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, 02:26 PM
  #51
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
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.
You're right about that. They just take their money and let someone else do that part. That someone else is saying "The league isn't sustainable at this percentage... It never really was. It's time for a change."

I'm not taking owners' side here but I don't see what choice the players have and 50/50 IS fair.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:27 PM
  #52
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
I agree there, I just also agree with the players stance in principle.

This is not something that can be acceptable time after time.

Whether its 2 million or 2 bucks.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:30 PM
  #53
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
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.
Phoenix had to stay in Phoenix to keep the owners argument alive.

eco's bones is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:30 PM
  #54
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
I agree there, I just also agree with the players stance in principle.
I actually do too. If the owners wanted their 57% and have the players take 43% I'd be adamant about it. But that's not what's going on here (not anymore anyway... The owners 1st prop was insane)

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:35 PM
  #55
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,811
vCash: 500
It's not about spiting eachother. They need a partnership. The players aren't sticking to 57%. That has to be one of the most annoying lines of rhetoric against the players. They proposed 50%. They are looking for full value on their deals... a two year commitment in exchange for giving back on EVERYTHING.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:38 PM
  #56
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Phoenix had to stay in Phoenix to keep the owners argument alive.
Over/under on Phoenix leaving? Two seasons? Looks like the bigger cut for ownership is coming just in time.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:43 PM
  #57
Jabroni
Moderator
The Corporate Mod
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,255
vCash: 500
Escrow percentages from last season.

Quote:
Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
Final NHL escrow is 7.98% of face value of contracts from last year. (From 8.5% escrow withholding).

Jabroni is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:47 PM
  #58
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
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.
I think that if a season is lost, then it is realistic. Not just for Ovechkin, but for lots of the European players. If they will be getting paid significantly more to be that much closer to home, then you will probably start to see the star players stay at home.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:53 PM
  #59
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
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.
How is it more of the same? They want to lessen to top amount the players can receive.

Quote:
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?
If an individual team blows its finances somehow, no, of course I would say that isn't the players' fault.

If the vast majority of the league is losing money, and is only supported by the Rangers, Habs and Leafs, I would say that is a systemic problem that needs to be fixed.

It's not the players' "fault"... outside of the fact that they should realize the sport is not healthy and should be more willing to accept a lesser salary cap.

Quote:
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.
They don't want the same system. The system right now provides so that each team spends between $48 million and $64 million on player salaries.

At that level, most teams are still bleeding.

If we reduced that, to say, between $10 million and $20 million, well, each team would probably be making tens of millions of dollars. So that wouldn't be fair either.

The fair thing to do is find a range where most teams are independently profitable, with revenue sharing to help the few teams on the bottom who are not profitable still.

Revenue sharing is ok to a degree. However, it's a problem when the Rangers, Habs, and Leafs are the only 3 teams making serious profits and those three teams have to carry the rest of the league's losses. That is not ok.

That is what Forbes said just happened, though.

So that needs to change. We have to drop player salaries to a range where more teams are profitable.


Last edited by mschmidt64: 10-19-2012 at 03:05 PM.
mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:56 PM
  #60
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
I disagree.
You disagree that three teams are making serious money and the rest are making little money, no money, or losing money?

Well, I'm basing that statement on the Forbes article. I don't have proof beyond that.

If you want to say Forbes is lying or the owners are hiding their numbers from Forbes, more power to you.

I see no reason to question that though.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:58 PM
  #61
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Wasnt that the line of thinking 2004-05?
They obviously set the player percentage too high in 2004-05.

Or we wouldn't be in this mess.

Look, if the owners were making tons of money, they wouldn't be throwing away seasons. That's why the NFL has been labor dispute-free. They make way too much money to throw away a season. When the players ask for more, they negotiate over how much more and come to an agreement.

The NHL owners are not making that much money, if any. That's why player payments are such a huge sticking point to them.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 03:01 PM
  #62
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
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.
I'm going off what I've read.

If you've got some kind of expose' that the owners are lying, please point me to it.

I have already said if the owners were actually making tons of money, I'd be siding with the players.

But so far no one has actually ever provided any evidence that the owners aren't losing money. Meanwhile reports are that only 3 teams are seriously profitable.

In the absence of some hard evidence, it sounds like pro-player posters simply don't want to believe that the league is bleeding.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 03:02 PM
  #63
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundsanity30 View Post
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?

Last I knew the issue wasnt 50/50 at all, they agree on that actually, its just that the players want their current contracts honored.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 03:03 PM
  #64
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
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.
Great. Beat it.

I'm not going to miss Alexander Ovechkin.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 03:03 PM
  #65
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I'm going off what I've read.

If you've got some kind of expose' that the owners are lying, please point me to it.

I have already said if the owners were actually making tons of money, I'd be siding with the players.

But so far no one has actually ever provided any evidence that the owners aren't losing money. Meanwhile reports are that only 3 teams are seriously profitable.

In the absence of some hard evidence, it sounds like pro-player posters simply don't want to believe that the league is bleeding.

Remember that time I asked about some proof?

Apparently you did miss the last time around with the creative accounting.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 03:04 PM
  #66
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Great. Beat it.

I'm not going to miss Alexander Ovechkin.

Neither am I.

My point was, Ovechkin leaves and sticks it to Bettman.

Its a win-win for everyone.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 03:09 PM
  #67
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Remember that time I asked about some proof?

Apparently you did miss the last time around with the creative accounting.
I remember the time you asked me for proof that a CBA was a contract, might as well ask me for proof that water is wet.

But yes I did miss the creative accounting. So please point me to it. That is a serious charge of fraud and needs to be substantiated with actual numbers.

Unlike a CBA. I mean, how do I prove that a CBA is a contract anyway? It just... is. It's a contract. If you don't know that, it's not that you "missed" an important article. It just means you don't understand collective bargaining.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 03:17 PM
  #68
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
I also love the charge that I'm "pro-owner."

No, I'm pro-hockey.

If the owners were making lots of money, I'd be with the players.

But they aren't. They are losing money.

Since I want to see the sport succeed, I recognize that means the players have to give back more this time.

So I criticize Don Fehr for saying dumb things like "We gave up a lot last time. We shouldn't have to give up more this time."

Wrong. You do. For the good of the sport.

I recognize it's all a negotiation, and he doesn't actually believe that. But the players deserve more flack for those comments than the owners got for their initial proposal of 43% or whatever. The players' stance that they shouldn't have to give up anything is the stance that has been the most unreasonable, the most intransigent in all of this process.

I don't know what the fair number is, whether it's 52% or 50% or 47% or what. I trust they will all eventually get to a number that works for them.

But I do think it's unreasonable that the players don't seem to recognize that the majority of teams are losing money.

If that is wrong, like I said, I'd love to see the evidence. That would switch me to the players side.


Last edited by mschmidt64: 10-19-2012 at 03:38 PM.
mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 03:19 PM
  #69
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabroni1994 View Post
Escrow percentages from last season.
Am I right that means the players get some money back?

Levitate is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 03:40 PM
  #70
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 6,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
My point was, Ovechkin leaves and sticks it to Bettman.

Its a win-win for everyone.
Until the next Ovechkin comes along...

nevesis is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 03:44 PM
  #71
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Am I right that means the players get some money back?
yes. checks for escrow will be paid at end of the month.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
I believe 8.5 per cent was withheld last season so players ended up with 99.48% of their contracted salary for last season.
Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 04:01 PM
  #72
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
The legally binding contracts the players sign are subject to newly negotiated CBAs, to some extent.

So yes, there is nothing illegal about abrogating those player contracts with the negotiation of a new CBA. That's how they did it last time with a rollback, right? It was legal.

And there's nothing wrong with it, either, morally or otherwise, as long as the players were informed of this fact when they were negotiating those deals. And if the players did not get lawyers to explain these details to them, that's really more their own fault
Could not agree more. Every contract signed is dependant on 1. how HRR actualizes and 2. what CBA is in place. The players are not "owed" their exact dollars in full a day past when the old CBA expired. The owners aren't "not honoring signed contracts". That is why Richards, Parise, Suter, and Weber negotiated the bonus structures they have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I am not saying anything that any other journalist out there would not say: the players are going to end up giving more back again.

That's how it works.

The question is how much are they gonna give back, how much is fair for the owners to be making in profit.

But in a situation where owners are losing money, which is the case right now, guess what, the players lose again.

That's the way of the world. If you try to fight that, businesses go bankrupt. Those owners don't have unlimited money to keep throwing at sinkholes.

When the owners are making money hand over fist, then the players will be able to successfully clamor for more money. Not only will they actually deserve it, but the owners, realizing that they are making tons of money, will be happy to hand it out to the players so that they can continue making money themselves. That's why the NFL never misses a game. The owners are making too much; it'd be moronic for them to lose a single game over a couple percentage points.

That's not the case with the NHL. That is the reason why the NHL keeps losing games. It's not making money. The owners have incentive to not play the games.

Until the players realize that, there won't be labor peace.
This is the real issue. The players can scream until they're blue in the face about what they're "owed", they can miss a season or two, but I'm just not sure how much good it will get them.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 04:05 PM
  #73
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
If I were a player, id bounce for good.
If you're a star, you probably can pull it off (that is if your wife will let you). If you're Mike Rupp or Brandon Prust, good luck finding a team that will match the ridiculous contracts the linkage system allowed you to get.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Im not buying it unless theres proof, otherwise Fehr and the players wouldnt be so adamant that the owners honor them.

I dont think theyd be dumb enough to hold up an agreement over it if there were a clause.
What do you need a link for? Noone on HF has a SPC laying around. But that's besides the point because it's completely irrelevant. Every single aspect of NHL contracts (outside of formal labor law) is governed by the CBA and collective bargaining. The NHL could get rid of guaranteed contracts. The PA could insist on a clause that every player gets a Ferrari with their ELC.

HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 04:22 PM
  #74
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
If you're a star, you probably can pull it off (that is if your wife will let you). If you're Mike Rupp or Brandon Prust, good luck finding a team that will match the ridiculous contracts the linkage system allowed you to get.



What do you need a link for? Noone on HF has a SPC laying around. But that's besides the point because it's completely irrelevant. Every single aspect of NHL contracts (outside of formal labor law) is governed by the CBA and collective bargaining. The NHL could get rid of guaranteed contracts. The PA could insist on a clause that every player gets a Ferrari with their ELC.

My point is, I can still get a good salary and play elsewhere. Couldnt care less about linkage. Those guys can get gigs.

There are other leagues/options for the players. There arent for the owners, or at least, what is left isnt nearly as good (replacement players, gee what a real win there).


So wait a minute, players that threaten to stay overseas have to honor their contracts with the league, thus preventing them from staying in Europe, but the owners dont have to honor the contracts they hand out like candy? It goes both ways. The players have to demonstrate that this isnt acceptable after every expiring CBA because the owners cant get a grasp on their own finances.

All im seeing is hearsay that theres a clause and would like some sort of proof.

I apologize for not taking things literally from random people on the internet. This isnt the Quran here.


Last edited by AceintheSpace*: 10-19-2012 at 04:27 PM.
AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 04:28 PM
  #75
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
All im seeing is hearsay that theres a clause and would like some sort of proof.

I apologize for not taking things literally from random postboarders on the internet. This isnt the Quran here.
How else would the CBA have allowed for changes to every player contract in 2005, that cut salaries owed by 24%? CBA lays out the rules that govern contracts. When it expires, things can change in the CBA (and by extension in player contracts) based on what the two sides negotiate.

If that still does not convince you, consider taking a Sports Law class.

HatTrick Swayze 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 07:12 PM.

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.