HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 12:31 PM
  #26
GordonGecko
Stanley Cup 2015
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,677
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
Supposedly, every signed contract has a clause in it stating that all terms are subject to change based upon the contingency of a new CBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Source? Link?
There's no supposedly, of course there's a CBA clause. All the contracts are subject to it. The NHL has anti-competitive salary caps on wages, that's illegal in the United States and Canada unless all parties agree to it (the CBA).

Pro Athlete contracts are not the same contracts you and I are used to in the real world. No CBA, no contract. Simple as that.

GordonGecko is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:35 PM
  #27
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Then get a new system. Is it working or not? It's not a matter of a few percentage points. One day the league won't maintain this pace so they need relief. The next, the union should sign this deal because 5% growth is feasible. In year 6, 50% is going to put the floor way over the current level. The poor teams will still drown. This isn't a fix.

The league pushed to bad markets. They prop up weak franchises instead of moving north. Players get no say in this.

Are contracts guaranteed? When Yashin didn't play a year, he got zero dollars AND owed the sens another year. The league expects the players to hold up their end. If a player took off 12% of the games no one on their right mind would think he deserves 100% of the money.

Legal or not, the players want the full value of these deals. It's what makes them comfortable giving up every single other demand. Everyone needs some kind of "win". Some way to maintain some dignity. It's not about millionaires, it's about human nature.
Well, I think it's clear that without some sort of revenue sharing that some of the teams are never going to be profitable unless salaries shrank dramatically. I don't know the numbers, but surely it would be some number that is just tiny compared to what they currently get.

Say it's 25%. So I'm not arguing that the league has to shrink player salaries to 25% so that all teams are profitable.

But with only a small handful of teams making ANY profit, that number has to change. It's unfair to tell the Rangers, Maple Leafs and Canadiens to support everyone else.

I will continue to back the owners' attempts to get costs under control until well over the majority of teams are profitable in some capacity. At that point, revenue sharing would be acceptable to me to float the rest of the teams.

If we ever reached a point where the owners were truly making all the money, then I would believe the players were in the right by demanding more. I don't believe we're at that point though.

Again, just read that Forbes article that keeps floating around. Why does the NFL work?

Because it's three most profitable teams are only bringing in 35% of league revenues. The other teams are still making 65% of the revenues. Just about everyone is making money on their own. The revenue sharing splits income for everyone, and only a very few teams are entirely dependent on revenue sharing to make their profits.

That is not the case in the NHL. It has overextended it's costs. If the NHL had the same situation as the NFL -- meaning that every team was making money -- it would never lose a game either.

This is why it's hilarious to blame "owner greed." If the owners were actually making money, they'd be happy to continue to employ the players. Just like they are in the NFL.


Last edited by mschmidt64: 10-19-2012 at 12:46 PM.
mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:41 PM
  #28
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I will continue to back the owners' attempts to get costs under control until well over the majority of teams are profitable in some capacity. At that point, revenue sharing would be acceptable to me to float the rest of the teams.
Owners are asking players to sacrifice for the stability of small market teams, but redistributing money between the owners would achieve the same goal. The owners prefer the salary-cutting option because it would transfer money to all of the owners, including those who are already making great piles of cash, while revenue sharing would reduce the profits of the high earners in the league. When it comes to dividing up the $3.3 billion of revenue between owners and players, the owners should get their own **** in order before asking for sacrifices from the players.


Last edited by AceintheSpace*: 10-19-2012 at 12:48 PM.
AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:48 PM
  #29
GordonGecko
Stanley Cup 2015
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,677
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Again, just read that Forbes article that keeps floating around. Why does the NFL work?
The NFL works because it's a national game with one weekend game per week, with competitive balance across all teams and a LOT of stars to go around. MLB is a better comparison but its advantage is the 40,000+ Stadium (twice NHL capacity) and 81 home dates per year (twice the NHL). So then you have to compare to the NBA who play the same number of games in the same arenas. The NBA has a shortage of stars and competitive balance, but they make a lot more money than the NHL and have better ratings than even MLB.

It just comes down to popularity of the sport. Hockey is a foreign concept to most Americans. Their kids don't play it and they don't see it played in the neighborhood. The NHL's only chance is to bring salaries in line as a percentage of revenues, and promote the sport among the younger generations. Build some local rinks or something

GordonGecko is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:52 PM
  #30
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Owners are asking players to sacrifice for the stability of small market teams, but redistributing money between the owners would achieve the same goal.
How about we redistribute it between the players instead?

Tell Ryan Suter to cut a check to Stu Bickel for 40% of his paycheck.

No? Think he's not gonna want to do that?

Didn't think so.

Quote:
The owners prefer the salary-cutting option, of course, because it would transfer money to all of the owners, including those who are already making great piles of cash
There are three teams making great piles of cash.

The rest are making little or none.

But it is no more fair to ask the Rangers, Leafs and Habs to cover the rest of the league than it is to ask Suter and Parise to cover the rest of the players.

We should reach a point where the majority of teams are profitable on their own. Not sure why that is a difficult concept.

Quote:
When it comes to dividing up the $3.3 billion of revenue between owners and players, the owners should get their own house in order before asking for sacrifices from the players.
Reducing player salaries is how the NHL owners get their house in order. That is their biggest cost by far.

Like I said, it is more than fair to say that once the majority of teams are profitable, there can be revenue sharing to cover the minority of teams who aren't.

It is patently UNFAIR, though, to tell the Rangers to support the losses of the entire rest of the league. That is not a healthy situation.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:53 PM
  #31
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Are contracts guaranteed? When Yashin didn't play a year, he got zero dollars AND owed the sens another year. The league expects the players to hold up their end. If a player took off 12% of the games no one on their right mind would think he deserves 100% of the money.

Legal or not, the players want the full value of these deals. It's what makes them comfortable giving up every single other demand. Everyone needs some kind of "win". Some way to maintain some dignity. It's not about millionaires, it's about human nature.
What percent of games has Redden "taken off"? Gomez? Drury? Heck Marion Gaborik? There's no way to quantify that. Players get injured... Underperform. Sometimes drastically. Owners aren't getting full fair value on those contracts right?

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:54 PM
  #32
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
The NHL's only chance is to bring salaries in line as a percentage of revenues
And that's exactly my point.

When the NHL reaches a stage where each team is profitable, then we'll stop missing games due to labor disputes.

That entails setting labor costs at some percentage where most teams are still in the black....

... which is lower than the current percentage of 57%.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:54 PM
  #33
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Well, I think it's clear that without some sort of revenue sharing that some of the teams are never going to be profitable unless salaries shrank dramatically. I don't know the numbers, but surely it would be some number that is just tiny compared to what they currently get.

Say it's 25%. So I'm not arguing that the league has to shrink player salaries to 25% so that all teams are profitable.

But with only a small handful of teams making ANY profit, that number has to change. It's unfair to tell the Rangers, Maple Leafs and Canadiens to support everyone else.

I will continue to back the owners' attempts to get costs under control until well over the majority of teams are profitable in some capacity. At that point, revenue sharing would be acceptable to me to float the rest of the teams.

If we ever reached a point where the owners were truly making all the money, then I would believe the players were in the right by demanding more. I don't believe we're at that point though.

Again, just read that Forbes article that keeps floating around. Why does the NFL work?

Because it's three most profitable teams are only bringing in 35% of league revenues. The other teams are still making 65% of the revenues. Just about everyone is making money on their own. The revenue sharing splits income for everyone, and only a very few teams are entirely dependent on revenue sharing to make their profits.

That is not the case in the NHL. It has overextended it's costs. If the NHL had the same situation as the NFL -- meaning that every team was making money -- it would never lose a game either.

This is why it's hilarious to blame "owner greed." If the owners were actually making money, they'd be happy to continue to employ the players. Just like they are in the NFL.
The point is, if this system supposedly doesn't work, why are they insisting on more of the same. Once again, it is the league that is setting up franchises for failure. If the league gets their deal and in 6 years florida is swamped by salary, is it the players' fault and responsibility. If teams need revenue sharing, shouldn't they be the ones pushing for it? But its the players?

Or maybe the teams aren't honest. Maybe it's creative accounting. I mean, if they want the same system I have to assume it works. Florida and the islanders can afford $45m in payroll or they can't. This system isn't stopping $45m in payroll.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:01 PM
  #34
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
What percent of games has Redden "taken off"? Gomez? Drury? Heck Marion Gaborik? There's no way to quantify that. Players get injured... Underperform. Sometimes drastically. Owners aren't getting full fair value on those contracts right?
Its not an argument about effort. Players are insured against injury. The NHL legislated the Redden situation, another mess they created. And the Rangers are handling the poor contract, not blaming Redden or the CBA for the contract.

The Yashin thing was an arbitrated issue. The contract expired on a date, not after a number of seasons. The NHL argued that the spirit was to fulfill x number of seasons. They fought to make contracts 100% binding, they expected the full amount to be fulfilled. See an contradiction now?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:01 PM
  #35
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,823
vCash: 500
Craig Custance ‏@CraigCustance
NHL announces cancellation of games through Nov. 1. Total of 135 games wiped out for now.

Nov 2nd left open. Looks like they're still holding out some hope they can reach a deal in the next week.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:04 PM
  #36
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
How about we redistribute it between the players instead?

Tell Ryan Suter to cut a check to Stu Bickel for 40% of his paycheck.

No? Think he's not gonna want to do that?

Didn't think so.



There are three teams making great piles of cash.

The rest are making little or none.

But it is no more fair to ask the Rangers, Leafs and Habs to cover the rest of the league than it is to ask Suter and Parise to cover the rest of the players.

We should reach a point where the majority of teams are profitable on their own. Not sure why that is a difficult concept.



Reducing player salaries is how the NHL owners get their house in order. That is their biggest cost by far.

Like I said, it is more than fair to say that once the majority of teams are profitable, there can be revenue sharing to cover the minority of teams who aren't.

It is patently UNFAIR, though, to tell the Rangers to support the losses of the entire rest of the league. That is not a healthy situation.
I disagree. This is an owner issue.

There are two teams that are making up the bulk of the league losses. Phoenix and Columbus. Its not as if its drastic widespread decline.

Fact is, the NHL needs to re-vamp its own revenue sharing, which is probably the worst of all NA sports leagues. The NFL divvies up from broadcast revenue and 40% at the gates. The NHL makes less than half of what the NFL does, but to cover up losses?


Last edited by AceintheSpace*: 10-19-2012 at 01:11 PM.
AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:07 PM
  #37
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
The point is, if this system supposedly doesn't work, why are they insisting on more of the same. Once again, it is the league that is setting up franchises for failure. If the league gets their deal and in 6 years florida is swamped by salary, is it the players' fault and responsibility. If teams need revenue sharing, shouldn't they be the ones pushing for it? But its the players?

Or maybe the teams aren't honest. Maybe it's creative accounting. I mean, if they want the same system I have to assume it works. Florida and the islanders can afford $45m in payroll or they can't. This system isn't stopping $45m in payroll.

Exactly.

Its repeatedly, and repeatedly, more of the same.


He says a healthy league needs healthy owners, but the owners dont know what theyre doing, which is why thats hilarious.

Its going to be the same thing every expiring CBA, and everytime mschmidt will be the one to say, "cough it up players!"

At what point do you finally turn to the owners?

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:13 PM
  #38
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
And that's exactly my point.

When the NHL reaches a stage where each team is profitable, then we'll stop missing games due to labor disputes.

That entails setting labor costs at some percentage where most teams are still in the black....

... which is lower than the current percentage of 57%.

Wasnt that the line of thinking 2004-05?

Well, here we are 8 years later.

Its not going to happen under the current scheme, even after this CBA. I guarantee that.

Its all the owners.


Last edited by AceintheSpace*: 10-19-2012 at 01:21 PM.
AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:23 PM
  #39
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,359
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
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.
Yes, but you said the NHL is asking the players to pay for those markets now. The players aren't going to fight against paying for some of these markets when doing so would mean many of them losing their jobs. I agree with your point about the guys who have no business being there, but in the NHLPA, Crosby has as much of a vote as Bissonnete.

iamitter is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:24 PM
  #40
turcotte8
Registered User
 
turcotte8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
When the NHL reaches a stage where each team is profitable, then we'll stop missing games due to labor disputes.
Something that will never happen with a 30 team league.

turcotte8 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:30 PM
  #41
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
I love how ESPN doesnt hesitate to put up negative lockout headlines on the front page, but anything else positive for the NHL, and theres nothing.

"League locks out players!.." "League cancels games through xx/xx!..." "Bettman disappointed!..."

They love that anti-NHL agenda.

Not even sure why I use it.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:31 PM
  #42
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
well you certainly will have a tough time coming up with a better way to support your argument than 'no i won't prove it, you are an idiot and i know what i'm talking about so you just need to trust me or continue to be an idiot.'

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:52 PM
  #43
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
well you certainly will have a tough time coming up with a better way to support your argument than 'no i won't prove it, you are an idiot and i know what i'm talking about so you just need to trust me or continue to be an idiot.'
Except that he's right. (Though he could have been more tactful about saying it.) You don't need a copy of the standard SPC form to know it's governed by the CBA and can be changed via a change to the CBA. It's how contracts work.

That's why I've been making the same point for months now that everyone involved - on both sides - in the deals over the summer knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:05 PM
  #44
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,194
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
I love how the owner lover here just believes all these teams are losing money. Guessing he missed the last time around with the creative accounting.

27 teams are not losing money. If you are foolish enough to believe that then it's a reason not to discuss this further.

__________________
"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
Bird Law is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:07 PM
  #45
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Wasnt that the line of thinking 2004-05?

Well, here we are 8 years later.

Its not going to happen under the current scheme, even after this CBA. I guarantee that.

Its all the owners.
Not an excuse to just say whatever. It's their league, they have to fix it. Part of that isn't paying 57% to salaries. Not a great ask IMO

That being said you can't always look to the players to give more. Make it 50/50 with some significant rev sharing and if this one fails they'll have to go somewhere else besides the NHLPA to figure it out.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:07 PM
  #46
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I love how the owner lover here just believes all these teams are losing money. Guessing he missed the last time around with the creative accounting.

27 teams are not losing money. If you are foolish enough to believe that then it's a reason not to discuss this further.

Exactly.


There should be a way to rep posts on this board.

Phoenix makes up the bulk of the decline at around 25% or so I think. Total is about 45-50% in losses.

Memory is hazy.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:12 PM
  #47
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,064
vCash: 500
so without going into lengthy detail, can someone explain to me where the owners and players are at? I heard the players are ok with 50/50 but its how they get there? what the hell does that mean?

Lundsanity30 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:12 PM
  #48
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Not an excuse to just say whatever. It's their league, they have to fix it. Part of that isn't paying 57% to salaries. Not a great ask IMO

That being said you can't always look to the players to give more. Make it 50/50 with some significant rev sharing and if this one fails they'll have to go somewhere else besides the NHLPA to figure it out.
And until the next CBA, if im a player, thats when I take what I have and walk.

Sure, thats silly considering how much they will have already made, but its about setting a precedent for future CBAs.

The current precedent that seems acceptable is "well, we're losing money, so lets cut the players out."

This cant be a recurring theme here because the owners dont know how to turn a profit amongst themselves.

Just move the ****ing Coyotes already.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:17 PM
  #49
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
And until the next CBA, if im a player, thats when I take what I have and walk.

Sure, thats silly considering how much they will have already made, but its about setting a precedent for future CBAs.

The current precedent that seems acceptable is "well, we're losing money, so lets cut the players out."

This cant be a recurring theme here because the owners dont know how to turn a profit amongst themselves.
Then as a player that's certainly your prerogative. Essentially saying "I've dreamt & worked my entire life of playing NHL hockey, putting one one of those sweaters & raising the Cup... I make 57% of what the league generates, more even than the owners and the league is floundering. I'm going to walk away from all of that over 7%. Over money."

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:18 PM
  #50
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Then as a player that's certainly your prerogative. Essentially saying "I've dreamt & worked my entire life of playing NHL hockey, putting one one of those sweaters & raising the Cup... I make 57% of what the league generates, more even than the owners and the league is floundering. I'm going to walk away from all of that over 7%. Over money."

The players dont structure the economics of their own league. The owners do.

I dont care for Ovechkin much anymore, but I hope he sticks it to Bettman by staying in Russia. Lose a key marketing tool.

Not likely for a number of reasons, but itd be a nice **** you to Bettman at least.


Last edited by AceintheSpace*: 10-19-2012 at 02:30 PM.
AceintheSpace* 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 06:14 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.