It is in Prescott, how big of a crowd can they realistically expect?
Past few years they have been hurting, because they have been such a terrible team. When the team was winning, they were selling out pretty much every game.
I would think that some more people might go knowing that the team is going to have some of the pros on the squad(I'm sure the Courier has been all over Schlemko and Chip coming to town).
I have heard most of the games, they fight a ton. Expect quite a few fights.
What's the name of that basement bar where they have live music? I saw some super sketchy punk band, blacked out and got into a fight that I don't remember last time I was there. Oh to be 21 years old. Haha.
It looks like more and more that this fight is more than just money. It looks like more of an ideological battle at this point with the players looking to get even with the owners for taking them to the cleaners in the previous lockout.
It looks like more and more that this fight is more than just money. It looks like more of an ideological battle at this point with the players looking to get even with the owners for taking them to the cleaners in the previous lockout.
Fehr: “Today is not a good day. It should have been, but it wasn’t”
Quote:
Players are still upset about what they lost during the 2004-05 lockout, and aren’t prepared to lose the things they gained.
I get so frustrated hearing guys like Fehr, Ladd, Toews, etc. talk about how rough a deal they got last time. NONE of those three were involved with the NHL at that time. In the case of loud mouths like Ladd and Toews, the only thing they've known since becoming involved with the NHL AFTER the last lockout is "record revenues" and seeing the average salary DOUBLE.
Alright, I need some help. THIS MEANS YOU MOUSER. haha
In the now infamous PROPOSAL NUMBER THREE (dun! dun! dunnnnn!)
The players suggest all existing contracts are honored while all future contracts are factored into the fifty fifty split effective immediately. Makes sense.
I guess the idea is that year one puts the player share at 56-57% and year six is probably somewhere around 50-51% overall. Those are pretty obvious, and I totally get that. What I really have no idea about is what years two, three, four and five would look like. At least roughly. Do we go from 56.5% (*ish) in year one to something like 55% in year two or is it more drastic like 52% in year two? How long does it take to get at least reasonably close to 50.5%(ish)?
Also, how would this effect the salary cap limits? Is it as simple an impact as the overall percentage or does this get muddied by "segregated" salaries?
I've speculated that the salary cap of teams will be lower this season because of cancellations, which would give teams almost a full year to get under next season. A 72 game season would make every team safe (without putting anyone on LTIR).
How they figure on what the cap will be next season is another story (maybe prorated).
From a poster called "opendoor" on the main board -- not sure if it's reliable...
"Here are the numbers for the players' share under the 3rd proposal assuming a 5% growth rate:
12-13: 57% of $3.2 billion
13-14: 55% of $3.36 billion
14-15: 53% of $3.53 billion
15-16: 52% of $3.71 billion
16-17: 51% of $3.9 billion
17-18: 51% of $4.09 billion
That's an effective rate of 53% over the life of a 6 year CBA."
I get so frustrated hearing guys like Fehr, Ladd, Toews, etc. talk about how rough a deal they got last time. NONE of those three were involved with the NHL at that time. In the case of loud mouths like Ladd and Toews, the only thing they've known since becoming involved with the NHL AFTER the last lockout is "record revenues" and seeing the average salary DOUBLE.
How do you feel about Shane Doan characterizing the situation as: Normally someone says "give me your money, or I'll hurt you".....in this case we're being told (according to Shane): "give us your money and then we'll hurt you". ?
I for one find it a horrible analogy and think the players are so gullible to the whispers of Fehr that it's ludicrous. They need to understand that it is not their league and that they own NOTHING and are mere employees. The risk they assume is on the ice and that is the way it should be.
When I hear comments like Shane's and worse yet (and I forget who said it) the one that generally asked "if your employer came to you and told you that you would be taking a pay deduction, what would you do? I find myself further and further alienated from this the greatest game in the world, played at it's highest level.
It was not that long ago that it was the NFL and the NBA both in a mess with the CBA and the NHL in a position to take advantage of both leagues had both lost a season. Now its the other way around. I'm not saying the league would be #1 had both the NFL and NBA canceled their seasons but now in a completly turn of events the NHL can find themselves taking some kind of a hit if the fans manage to some how rebel but putting more of their attention and money to other things besides the NHL.
Alright, I need some help. THIS MEANS YOU MOUSER. haha
In the now infamous PROPOSAL NUMBER THREE (dun! dun! dunnnnn!)
The players suggest all existing contracts are honored while all future contracts are factored into the fifty fifty split effective immediately. Makes sense.
I guess the idea is that year one puts the player share at 56-57% and year six is probably somewhere around 50-51% overall. Those are pretty obvious, and I totally get that. What I really have no idea about is what years two, three, four and five would look like. At least roughly. Do we go from 56.5% (*ish) in year one to something like 55% in year two or is it more drastic like 52% in year two? How long does it take to get at least reasonably close to 50.5%(ish)?
Also, how would this effect the salary cap limits? Is it as simple an impact as the overall percentage or does this get muddied by "segregated" salaries?
Proposal 3 as I understand it essentially says any player that currently has a contract receives 13% of it guaranteed each year outside of the player share of HRR, then the remaining 87% is subject to escrow and the 50/50 split. Players on existing contract only have 87% of what should have been their cap number.
I didn't try to tally every future year, but looking at the "last" year 6 of the proposed CBA there are $300m in existing contracts for 2017-2018. So the player compensation in year 6 would be 50% of HRR plus $39m (13% of $300m).
If hockey revenue increased 5% year to year then in year six the players would be receiving 50.9% of HRR. If hockey revenue increased 3% year to year the players would get 51.0% in year six.
You're looking at sometime in years 7-9 before it gets to 50.5%.
With a 5% year to year revenue growth you'd have:
Year 1: 56.8%
Year 2: 55.2%
With 3% year to year revenue growth it's:
Year 1: 56.9%
Year 2: 55.3%
Can see why it's not very exciting from the NHL's POV.
I guess I don't get where the NHLPA's leverage comes from. It's the weakest of the major sports and the only place these guys are going to get a major payday. MLB and the NFL are national staples; people care if they disappear. The players should realize that the owners and the union share common goals. Everyone wins if there's more revenue, more growth, more jobs to go around. I understand the players have to protect their slice of the pie, but it's already bigger than any of the other major sports.
The players look like morons when they squabble over money. Fight the good fight on moral issues like free agency, contract lengths and whatnot. But when it comes to money, they more or less get paid what the market can bare. The vast majority of the NHLPA won't have jobs, or will have jobs that pay significantly less if the NHL disappears. How this escapes them is beyond me, but It seems like Fehr is trying to convince them of something that isn't there.
The owners gave up, going back to the summer, 7% and some other details. It's time for the players to give up a bit from their table like good negotiators. Arguing over percentages is a joke. If revenue doubles, you just got slightly less (we're talking 4-5% here) of a massively bigger pie. Poor players.
Not a lot of educated folks in the union. It's starting to show.
I guess I don't get where the NHLPA's leverage comes from. It's the weakest of the major sports and the only place these guys are going to get a major payday. MLB and the NFL are national staples; people care if they disappear. The players should realize that the owners and the union share common goals. Everyone wins if there's more revenue, more growth, more jobs to go around. I understand the players have to protect their slice of the pie, but it's already bigger than any of the other major sports.
The players look like morons when they squabble over money. Fight the good fight on moral issues like free agency, contract lengths and whatnot. But when it comes to money, they more or less get paid what the market can bare. The vast majority of the NHLPA won't have jobs, or will have jobs that pay significantly less if the NHL disappears. How this escapes them is beyond me, but It seems like Fehr is trying to convince them of something that isn't there.
The owners gave up, going back to the summer, 7% and some other details. It's time for the players to give up a bit from their table like good negotiators. Arguing over percentages is a joke. If revenue doubles, you just got slightly less (we're talking 4-5% here) of a massively bigger pie. Poor players.
Not a lot of educated folks in the union. It's starting to show.
On Thursday, he walked into a significant meeting with several NHL owners 90 minutes late, plopped down two single sheets of paper, each with a different skeleton proposal to the owners that didn’t include any ideas on systemic issues, then verbally delivered a third proposal with no accompanying paperwork. For all three proposals, he acknowledged to the owners he hadn’t actually “run the numbers.”
This from the leader of a union in a $3 billion business.
What % do the players get if they miss the whole season? The owners can easily look 5+ years down the road to see if their hard stance benefits them in the long run. No matter how the players look at it, they aren't going to make up for a lost year even if they do get a couple % points back in their favor by not playing a whole season. I bet Don Fehr gets paid either way.
