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
10-19-2012, 08:29 PM
  #851
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
That's all hockey players can do, skate.
Shoot pass and check
And on occasion spit and pick their nose, better?

AntonCH is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:42 PM
  #852
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
Really?
Bring up contraction and see what the PA says.
They will fight to keep rank and file where it is or larger
If your best option is Phoenix than no you shouldn't start another team, doesn't take a billionaire to figure that out. However like it has been stated there are several better markets like Quebec, Hamilton or a 2nd in Toronto that could support a team.

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:47 PM
  #853
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,695
vCash: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Lyrical,

The reason the 30 owners and 700 players is brought up is because a lot of people are fixated on the number "50/50". 50% is just another number on the real number line between 0 and 100, it is in no way superior or inferior to all the other numbers.

People think it's symmetric, but it's not:

- Some costs are subtracted before HRR is calculated, and some are not.
- Owners and players pay different tax rates -- players pay much higher tax rates.
- A lot of revenues are not included in HRR, most significant are expansion and relocation fees.
- Additionally, a lot of owners profit comes from eventually selling their teams, which is not included in HRR.
- Players typically take more risks to become NHL players than owners do to achieve their positions. Players also put their lives and health on their line and are always at risk of losing everything, whereas the same is not true of owners.
- There are 700 players and 29 owners.
- The players are less replaceable. If the 30 owners sold their product tomorrow to 30 other billionaires, no fan would be able to tell the difference. The same is not true if all the players were replaced.

There's nothing symmetric about 50/50 at all, it's merely a marketing gimmick targeted to low-IQ types, and thus to anyone with a brain it is unnervingly successful.
the players are not less replaceable IMO. Every year you have a bunch of new studs coming in. The only Crosby, Stammer, Kovalchuk, Malkin, etc. might take a few years to replace or might not. My bet is if you take them out of the game, the next young studs to enter the league would do it with more ease and thus it might only take 2 or 3 years for the majority of the fans to NOT be able to see the difference.

Owners take the real finacial risks, and that needs to be paid to the right amount when it pays off. The players can get a fair share, sure, but it remains that with no owners, there is no league.

It is normal that some revenu not be included, specially if it is related to the fees you described.

Last time around, the players thought they got the short end of the stick and that shows that have no idea what it means to run a business; that is also why they are paid millions to play Hockey.

Then about the bad markets... I would guess that sone teams will be moved however, if there is still a team in PHO, it might have something to do with national exposer and TV contracts. If PHO played a part in closing that TV deal, then they might not be that much of the dead weight the seem to be. Also, stability is important for a league and the values the franchises get. When you are not the #1 (NFL) you need to bring in some intangibles ( stability ) to attract extra interest.

Just a few things to consider.

NORiculous is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:54 PM
  #854
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
Owners take the real finacial risks, and that needs to be paid to the right amount when it pays off. The players can get a fair share, sure, but it remains that with no owners, there is no league.
That is not economically valid.

The financial risks are already factored into the price necessary to purchase an NHL team.

Geoff Molson paid 500 million to own the (Habs + The Bell Center). If the NHLPA got 37% rather than 57%, he might have had to pay 650 million or so, and we'd be right back at square one. Conversely, if the players got 72% as they used to when player salaries via a free market system before the salary cap, he would have to pay a lot less. George Gillette bought the whole thing for ~$150 million in 2002 or so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
Last time around, the players thought they got the short end of the stick and that shows that have no idea what it means to run a business.
Last time around, the owners thought they got the long end of the stick and that shows that have no idea what it means to run a business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
Then about the bad markets... I would guess that sone teams will be moved however, if there is still a team in PHO, it might have something to do with national exposer and TV contracts. If PHO played a part in closing that TV deal, then they might not be that much of the dead weight the seem to be. Also, stability is important for a league and the values the franchises get. When you are not the #1 (NFL) you need to bring in some intangibles ( stability ) to attract extra interest.
I agree with you on the benefits of long-term investment.

However, if it's a long-term investment, it is irrational to expect it to be profitable in the short-term.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:06 PM
  #855
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Or how about Katz and his attempted blackmail of Edmonton?

Or the hundreds of millions of dollars one city and state has forked over to one franchise?

Looks like many owners are all about public subsidy and private profit.
Yah, those public subsidies that NHLPA wants to add to HRR? Yup, those owners.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:36 PM
  #856
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,695
vCash: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
That is not economically valid.

The financial risks are already factored into the price necessary to purchase an NHL team.

Geoff Molson paid 500 million to own the (Habs + The Bell Center). If the NHLPA got 37% rather than 57%, he might have had to pay 650 million or so, and we'd be right back at square one. Conversely, if the players got 72% as they used to when player salaries via a free market system before the salary cap, he would have to pay a lot less. George Gillette bought the whole thing for ~$150 million in 2002 or so.


Last time around, the owners thought they got the long end of the stick and that shows that have no idea what it means to run a business.


I agree with you on the benefits of long-term investment.

However, if it's a long-term investment, it is irrational to expect it to be profitable in the short-term.
Once you have paid 500M, you need to make much more profit for it to be a good investment then if you had paid 200M. So yes, it is still a valid point even if ehar you are saying has some logic, it doesn't cover that fact.

Last time around owners were happy to have fixed a broken system. Right now they don't want ti change the system, they want to tweek it so it become profitable for more teams. When that happens, the playerd will also win.

I havent read the 75000 pages of fincials the league sent to the NHLPA but I would guess that PHObhad a part to play in the TV contract and thus making it, overall, cashflow positive or not that far from it. But that is the kind of stuff we probably will never know.

NORiculous is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 03:17 AM
  #857
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,621
vCash: 500
NORdiculous,

The 500 million dollars Geoff Molson paid represents the value of the profits already earned by the team and the Bell Center. It doesn't require a cut in player salaries in order to be a good investment.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 04:57 AM
  #858
GoHomez
Registered User
 
GoHomez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Almost no business gives 50% of their revenues to either employees OR partners who do not actually share in any of the costs in the business. That is called reality, not some ideological utopian vision.
Which I have already proved isn't entirely true, me and my collegues got 71% last before bonuses. If you check other consulting or law firm you will most likely find something similar.
Obviously the bigger they get that share will decrease since bigger companies tend to carry bigger overhead costs, as well as decreased cost certainty. And more money spent on marketing.

GoHomez is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 06:53 AM
  #859
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,695
vCash: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
NORdiculous,

The 500 million dollars Geoff Molson paid represents the value of the profits already earned by the team and the Bell Center. It doesn't require a cut in player salaries in order to be a good investment.
I understand what you are saying but the Habs are bad example since they bring in profit. How about Colombus, Buffalo, etc.

The players need to take a cut for two reasons.

1. The health of the league as a whole
2. The fans

With a healthy league, everyone wins.

The argument that the last CBA should have fixed that... Well it didn't and it needs to be adjusted.

People that ask: well since, by the logic above, the last CBA needs fixing, what proves that it won't be the same the next time around.

Answer: Nothing. But that doesn't mean they can't try to create the best possible confitions for the league to florish.

There will always be bumps in the road and there will always be tweeks to be made, to a certain point, that doesn't mean it doesn't have to be done.

NORiculous is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 07:23 AM
  #860
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
With a healthy league, everyone wins.

The argument that the last CBA should have fixed that... Well it didn't and it needs to be adjusted.

People that ask: well since, by the logic above, the last CBA needs fixing, what proves that it won't be the same the next time around.

Answer: Nothing. But that doesn't mean they can't try to create the best possible confitions for the league to florish.

There will always be bumps in the road and there will always be tweeks to be made, to a certain point, that doesn't mean it doesn't have to be done.
The solution held by many in this thread is a 50/50 split of HRR. That is not going to create the "best possible conditions for the league to flourish". The ratio of HRR is important but not nearly as important as installing an NFL-style revenue sharing system where:

1. All broadcast revenue is shared equally

2. All merchandise revenue is shared equally

3. All gate revenue is split 60/40 with 60% going to the home team and 40% shared equally.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 09:03 AM
  #861
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
The solution held by many in this thread is a 50/50 split of HRR. That is not going to create the "best possible conditions for the league to flourish". The ratio of HRR is important but not nearly as important as installing an NFL-style revenue sharing system where:

1. All broadcast revenue is shared equally

2. All merchandise revenue is shared equally

3. All gate revenue is split 60/40 with 60% going to the home team and 40% shared equally.
Actually, plenty of people on the owners' side have agreed that revenue sharing among the owners is also necessary. The 50/50 split and revenue sharing are NOT mutually exclusive, they are mutually necessary.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 10:55 AM
  #862
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Actually, plenty of people on the owners' side have agreed that revenue sharing among the owners is also necessary. The 50/50 split and revenue sharing are NOT mutually exclusive, they are mutually necessary.
50/50 is not necessary, it is an arbitrary ratio. League revenue sharing, however, is necessary.

Over the period of the proposed agreement (2012-17) the NHLPA has called for 52.8% or 52.5% of HRR. The NHL straight away dismisses all 3 of the PAs's offers. The NHL's modus operandi is to make the poor teams profitable at the expense of the players. If the NHL doesn't get their act together (league revenue sharing) I see the NHLPA taking a page from the NBPA's playbook and dissolving their union and file class action antitrust lawsuits against the NHL.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 11:20 AM
  #863
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
50/50 is not necessary, it is an arbitrary ratio. League revenue sharing, however, is necessary.

Over the period of the proposed agreement (2012-17) the NHLPA has called for 52.8% or 52.5% of HRR. The NHL straight away dismisses all 3 of the PAs's offers. The NHL's modus operandi is to make the poor teams profitable at the expense of the players. If the NHL doesn't get their act together (league revenue sharing) I see the NHLPA taking a page from the NBPA's playbook and dissolving their union and file class action antitrust lawsuits against the NHL.
So let me get this straight.

All of the owners need to split their share of the HRR evenly, but the players do not have to split their share with the owners evenly? THAT is your argument? It is "fair" for well run wealthy teams to split their revenue evenly with the poorly run teams, but the payers shouldn't split their share of the revenue with the owners evenly? Lol. That is called hypocritical. You think it is arbitrary to want the owners and players to split the HRR 50/50, but think it is fair to split the owners' share evenly across the board. So, two partners sharing 50/50 is "arbitrary" and unnecessary, but 30 partners splitting evenly is not arbitrary and completely fair. Wow...

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 11:36 AM
  #864
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
So let me get this straight.

All of the owners need to split their share of the HRR evenly, but the players do not have to split their share with the owners evenly? THAT is your argument? It is "fair" for well run wealthy teams to split their revenue evenly with the poorly run teams, but the payers shouldn't split their share of the revenue with the owners evenly? Lol. That is called hypocritical. You think it is arbitrary to want the owners and players to split the HRR 50/50, but think it is fair to split the owners' share evenly across the board. So, two partners sharing 50/50 is "arbitrary" and unnecessary, but 30 partners splitting evenly is not arbitrary and completely fair. Wow...
Because there is a model in place where it works. It's called the NFL. It's a league where a small market team like the Packers can be profitable and compete with a big market team like the Giants. They can do that because they have a league revenue sharing plan that works, not because of a revenue ratio.

Also, the NHLPA proposals do end up at a 50/50 split.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 11:39 AM
  #865
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
That is not economically valid.

It IS valid. No owners, no league. Most owners don't invest in businesses to lose money.

The financial risks are already factored into the price necessary to purchase an NHL team.

No they aren't.

Geoff Molson paid 500 million to own the (Habs + The Bell Center). If the NHLPA got 37% rather than 57%, he might have had to pay 650 million or so, and we'd be right back at square one. Conversely, if the players got 72% as they used to when player salaries via a free market system before the salary cap, he would have to pay a lot less. George Gillette bought the whole thing for ~$150 million in 2002 or so.

Gillette bought the team for that amount because the league was weaker then, back with players getting 72% of the revenue and multiple teams in bankrupt states and losing money. Molson paid more because the team and the league was doing better with the new CBA and other aspects that the OWNERS worked to get. The reason Molson would have paid less if the players were still getting 72% is because the return on the investment would be that much more pathetic. With a greater share of HRR, the value of one of the best teams in the league increased.

Last time around, the owners thought they got the long end of the stick and that shows that have no idea what it means to run a business.

Last time around, both groups did better than either expected. The league did better than expected. Since the owners and Bettman are the key reasons that the league is doing so much better than ever before, that might mean they do know something about how to run a business. There was no way the players were going to drop from 72% to 43% during the last negotiations, so the owners rightly believed they got a better deal than they previously had and is was a good deal for them. That does not mean it is the right deal for the future. The owners are now trying to get their fair share of this partnership. If 43% is so insulting to the players, it is equally so to the owners. As such, a 50/50 split is where these two partners need to end due to the equivalent importance each brings to the league's success.

I agree with you on the benefits of long-term investment.

However, if it's a long-term investment, it is irrational to expect it to be profitable in the short-term.
It is not irrational for the owners and players to work together to ensure both sides are fairly compensated for putting time, money, and work into making the NHL a success and continuing to grow the game. The players can choose to accept a fair return on their investment (in time and work) at 50/50, or they can get 0% for the duration of the lock out. It has already been proven, PROVEN, that by taking a 25% step backwards last time they gained a 63.5% leap forwards. One would say that they made a good investment last CBA. The game is getting more popular. At least it was before this lock out. If the players are smart, they will recognize that their partners want an even split of the revenue without even asking for any piece of the players' own HRR, and they will accept that their loss of 7% of the HRR will be returned significantly over the length of the CBA. Heck, it isn't like they can even lose a single cent on their contracts once a CBA is agreed to if the league does lose revenue during the next CBA. Any losses will affect the owners far more than the players since the owners have 0% guaranteed.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 12:00 PM
  #866
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Because there is a model in place where it works. It's called the NFL. It's a league where a small market team like the Packers can be profitable and compete with a big market team like the Giants. They can do that because they have a league revenue sharing plan that works, not because of a revenue ratio.

Also, the NHLPA proposals do end up at a 50/50 split.
Lol. The players share only ends up at 50% if certain conditions are met and/or over a significant period of time.

Option 1: Players share only goes to 50% IF league revenue hits 4.12 billion. That may or may not happen.

Option 2: IF revenue grows at a 5% clip, then the players share drops to 50/50 in year 5. They say if league revenues grow at a greater percent the drop to 50/50 will happen faster. Of course, they leave out the reality that if league revenue percentages increase at less than 5% or even drop, then the split never hits 50/50.

Option 3: Has existing salaries reflecting the old deal 57/43, and the new salaries reflecting the new 50/50 deal. Essentielly, some of these old contracts may take years to expire..13% paid out over and above the new 50/50 cap. Again, the owners have to wait for their share of the revenue to even out.

Why on earth should the owners agree to wait on receiving their fair share or accept a deal where they may never get to that 50/50 level?

By the way, isn't the revenue split between NFL owners and players at 50/50? Even the NBA owners and players have a 50/50 split (fluctuating between 49 and 51 from one year to the next). If you are saying the NFL and NBA deals are your comparables, then you are agreeing with me. The players should accept the 50/50 split. Like I have said, I have no issue with people who believe the owners need better revenue sharing. I do have issues with people who think the owners shouldn't get 50% of the revenue.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 12:11 PM
  #867
A Pointed Stick
There Is Always...
 
A Pointed Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,195
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
It is not irrational for the owners and players to work together to ensure both sides are fairly compensated for putting time, money, and work into making the NHL a success and continuing to grow the game. The players can choose to accept a fair return on their investment (in time and work) at 50/50, or they can get 0% for the duration of the lock out. It has already been proven, PROVEN, that by taking a 25% step backwards last time they gained a 63.5% leap forwards. One would say that they made a good investment last CBA. The game is getting more popular. At least it was before this lock out. If the players are smart, they will recognize that their partners want an even split of the revenue without even asking for any piece of the players' own HRR, and they will accept that their loss of 7% of the HRR will be returned significantly over the length of the CBA. Heck, it isn't like they can even lose a single cent on their contracts once a CBA is agreed to if the league does lose revenue during the next CBA. Any losses will affect the owners far more than the players since the owners have 0% guaranteed.
Right and fair have nothing to do with it, unfortunately.

A Pointed Stick is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 05:37 PM
  #868
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
...isn't the revenue split between NFL owners and players at 50/50? Even the NBA owners and players have a 50/50 split (fluctuating between 49 and 51 from one year to the next). If you are saying the NFL and NBA deals are your comparables, then you are agreeing with me. The players should accept the 50/50 split. Like I have said, I have no issue with people who believe the owners need better revenue sharing. I do have issues with people who think the owners shouldn't get 50% of the revenue.
I don't agree with your fixation on 50/50. I don't say that the NFL and NBA deals are comparables because they are 50/50. I have said they are comparable situations because they:
  • Have collectively bargained agreements between players and owners
  • have broadcast revenue
  • have merchandise revenue
  • are located in North America
  • have roughly the same number of teams

I have also said that the only reason the NHL and NHLPA are moving towards the area of a 50/50 split is because comparable leagues have already moved in that direction - not because of some quaint notion of "fairness".

And your notion that "fair" means that players should bear some of the costs involved in running a team is in direct contravention of BC labour law, at least:

Quote:
An employer cannot deduct any of the employer’s business costs from wages.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 05:58 PM
  #869
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,818
vCash: 500
A 50-50 split in several years is not a true 50-50 split. It's like someone giving us money(say 100$) and I take 60 the first time, 55 the second time but the 3rd time and on i take 50. Did we get 50-50? No. I believe there should be a mechanism to respect contracts in one form or another but pretending that's 50% is wrong. Something needs to be done to split it evenly.

Deferal of the last 12.3% onto other years? Perhaps it counting as cap space sort of like a buyout? For instance, player loses say 1 million, in second half of CBA team pays him 1 mil back in installments, 1/5 a mil over 2 years like a buyout or something.

Players get their money, owners don't spend over 50-50.

NHLPA proposed something similar, but unless it counts on the cap I don't think it's fair because it's basically "pay us, and you still need to pay up to 50% after" which isn't true 50%.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 06:16 PM
  #870
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
A 50-50 split in several years is not a true 50-50 split. It's like someone giving us money(say 100$) and I take 60 the first time, 55 the second time but the 3rd time and on i take 50. Did we get 50-50? No. I believe there should be a mechanism to respect contracts in one form or another but pretending that's 50% is wrong. Something needs to be done to split it evenly.

Deferal of the last 12.3% onto other years? Perhaps it counting as cap space sort of like a buyout? For instance, player loses say 1 million, in second half of CBA team pays him 1 mil back in installments, 1/5 a mil over 2 years like a buyout or something.

Players get their money, owners don't spend over 50-50.

NHLPA proposed something similar, but unless it counts on the cap I don't think it's fair because it's basically "pay us, and you still need to pay up to 50% after" which isn't true 50%.
If the owners want 50/50 from 57/43 then it makes sense that there would be a phase-in period.

If you have the cap go down immediately as you're proposing, without cutting current contracts, then you're just punishing the guys going UFA in 1, 2, and 3 years.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 06:22 PM
  #871
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
No they aren't.
Holy **** you're like a six year-old. I tell you a fact and you just say "no that's not true".

Once more then:

When Geoff Molson paid 500 million for The Habs and the Bell Center, he put in a purchase price that reflects the total value of the franchise and the arena. If you want to be a child and say "no no no no", then be one, but that doesn't change economic reality. Molson is not going to pay 500 million for two properties worth 300 million as you're arguing when you say "no they aren't", he has a lot of advisers and lawyers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Gillette bought the team for that amount because the league was weaker then, back with players getting 72% of the revenue and multiple teams in bankrupt states and losing money. Molson paid more because the team and the league was doing better with the new CBA and other aspects that the OWNERS worked to get. The reason Molson would have paid less if the players were still getting 72% is because the return on the investment would be that much more pathetic. With a greater share of HRR, the value of one of the best teams in the league increased.
Now you're confirming the point you disagree with. You are arguing that the price of owning a team reflects its value, whereas previously you said "no they don't".

Here's some advice: find out what your position and then argue for that position. Don't just argue both sides of the position so that you can you disagree with every point.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 07:47 PM
  #872
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
I don't agree with your fixation on 50/50. I don't say that the NFL and NBA deals are comparables because they are 50/50. I have said they are comparable situations because they:
  • Have collectively bargained agreements between players and owners
  • have broadcast revenue
  • have merchandise revenue
  • are located in North America
  • have roughly the same number of teams

I have also said that the only reason the NHL and NHLPA are moving towards the area of a 50/50 split is because comparable leagues have already moved in that direction - not because of some quaint notion of "fairness".

And your notion that "fair" means that players should bear some of the costs involved in running a team is in direct contravention of BC labour law, at least:
Try not to apply BC law to the NHL, it does not apply. Also, the players are sop posed to be "partners", so they are not prevented from bearing costs by BC law any way.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 09:39 PM
  #873
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,818
vCash: 500
It isn't so bad.

If NHL and NHLPA can agree on say option 3 with a few tweaks we're good.

Tweaks

#1 Subsidies aren't part of HRR
#2 Contracts will be honoured and payments deferred but those payments count against the cap when they care made.(as opposed to not counting)
#3 As opposed to 5 year limit for contracts in NHL's proposal, make it 7 as I believe 7 is largest length with insurance
#4 ELC/2nd contract fix


Other than that, seems fair to me.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 09:40 PM
  #874
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Try not to apply BC law to the NHL, it does not apply. Also, the players are sop posed to be "partners", so they are not prevented from bearing costs by BC law any way.
You need to talk to a lawyer.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 11:13 PM
  #875
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Holy **** you're like a six year-old. I tell you a fact and you just say "no that's not true".

Lol. You really are a petulant little one, aren't you? The only "fact" is that Molson knows he may lose money on his investment if it does not do well. Of course, the chances of him losing money are greater if he is not getting his fair slice of the revenue pie.

Once more then:

When Geoff Molson paid 500 million for The Habs and the Bell Center, he put in a purchase price that reflects the total value of the franchise and the arena. If you want to be a child and say "no no no no", then be one, but that doesn't change economic reality. Molson is not going to pay 500 million for two properties worth 300 million as you're arguing when you say "no they aren't", he has a lot of advisers and lawyers.

He does have advisors. He is also a good businessman. It is also why he is on the side of the owners who want their share of HRR to increase in order to ensure the profitability of his investment.

Now you're confirming the point you disagree with. You are arguing that the price of owning a team reflects its value, whereas previously you said "no they don't".

Here's some advice: find out what your position and then argue for that position. Don't just argue both sides of the position so that you can you disagree with every point.
I don't disagree with every point and have been very clear what side I am on throughout. I thought an educated academic would be able to understand. I will try one last time to help.

I am on the side of the owners getting 50/50 of the HRR.

Revenue sharing amongst the owners is important.

The owners AND the players made a wonderful profit during the last CBA and realize that the owners' percentage increase was greater than the players' increase when compared to the previous CBA to the last one due to the players drop in their previously exorbitant percent.

The 50/50 share should be immediate as the players have already had their higher piece of the pie over the last few CBAs and it is time to even the percentages out.

The owners pay all costs related to the business since they pay for everything when they make money or lose money.

Only the players have any guaranteed contracts and make their money even if an owner loses money.

People making $400 per week doing what they want to the best of their ability are NOT failures.

You consistently make flawed arguments and then use insults to try and cover up your own stupidity and demonstrable lack of understanding.

Now that we know what I believe, I will give you permission to have the last word between us on the topic. You are obviously incapable of arguing appropriately, and you are as much an educated academic with high SAT scores as my dog. Since you will keep saying "I told you so and I know because I already said why I am so brilliant", it is obvious that you NEED to "win" an argument you have no hope of understanding, never mind competing in. As such, you will fight to get the last word no matter what. So, I give you permission to get the last word in (I know, I know, you will definitely make sure you "stick it to me", but I am fine with that). Here, you "win", you are the educated academic who can now tell his office mates how he schooled the simple high school teacher. I hope you feel better now...

Drydenwasthebest 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 02:39 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.