HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part IV (UPDATE: "The Union took a step backward")

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 12:05 PM
  #976
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Fehr went five straight negotiations at one point with work stoppages with the MLB, no?

Bettman's got two more to match him.
I don't think they all cost games played.

Who won the last lockout? Go to a league forum and say Bettman is inept. You'll find hundreds of posters telling you he brought cost certainty and parity to the league.

All I know is the owners must really, really love this system. Despite the "loses" they are willing to miss two seasons to maintain it.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:05 PM
  #977
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oak View Post
I think the only spoiled one here is you. Just because they played hockey their entire life and reached levels of eliteness that you never will, does not mean that they should be thankful for scraps that are thrown to them. You act like because they have a great job they should be thankful to be there and take anything they get.
And who the hell says they are entitled to the 1.88 bn they think they are owed?

There is nothing wrong or illegal with the owners saying "We don't want to pay our labor force this much."

Sorry.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:13 PM
  #978
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
The players brought this upon themselves. As did the owners. Walked on? In what sense?

The players signed these contracts knowing full well that there was no chance in hell the contracts would be honored as is when the CBA expired.

The owners agreed to sign these contracts knowing full well they had no intention of honoring them as is when the CBA expired.

Take responsibility for your actions.

The contracts should be honored. In a sense. But the league needs to cut back salary. Its a sacrifice that has to be made. And thats life.

What concessions are the players really giving up? Its not their league.

They are paid, handsomely, for their unique skills.

How are they being walked on? For the betterment of the league they have to give up a little.

50/50 split. They won't get their full contracts. If the league is to be more healthy moving forward, the owners HAVE TO "win more" then the players. Players will come and go through this league but the league wants stability an longevity with its franchises.

Because the league shows no respect for its players. What did Fehr say about the MLB? Everything changed in those negotiations when the owners started to respect the PA.

It sets a very ****** precedent for any future CBAs, and if I were a player, id probably just maximize on my income playing elsewhere. No matter what profession, youre always looking for higher income. Id hate to have to be confined to a league with so many economic issues that I have to take paycuts every so many years because they dont know how to run their league properly, money notwithstanding. Its purely about honoring the contract, whether its 50 bucks or 50 million.

If my employer kept telling me they needed to cut my pay because they dont know how to run their own business, id be furious and look elsewhere.

Business is cyclical and ups and downs but the NHL just cant seem to get itself running on any level efficiently. Shaky business.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:14 PM
  #979
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
The players brought this upon themselves. As did the owners. Walked on? In what sense?

The players signed these contracts knowing full well that there was no chance in hell the contracts would be honored as is when the CBA expired.

The owners agreed to sign these contracts knowing full well they had no intention of honoring them as is when the CBA expired.

Take responsibility for your actions.

The contracts should be honored. In a sense. But the league needs to cut back salary. Its a sacrifice that has to be made. And thats life.

What concessions are the players really giving up? Its not their league.

They are paid, handsomely, for their unique skills.

How are they being walked on? For the betterment of the league they have to give up a little.

50/50 split. They won't get their full contracts. If the league is to be more healthy moving forward, the owners HAVE TO "win more" then the players. Players will come and go through this league but the league wants stability an longevity with its franchises.
Excellent post. Yeah, the owners win these things usually.

And that's the way it should be. The owners are the ones that have to be healthiest for the league to be healthy. So the owners should win.

The players, unfortunately, SHOULD get the scraps. When a league is healthy, those scraps are a fortune and they are more than well compensated.

Zero sympathy for the players saying they gave up so much last time. Yeah, and now you can give up some more. If you want your jobs to be around indefinitely, you'll back off getting 57%. That means you give up something again.

When the players are only getting 37%, then I'll agree its time for them to get something.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:15 PM
  #980
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 75,136
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antithesis View Post
We also signed Richards to something resembling a retirement contract.
Yeah, but we will gladly pay him. This lockout is driven by the scum **** poor teams. Not the Leafs, Rangers, etc.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
EvilCorporateLawyer is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:17 PM
  #981
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 75,136
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Excellent post. Yeah, the owners win these things usually.

And that's the way it should be. The owners are the ones that have to be healthiest for the league to be healthy. So the owners should win.

The players, unfortunately, SHOULD get the scraps. When a league is healthy, those scraps are a fortune and they are more than well compensated.

Zero sympathy for the players saying they gave up so much last time. Yeah, and now you can give up some more.
Wow. Are you an 1800s factory owner or something? What a high and mighty post.

"These peons should be lucky they haven't died from black lung yet. Be happy with your scraps while I bathe in money!"

EvilCorporateLawyer is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:21 PM
  #982
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
I don't think they all cost games played.

Who won the last lockout? Go to a league forum and say Bettman is inept. You'll find hundreds of posters telling you he brought cost certainty and parity to the league.

All I know is the owners must really, really love this system. Despite the "loses" they are willing to miss two seasons to maintain it.
They are willing to miss two seasons to get it lower than it was before, you mean.

I don't see how anyone can credibly argue that the NHL doesn't have an income problem.

Most of the teams lost money.

If most of the teams can't make a profit without the top 3 teams covering their butts, then costs are way too high.

That means labor costs have to go down. That means the players have to lose again.

Sorry, Don Fehr. You guys have to take another cut. That's what's right.

I don't know if that's 47% or 51% or whatever, but you are coming down from what you got before, period.

So I have no real sympathy on this "honor the contracts" thing. The players knew when signing those deals that they were contingent on a new CBA. It's not like this negotiation is a surprise to them.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:24 PM
  #983
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
That's really the underlying reason behind these lockouts. The league keeps running the ship aground and then digs into the players pockets to get it moving again. These lockouts exist because the league pushed hockey into markets that might not support a team. Now they expect the players to pay for that idea.
A lot of these players wouldn't have jobs had the NHL not done that.

iamitter is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:24 PM
  #984
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 10,076
vCash: 500
Once I realized the correct pronunciation of Fehr's name was fear, I realized this was all going to turn much worse.

nevesis is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:25 PM
  #985
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Wow. Are you an 1800s factory owner or something? What a high and mighty post.

"These peons should be lucky they haven't died from black lung yet. Be happy with your scraps while I bathe in money!"
Wow. Are you a 1920s communist rebel or something? What a high and mighty post.

Guess what... the owners aren't bathing in money. They are losing money.

So the players share has to come down again to make them solvent.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:27 PM
  #986
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
The players brought this upon themselves. As did the owners. Walked on? In what sense?

The players signed these contracts knowing full well that there was no chance in hell the contracts would be honored as is when the CBA expired.

The owners agreed to sign these contracts knowing full well they had no intention of honoring them as is when the CBA expired.

Take responsibility for your actions.

The contracts should be honored. In a sense. But the league needs to cut back salary. Its a sacrifice that has to be made. And thats life.

What concessions are the players really giving up? Its not their league.

They are paid, handsomely, for their unique skills.

How are they being walked on? For the betterment of the league they have to give up a little.

50/50 split. They won't get their full contracts. If the league is to be more healthy moving forward, the owners HAVE TO "win more" then the players. Players will come and go through this league but the league wants stability an longevity with its franchises.
If I were to sign a contract I would expect 100% of what I signed for--what the other side in this case should expect is 100% effort on my part--now if they wanted to pay me 85% of it then they shouldn't ***** when they get an 85% effort.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:28 PM
  #987
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
They are willing to miss two seasons to get it lower than it was before, you mean.

I don't see how anyone can credibly argue that the NHL doesn't have an income problem.

Most of the teams lost money.

If most of the teams can't make a profit without the top 3 teams covering their butts, then costs are way too high.

That means labor costs have to go down. That means the players have to lose again.

Sorry, Don Fehr. You guys have to take another cut. That's what's right.

I don't know if that's 47% or 51% or whatever, but you are coming down from what you got before, period.

So I have no real sympathy on this "honor the contracts" thing. The players knew when signing those deals that they were contingent on a new CBA. It's not like this negotiation is a surprise to them.
Not when most of them hadnt gone through the previous lockout.

Im not really on any particular side, but I find it disturbing that you seem vehemently pro-owner.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:29 PM
  #988
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
A lot of these players wouldn't have jobs had the NHL not done that.

Yeah but its not as if they had to go to those markets.

Theyd have jobs if the league went to better markets too.

I think thats a non-point.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:33 PM
  #989
GordonGecko
Stanley Cup 2015
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,933
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
OT: Can anyone explain to me how the Washington Redskins (with FedEx field in the middle of nowhere and never really having won anything) make so much money?

"Why did the NFL settle with its players before any regular season games were lost? Look at the numbers. The NFLís richest teams, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots and Washington Redskins, earned a staggering $454 million last season. Yet, that total represented just 35% of the NFLís $1.3 billion in total operating profit. The NFL cut back its supplemental revenue sharing program in its latest CBA. It expects $45 billion in new TV agreements to prop up the low revenue teams and keep their profit margins high."

GordonGecko is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:34 PM
  #990
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
That's really the underlying reason behind these lockouts. The league keeps running the ship aground and then digs into the players pockets to get it moving again. These lockouts exist because the league pushed hockey into markets that might not support a team. Now they expect the players to pay for that idea.
More teams mean more jobs for the PA. The union is not going to fight expansion in non-traditional markets.

Bardof425* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:34 PM
  #991
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
A lot of these players wouldn't have jobs had the NHL not done that.
Jobs in the NHL, maybe, but let's not pretend as if the NHL is the only hockey league in the world. Not to mention there are plenty of guys in the NHL that really have no business being there.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:36 PM
  #992
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
OT: Can anyone explain to me how the Washington Redskins (with FedEx field in the middle of nowhere and never really having won anything) make so much money?
Ridiculously loyal fan base even though the team has been terrible forever, and they probably get good corporate sponsorship or something

Levitate is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:37 PM
  #993
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardof425 View Post
More teams mean more jobs for the PA. The union is not going to fight expansion in non-traditional markets.
More jobs also mean you're splitting up a pie with more and more people. Now, the league is attempting to make that pie even smaller.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:40 PM
  #994
NyRangers88
Section 208 Row 15
 
NyRangers88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,423
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NyRangers88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Ridiculously loyal fan base even though the team has been terrible forever, and they probably get good corporate sponsorship or something
I'm not so sure about loyal, over the past few years they have been averaging only 85% attendance and a good chunk of people root for the away team.

__________________
2013-2014 Eastern Conference Champions!!
NyRangers88 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:41 PM
  #995
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Not when most of them hadnt gone through the previous lockout.
These players don't have agents and lawyers telling them that their contracts are subject to the CBA?

They should hire some then so they'd know that's the case.

Quote:
Im not really on any particular side, but I find it disturbing that you seem vehemently pro-owner.
Why is that disturbing?

I don't support the NHL's 43% proposal, that is obviously too low.

But there is no "right" of the players to receive 57% or 53% or whatever, either.

The facts are, with NHL salaries accounting for $1.88 billion last year, most teams lost money.

There is something wrong with that.

That means player salaries have to come down again. When we get to a CBA negotiation where the owners are making money hand over fist, then I'll agree that player salaries should go up. That's not the case right now.

I'm actually pro-player. If teams continue to lose money, they will fold, meaning there are less jobs available. Since I don't want to see that, I want to see financially viable franchises. That means reducing costs.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:41 PM
  #996
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
And that's the way it should be. The owners are the ones that have to be healthiest for the league to be healthy. So the owners should win.
The players arent the ones running their own business into the ground and its not how a CBA should be consistently run.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:44 PM
  #997
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
OT: Can anyone explain to me how the Washington Redskins (with FedEx field in the middle of nowhere and never really having won anything) make so much money?

"Why did the NFL settle with its players before any regular season games were lost? Look at the numbers. The NFLís richest teams, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots and Washington Redskins, earned a staggering $454 million last season. Yet, that total represented just 35% of the NFLís $1.3 billion in total operating profit. The NFL cut back its supplemental revenue sharing program in its latest CBA. It expects $45 billion in new TV agreements to prop up the low revenue teams and keep their profit margins high."
They have a fan bases that stretches through Virginia, Maryland, even into North Carolina. The location of the stadium isn't an issue because people can make the drive on a Sunday. The Stadium is right off I-95, and accessible from the DC subway (or whatever they call it). Saying they haven't won anything is silly. They have 3 Super Bowls. Only 5 franchises have more.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:45 PM
  #998
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Yeah, but we will gladly pay him. This lockout is driven by the scum **** poor teams. Not the Leafs, Rangers, etc.
not only will we gladly pay him but we structured the contract so he got an $8 mil signing bonus on july 1st as insurance against the lockout.

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:45 PM
  #999
NyRangers88
Section 208 Row 15
 
NyRangers88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,423
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NyRangers88
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
They have a fan bases that stretches through Virginia, Maryland, even into North Carolina. The location of the stadium isn't an issue because people can make the drive on a Sunday. The Stadium is right off I-95, and accessible from the DC subway (or whatever they call it). Saying they haven't won anything is silly. They have 3 Super Bowls. Only 5 franchises have more.
Don't they share territory with Baltimore, though? Those two cities are close.

NyRangers88 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:48 PM
  #1000
NyRangers88
Section 208 Row 15
 
NyRangers88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,423
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NyRangers88
Part V:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1273157

NyRangers88 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 01:24 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.