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
10-18-2012, 02:38 PM
  #676
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Why? Because the owners "deserve" to make a profit?
No, but investing 300 million in something gives you a lot of rights. It's not like the owners of NHL teams just volunteered to be an owner without putting a dime in it. If your buisiness(NHL) wants to thrive long term for the benefit of everybody then all it's particiapnts need to have a reasonable chance at a profit. If the only way Nashville or Phoenix can make a profit is to win the cup then the system is broken or at least needs to be tweaked. There is a lot of some and mirrors but like I said 3 months ago, the 3 variables that really matter are 1-the %split of revenue 2-the % and distribution of revenue sharing(big clubs helping their brother teams) and 3-plugging the "burial of big contracts" which helps the super rich and helps kill small markets(by disproportinately incrasing salaries)

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 02:44 PM
  #677
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Why? Because the owners "deserve" to make a profit?
If there is a profit to be had, then "yes" the owners, like the players, "deserve" their fair share of it because of what they have invested in the running and maintaining of a team. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. It seems very simple. Both players and owners are necessary components of the NHL as an entity. Why should only the players "deserve" to "profit" from the partnership?

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 02:52 PM
  #678
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
TSN690 says that Mathieu Dandenault said on twitter that the players will submit 4 different proposals to the NHL all 4 of which will have a 50-50 split.
I heard the same on Twitter. Has NHLPA submitted so many proposals at once before?

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 02:54 PM
  #679
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
TSN690 says that Mathieu Dandenault said on twitter that the players will submit 4 different proposals to the NHL all 4 of which will have a 50-50 split.
That's fantastic. I hope these are legit offers. If they are, good job NHLPA.

I hope it's not a PR move by giving 4 offers, all crap and then NHL rejecting and looking like the bad guys. Let's get this going!

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 02:57 PM
  #680
PyrettaBlaze*
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,264
vCash: 500
Bad news guys... Bettman said he's "totally disappointed" and that the NHLPA's offer didn't even come close to a 50/50 split. Said they aren't speaking the same language and that today was a step backwards.

****.



Last edited by PyrettaBlaze*: 10-18-2012 at 03:04 PM.
PyrettaBlaze* is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 02:59 PM
  #681
Habsfan18
The Future
 
Habsfan18's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyrettaBlaze View Post
Bad news guys... Bettman said he's "totally disappointed" and that the NHLPA's offer didn't even come close to a 50/50 split. Said they aren't speaking the same language and that today was step backwards.

****.
My initial reaction, so keep that in mind, is that the PA are greedy ****ing idiots.

__________________
Interested in checking out 50+ years worth of covers from "The Hockey News?" Check out my collection here: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1382901
Habsfan18 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:13 PM
  #682
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
What are the arguing over now?

I want to see NHLPA's proposals before I have an opinion but I too fear this is NHLPA greed but maybe i'm wrong, we'll see.

Again, I'm not sure why people see the NHL going down from 57% or whatever. Reality is, that CBA is done, there's zero leverage. It doesn't exist. It's like NYR trading Gretzky for a 1st in 2012. Guy left, it's done, the old CBA is not an asset anymore, there's zero leverage.

At this point, make a FAIR deal and lets go. 50-50 is a good start,1% or so on either side is no big deal. ELC went shorter and in response max contracts went shorter too but that affects like only 5% of contracts so no big deal.

Whatever, this is pathetic. I thought NHL's deal was fair. Yes, the players lost from the old CBA but that CBA no longer exists and as I pointed out, should not be used as leverage. 50-50 and tweaks to 2nd contracts and max deals/front loaded removed and I'm happy.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:25 PM
  #683
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
What are the arguing over now?

I want to see NHLPA's proposals before I have an opinion but I too fear this is NHLPA greed but maybe i'm wrong, we'll see.

Again, I'm not sure why people see the NHL going down from 57% or whatever. Reality is, that CBA is done, there's zero leverage. It doesn't exist. It's like NYR trading Gretzky for a 1st in 2012. Guy left, it's done, the old CBA is not an asset anymore, there's zero leverage.

At this point, make a FAIR deal and lets go. 50-50 is a good start,1% or so on either side is no big deal. ELC went shorter and in response max contracts went shorter too but that affects like only 5% of contracts so no big deal.

Whatever, this is pathetic. I thought NHL's deal was fair. Yes, the players lost from the old CBA but that CBA no longer exists and as I pointed out, should not be used as leverage. 50-50 and tweaks to 2nd contracts and max deals/front loaded removed and I'm happy.
Well Bettman said that there were 3 offers and 2 of them did not come close to 50-50. they were re-worded versions of the offer over the summer. The last offer was only to get to 50-50 over a number of year that was too far away.


I am so glad to got TVA sports, at least I will see Bulldog games.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:37 PM
  #684
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,662
vCash: 500
Those spoiled millionaires are just as connected to the struggling middle class as Mitt freaking Romney.

It just so appears that many of their middle-class parents have failed tremendously at educating them at becoming constructive members of the society.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:44 PM
  #685
peate
Habs fan 4 life.
 
peate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,581
vCash: 2007
I voted for the players when the poll first came out, now I want to change my vote. A 50-50 deal is reality. Players are shooting themselves in the foot and Donald Fehr is holding the gun.

peate is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:51 PM
  #686
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
What are the arguing over now?

I want to see NHLPA's proposals before I have an opinion but I too fear this is NHLPA greed but maybe i'm wrong, we'll see.

Again, I'm not sure why people see the NHL going down from 57% or whatever. Reality is, that CBA is done, there's zero leverage. It doesn't exist. It's like NYR trading Gretzky for a 1st in 2012. Guy left, it's done, the old CBA is not an asset anymore, there's zero leverage.

At this point, make a FAIR deal and lets go. 50-50 is a good start,1% or so on either side is no big deal. ELC went shorter and in response max contracts went shorter too but that affects like only 5% of contracts so no big deal.

Whatever, this is pathetic. I thought NHL's deal was fair. Yes, the players lost from the old CBA but that CBA no longer exists and as I pointed out, should not be used as leverage. 50-50 and tweaks to 2nd contracts and max deals/front loaded removed and I'm happy.
Clearly, the NHL doesn't see things the way you do. The last CBA was a launching point for them, every subsequent negotiation will be about driving the players' percentage down another notch. Same as the NBA. Nothing to with fair, everything to do with leverage.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:52 PM
  #687
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by peate View Post
I voted for the players when the poll first came out, now I want to change my vote. A 50-50 deal is reality. Players are shooting themselves in the foot and Donald Fehr is holding the gun.
I bet you're not the only one.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:53 PM
  #688
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Clearly, the NHL doesn't see things the way you do. The last CBA was a launching point for them, every subsequent negotiation will be about driving the players' percentage down another notch. Same as the NBA. Nothing to with fair, everything to do with leverage.
57% was not EARNED by the players, it was given to them. Now that we've established a salary cap is good for the game it's not unreasonable for them to say "Okay, our experiment worked even better than we expected, no more risk for you guys, how about we go to a deal that makes sense in a system we both know?"

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:53 PM
  #689
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Those spoiled millionaires are just as connected to the struggling middle class as Mitt freaking Romney.

It just so appears that many of their middle-class parents have failed tremendously at educating them at becoming constructive members of the society.
Well that's maybe a little too hard on the Molsons...

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:55 PM
  #690
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Well that's maybe a little too hard on the Molsons...
Jokes aside, Molson is losing from this proposal as he gives up more revenue sharing and can't put gomez away if he wanted to.

Really, Habs, leafs, NYR aren't guys we should be looking at, they'll be giving up the most, way more than the players.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:56 PM
  #691
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
57% was not EARNED by the players, it was given to them. Now that we've established a salary cap is good for the game it's not unreasonable for them to say "Okay, our experiment worked even better than we expected, no more risk for you guys, how about we go to a deal that makes sense in a system we both know?"
Really? As far as I can see, it has actually brought us into a cycle of work stoppages every 6 or so years, and has not fixed the gap between rich and poor teams.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:58 PM
  #692
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Jokes aside, Molson is losing from this proposal as he gives up more revenue sharing and can't put gomez away if he wanted to.

Really, Habs, leafs, NYR aren't guys we should be looking at, they'll be giving up the most, way more than the players.
The wealthy owners are playing the long game. They are turning their jobs into increasingly can't fail propositions (even if they Wang things up). If they succeed, franchise values will be through the roof when they decide to sell. Every billionaire will be begging to get into the NHL/NBA/NFL owners club. From a money POV, I think they are betting this makes lockout losses look like chump change. And it'll keep the little guys from demanding revenue sharing, and make keeping the Balsillies out of the club easier.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:00 PM
  #693
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,347
vCash: 500
IMO the negotiation process has no real impact on fact that the leagues problems are not related to the prior agreement, and much to do with speculative markets that did not pan out.

it was without a doubt that the the new agreement was going to be around 50-50, and the real negotiations only started when both sides would be "aware" of it, which is now.

uiCk is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:07 PM
  #694
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post

You claimed: As the wage share fell by 25% and revenues went up by 80%, the owners theoretically have 276% as much to play with as they did before the 2005 lockout (0.43*1.8/0.28 = 2.76). A partial answer: One of the reasons the owners do not have as much to play with is because, even though wage SHARE dropped, wages have dramatically increased even in a Cap system. Had the owners not done what they did in 2005, it is quite possible that the league would be smaller or non-existent due to multiple teams losing money, multiple teams declaring bankruptcy, and the NHL losing huindreds of millions of dollars (which was the state of affiars in 2005).
The 276% they have to play with is AFTER salaries are accounted for. You are clearly weak at math, as it is explicit in my equation: (0.43*1.8/0.28 = 2.76), either that or you respond to posts without reading them.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-18-2012 at 04:15 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:09 PM
  #695
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Really? As far as I can see, it has actually brought us into a cycle of work stoppages every 6 or so years, and has not fixed the gap between rich and poor teams.
First, it's more than 6 years since last lockout.

Second, you can't conclude cycle when it happened twice. The lockout in the past is not caused by salary caps as it wasn't present.

You can NEVER fix the gap between poor and rich teams but you can give them a fighting chance.

Also, there has been measures to fix the gap. You think removing front loaded contracts doesn't help the smaller owners? It helps playing field. See guys like weber wouldn't have got that crazy deal and nashville would've had a better deal.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:11 PM
  #696
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
The wealthy owners are playing the long game. They are turning their jobs into increasingly can't fail propositions (even if they Wang things up). If they succeed, franchise values will be through the roof when they decide to sell. Every billionaire will be begging to get into the NHL/NBA/NFL owners club. From a money POV, I think they are betting this makes lockout losses look like chump change. And it'll keep the little guys from demanding revenue sharing, and make keeping the Balsillies out of the club easier.
I don't think you get it, if they are giving more into revenue sharing they are losing profits. They made more last CBA.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:12 PM
  #697
Raider917
Registered User
 
Raider917's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,569
vCash: 179
what is it going to take for contraction to be a real possibility? a full season? 2 full seasons? whatever it takes i want it.

Raider917 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:14 PM
  #698
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
IMO the negotiation process has no real impact on fact that the leagues problems are not related to the prior agreement, and much to do with speculative markets that did not pan out.

it was without a doubt that the the new agreement was going to be around 50-50, and the real negotiations only started when both sides would be "aware" of it, which is now.
Well, both sides refused to give in. The NHL went in and made that step forward and instead of being "okay, lets tweak the minor details" it became a "okay, now lets negotiate off this" which the NHL already brought forward what they claim is their best deal. I can't imagine NHL deviating too much from current stance.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:14 PM
  #699
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider917 View Post
what is it going to take for contraction to be a real possibility? a full season? 2 full seasons? whatever it takes i want it.
Well, NHL nor NHLPA want that so no, it won't happen.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:15 PM
  #700
Raider917
Registered User
 
Raider917's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,569
vCash: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Well, NHL nor NHLPA want that so no, it won't happen.
cant some franchises just go bankrupt eventually?

Raider917 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 09:30 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.