/viasual effects budget (James Cameron), or budget to get an "all star cast" (e/g expendables).

There are obvious relations between both business models, but the level of importance of Players in the NHL's profitability is WAY higher then the relation between actors and the movie industry.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
That post of mine was not an attempt to explain economics or business or why a product sells for the price that it does.

No, that post was a simply a statement of reality that if a business, or in this case, a hockey owner, is hit with higher costs of doing business, those costs will be passed on to the consumer.
i bet you those 19 teams that don't make a profit will not raise prices on consumers, if anything they will reduce prices and give out more free tickets and gifts. How's your "this is reality buisness 101" explaining that?


In case it wasn't made clear to you, price as directly correlated to demand; what consumer is willing to pay.


Last edited by uiCk: 10-06-2012 at 02:20 PM.
uiCk is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 02:45 PM
  #134
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
That post of mine was not an attempt to explain economics or business or why a product sells for the price that it does.

No, that post was a simply a statement of reality that if a business, or in this case, a hockey owner, is hit with higher costs of doing business, those costs will be passed on to the consumer.
Except your business model isn't how things work in Toronto or Montreal or New York Rangers or Phoenix or Philadelphia or Boston or Columbus or almost all the other cities in the NHL.

You have been posting the same theory a bunch of times and posters here refute it, give you reasons why it's wrong and you keep rehashing the same theory over and over again.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 04:14 PM
  #135
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
Except your business model isn't how things work in Toronto or Montreal or New York Rangers or Phoenix or Philadelphia or Boston or Columbus or almost all the other cities in the NHL.

You have been posting the same theory a bunch of times and posters here refute it, give you reasons why it's wrong and you keep rehashing the same theory over and over again.
Perhaps he thinks that Geoff Molson reduces ticket prices when players with two-way contracts go down to Hamilton, as this lowers the total team payroll and thus "the savings are passed onto consumers".

Closer to reality, I lived in Columbus for five years. They have about 75% of the team payroll of Montreal, and thus according to Southern Hab the tickets should cost 75% as much. Not so. You could buy walk-up tickets for $10 for example, and they were always available. A small number reach $100 to $200. That's the peak cost. In Montreal, by contrast, the prices range from $21 to $400.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-06-2012 at 04:19 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 07:46 PM
  #136
HarlemsFinest
teh gallys!!1
 
HarlemsFinest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
no one is right. it's just a matter of siding with the lesser of the 2 evils. players.

HarlemsFinest is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 10:45 PM
  #137
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Who do you think has a nicer house, Ryan White or Geoff Molson?
what does that have anything to do with anything?

Ryan White is a borderline NHLer and makes almost 700k. If we assume he sticks in the NHL for a while and plays 5-6 years. He will lose a chunk to taxes and union dues, his agents cut he will still bring home close to 400K. That is over 2 million in his career. If he is careful with his money that is more than enough to live the rest of his life. Plus dont forget the NHL pension plan and medical benefits it provides to its players who played 4 years or more.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 12:51 AM
  #138
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
what does that have anything to do with anything?

Ryan White is a borderline NHLer and makes almost 700k. If we assume he sticks in the NHL for a while and plays 5-6 years. He will lose a chunk to taxes and union dues, his agents cut he will still bring home close to 400K. That is over 2 million in his career. If he is careful with his money that is more than enough to live the rest of his life. Plus dont forget the NHL pension plan and medical benefits it provides to its players who played 4 years or more.
The problems with your analysis are threefold:

1) You are comparing the salaries of professional athletes to those of Joe Blow, and thinking, "wow that's a lot", regardless of the fact pro athletes work vastly harder than Joe Blow, and are vastly more talented.

2) You have no idea how expensive it is to become and remain an NHL player. You seem to think that making 2 million over 4 years is a lot for somebody in that environment. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if even the most frugal players have almost nothing left after making league minimum for four years.

3) Based on your belief that millionaire athletes are overpaid, you want more money to go to billionaire owners, which doesn't logically follow at all.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 07:06 AM
  #139
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,216
vCash: 500
I side with the owners. Like Bobby Dollas said, how can you be in a fair partnership when one side is getting significantly more of the pie? A 50/50 split should be easy to understand. The owners pay for everything related to the hockey team (players, trainers, Zamboni drivers, rent, security, etc...), take all the financial risks, and help bring jobs to the city of the team they own. The players get paid very generously for the job they perform. The best thing for the players is that they have guaranteed contracts, regardless of how they perform. Gomez gets 7+ million no matter how pathetic his on-ice performance is. What guarantees do the owners have? If they spend millions to buy and run a team, if it fails to do well, they lose money. If the players fail to perform they still get paid. So, I side with the owners.

Actually, I side with the owners enough that I would actively support replacement players as long as ticket prices were reduced by a fair amount (25% ish). Players come and go, I care about my franchise more than about any individual player. Heck, 85% of our entire roster has changed from the centennial season to now. So, I side with the owners.


Last edited by Drydenwasthebest: 10-07-2012 at 07:12 AM. Reason: Added info
Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 07:42 AM
  #140
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The problems with your analysis are threefold:

1) You are comparing the salaries of professional athletes to those of Joe Blow, and thinking, "wow that's a lot", regardless of the fact pro athletes work vastly harder than Joe Blow, and are vastly more talented.

2) You have no idea how expensive it is to become and remain an NHL player. You seem to think that making 2 million over 4 years is a lot for somebody in that environment. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if even the most frugal players have almost nothing left after making league minimum for four years.

3) Based on your belief that millionaire athletes are overpaid, you want more money to go to billionaire owners, which doesn't logically follow at all.

1. Yes I am comparing his salary to mine. He makes significantly more for playing hockey. Yes playing hockey. How do you know he works alot harder at his job than I do at mine? Ryan White wouldnt last 1 day in my job just like I wouldnt last 1 day at his job.

2. The cost to make the NHL is small I would think. Since they make the Major Juniors they pay ZERO for hockey costs. Equipment, training, travel and living costs, all paid for by the teams they play for.

3. I just think a 50-50 split is more than fair. Sure that means that teams like The Habs and Leafs would just make more profit but it also means the The Coyotes and Blue Jackets can maybe break even or god forbid make a small profit.


Last edited by IceDaddy: 10-07-2012 at 11:08 AM.
IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 08:30 AM
  #141
WhiskeySeven*
Founded: BargainBin
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,598
vCash: 500
I never really hated Bettman but it's becoming increasingly clear that the NHL is a second-rate organization without any clear idea how to address financial issues OR on-ice issues. Though I guess this isn't a very original comment.

I'll just say that if you don't think the owners are more wrong than the players something is wrong with you. If someone agrees to pay me 10$ or 10million$ they owe me that much no matter what - they can't suddenly re-neg on their agreement because they didn't budget themselves properly. I know 10million is a lot of money and I could probably make do with "only" 8million but we live in a market-economy and if you make an agreement you can't hold it's between you and the bank, you still owe me for the services I agreed to provide.

Imagine if you work at Starbucks and your managers gives you a (well-earned raise) to 14$ an hour for being so efficient and opening/closing at crazy hours and then the franchise owner decides that he's paying too much and wants to reduce everyones salary equally. It's not fair and the franchise agreed and signed a deal with you, they have to uphold it.

The NHL should grandfather all these signed deals in and say from next year on we'll have a 50/50 split (or whatever they can agree on) and go from them. This lockout is bull and it's symbolic of such a ridiculous degree of unprofessionalism that it should basically spell the end of Bettman in the near-future. MoFo's gotta go.

WhiskeySeven* is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 09:38 AM
  #142
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
what does that have anything to do with anything?

Ryan White is a borderline NHLer and makes almost 700k. If we assume he sticks in the NHL for a while and plays 5-6 years. He will lose a chunk to taxes and union dues, his agents cut he will still bring home close to 400K. That is over 2 million in his career. If he is careful with his money that is more than enough to live the rest of his life. Plus dont forget the NHL pension plan and medical benefits it provides to its players who played 4 years or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
3) Based on your belief that millionaire athletes are overpaid, you want more money to go to billionaire owners, which doesn't logically follow at all.
What DA said. I think ragging on millionaire players in the context of, consumers are willing to spend too much money on the highest level of pro sports, is fine. Ragging on how much players make in the context of a labor dispute with owners who are all more wealthy than the players, doesn't work so well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I side with the owners. Like Bobby Dollas said, how can you be in a fair partnership when one side is getting significantly more of the pie? A 50/50 split should be easy to understand. The owners pay for everything related to the hockey team (players, trainers, Zamboni drivers, rent, security, etc...), take all the financial risks, and help bring jobs to the city of the team they own. The players get paid very generously for the job they perform. The best thing for the players is that they have guaranteed contracts, regardless of how they perform. Gomez gets 7+ million no matter how pathetic his on-ice performance is. What guarantees do the owners have? If they spend millions to buy and run a team, if it fails to do well, they lose money. If the players fail to perform they still get paid. So, I side with the owners.

Actually, I side with the owners enough that I would actively support replacement players as long as ticket prices were reduced by a fair amount (25% ish). Players come and go, I care about my franchise more than about any individual player. Heck, 85% of our entire roster has changed from the centennial season to now. So, I side with the owners.
Actually, if it fails to do well, they can sell the team, usually at a profit. The exceptions that I can think of - Moyes, who would have made hundreds of millions selling the team to Balsillie, had the BOG not intervened - and Koules and Barrie, who ran the Lightning into the ground.

As far as replacement players go... what would that make the NHL, the 5th or 6th best league in the world? I'd stick with the KHL and junior hockey.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:19 AM
  #143
1UP
Registered User
 
1UP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,071
vCash: 500
The reason why I side with the NHLPA is simply because that problem wouldn't exist if Bettman didn't decide to put hockey in pretty crazy markets.

So now, players have to pay to save NHL management's mistakes. That's wrong.

And, well, my city of origin should tell you that my opinion might be a bit swayed by something

I can't blame the owners though. They put in the capital and take the risks. I put this whole mess in the hands of management, namely, Bettman. He can claim as much as he wants that owners give him a mandate, I'm pretty sure that behind the scenes, Bettman is the one telling owners to follow the party line or else. And that's putting everyone out of a job. And by everyone, I mean arena employees, who are the real victims here.

1UP is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:44 AM
  #144
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I side with the owners. Like Bobby Dollas said, how can you be in a fair partnership when one side is getting significantly more of the pie? A 50/50 split should be easy to understand. The owners pay for everything related to the hockey team (players, trainers, Zamboni drivers, rent, security, etc...), take all the financial risks, and help bring jobs to the city of the team they own. The players get paid very generously for the job they perform. The best thing for the players is that they have guaranteed contracts, regardless of how they perform. Gomez gets 7+ million no matter how pathetic his on-ice performance is. What guarantees do the owners have? If they spend millions to buy and run a team, if it fails to do well, they lose money. If the players fail to perform they still get paid. So, I side with the owners.

Actually, I side with the owners enough that I would actively support replacement players as long as ticket prices were reduced by a fair amount (25% ish). Players come and go, I care about my franchise more than about any individual player. Heck, 85% of our entire roster has changed from the centennial season to now. So, I side with the owners.
I find this whole "owners take all the risks" mostly an argument that makes little sense. If the owners "were willing to take all the risks" and if they took a "risk" by buying a franchise and now they are in trouble, isn't that the "risk" they took?

Why change the rules of the game? The owners made a bad bet that they lost and they should take losing like a man (or a woman), and not trying to change the rules of the game so they (the ones who took all the "risks") are now taking no "risks" and the cities their team they own plays in or the players end up taking all the "risks".

My feeling on the subject is that if the cities and the players are going to pay the risk premium they should own the teams outright in a partnership deal and let the owners take their bag of money and go elsewhere. There is a lot of money available for financing a project like this if it is done properly, the owners are the ones who aren't needed in today's world.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:55 AM
  #145
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
What DA said. I think ragging on millionaire players in the context of, consumers are willing to spend too much money on the highest level of pro sports, is fine. Ragging on how much players make in the context of a labor dispute with owners who are all more wealthy than the players, doesn't work so well.



Actually, if it fails to do well, they can sell the team, usually at a profit. The exceptions that I can think of - Moyes, who would have made hundreds of millions selling the team to Balsillie, had the BOG not intervened - and Koules and Barrie, who ran the Lightning into the ground.

As far as replacement players go... what would that make the NHL, the 5th or 6th best league in the world? I'd stick with the KHL and junior hockey.

So just because they are billionaires it is fair for the team which is a business to lose money?

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:58 AM
  #146
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
I find this whole "owners take all the risks" mostly an argument that makes little sense. If the owners "were willing to take all the risks" and if they took a "risk" by buying a franchise and now they are in trouble, isn't that the "risk" they took?

Why change the rules of the game? The owners made a bad bet that they lost and they should take losing like a man (or a woman), and not trying to change the rules of the game so they (the ones who took all the "risks") are now taking no "risks" and the cities their team they own plays in or the players end up taking all the "risks".

My feeling on the subject is that if the cities and the players are going to pay the risk premium they should own the teams outright in a partnership deal and let the owners take their bag of money and go elsewhere. There is a lot of money available for financing a project like this if it is done properly, the owners are the ones who aren't needed in today's world.
Its a good theory in principle but I promise you this, less than 3% of the players in the league will stake their life savings on owning a NHL team. You want to know why....too Risky!!!

maybe 10 of the owners dont care either way, their teams will make massive piles of money anyways, Habs, Leafs ETC. This whole thing is about the 10 teams that feel lucky to break even and the 5-6 who lose massive piles of cash every year.

We are 6 pages into this thread and I still dont see 1 argument that makes me think a 50-50 split is not a fair deal. Every one of us here knows that the owners wont cave until they get the 50-50. The players would still get 50% of HRR and pay 0% of league costs. I dont see why that isnt fair....


Last edited by IceDaddy: 10-07-2012 at 11:10 AM.
IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 11:05 AM
  #147
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
So just because they are billionaires it is fair for the team which is a business to lose money?
it's fair if your market is non existent and your investment/profits are based on future speculation. Nature of risk.

BTW, owners want more then just a 50/50 split, and even with a 50/50 split, i doubt the "speculative" markets will do that much better. What the owners really want is for salaries to be lower, so those markets can afford to sign and keep "elite" players. Which IMO, the salaries of the players, specifically the top 10%, is directly correlated with the growth of the NHL.

Until we will see those markets fullfill to it's "potential", this league will be in heaps of trouble for years to come, and more lock out will be a reality.

Quote:
Every one of us here knows that the owners wont cave until they get the 50-50.
Like i said, owners want more then 50/50. They want cap lowered, redefine what the revenue sharing is, want to players to enter UFA less frequently. if it was only 50/50, we wouldn't be in a lock out.

uiCk is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 11:42 AM
  #148
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
Its a good theory in principle but I promise you this, less than 3% of the players in the league will stake their life savings on owning a NHL team. You want to know why....too Risky!!!

maybe 10 of the owners dont care either way, their teams will make massive piles of money anyways, Habs, Leafs ETC. This whole thing is about the 10 teams that feel lucky to break even and the 5-6 who lose massive piles of cash every year.

We are 6 pages into this thread and I still dont see 1 argument that makes me think a 50-50 split is not a fair deal. Every one of us here knows that the owners wont cave until they get the 50-50. The players would still get 50% of HRR and pay 0% of league costs. I dont see why that isnt fair....
That's not how it works in the world of finance nowadays.

Take a look at Four Season's Hotels (from Wikipedia):

In 1974, cost overruns at a Vancouver property nearly led the company into bankruptcy. As a result, the company began shifting to its current, management-only business model and eliminate costs associated with buying land and buildings and instead begin earning profits once the hotel opens. The company went public in 1986.

------ -------------- --------

The players would run a management-style company and real estate funds and real estate companies would own the arenas. It would take away almost all of the risk away from the players.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 11:44 AM
  #149
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
it's fair if your market is non existent and your investment/profits are based on future speculation. Nature of risk.

BTW, owners want more then just a 50/50 split, and even with a 50/50 split, i doubt the "speculative" markets will do that much better. What the owners really want is for salaries to be lower, so those markets can afford to sign and keep "elite" players. Which IMO, the salaries of the players, specifically the top 10%, is directly correlated with the growth of the NHL.

Until we will see those markets fullfill to it's "potential", this league will be in heaps of trouble for years to come, and more lock out will be a reality.


Like i said, owners want more then 50/50. They want cap lowered, redefine what the revenue sharing is, want to players to enter UFA less frequently. if it was only 50/50, we wouldn't be in a lock out.
Well a 50-50 split would automatically lower the cap. Those 2 issues go together. The players have said that they will not accept 1 penny less than the 57% they have now. They keep saying they want to be real partners with the owners but dont partners share the costs or running the business??

The UFA thing is a no brainer. The owners put alot of money into scouting, then drafting, then developing players just to see them walk away to the rich teams as they hit their prime.


Last edited by IceDaddy: 10-07-2012 at 11:55 AM.
IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 11:46 AM
  #150
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
That's not how it works in the world of finance nowadays.

Take a look at Four Season's Hotels (from Wikipedia):

In 1974, cost overruns at a Vancouver property nearly led the company into bankruptcy. As a result, the company began shifting to its current, management-only business model and eliminate costs associated with buying land and buildings and instead begin earning profits once the hotel opens. The company went public in 1986.

------ -------------- --------

The players would run a management-style company and real estate funds and real estate companies would own the arenas. It would take away almost all of the risk away from the players.
so the players would not own the arenas, how would there be no risk? if anything it would be more risky cause the players would not have the chance to sell nights at the arena for concerts and maybe offset losses from hockey.


Last edited by IceDaddy: 10-07-2012 at 11:54 AM.
IceDaddy 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 05:34 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.