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
10-21-2012, 03:31 AM
  #901
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
How is 6 million per year too much?

It's a reasonable estimate of how much value he'll bring to Edmonton in that time span.

Hall had 53 points in 61 games last year, with a high goals-to-assists ratio. Don't sell him short.
I'll give you that, Hall isn't the best example, I just don't see how it's normal nonetheless. Getting money as if you're proven when you aren't. 53 points in 61 games is good but it's not 42 million dollars good when you've only done it once.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 06:41 AM
  #902
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
You need to talk to a lawyer.
No lawyer needed. If the new CBA included having the players pay any amount of the costs it would be with the players agreement. There is nothing BC law could really do about it, especially since an argument can be made that the players and owners are partners in the business.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:50 AM
  #903
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
You stepped into this one: I have supported the players using socialist arguments, and my argument stating that the players are Talent, not Labour, and thus are not replaceable. Now I will support them using the current language of Capital, and Republicans everywhere:

There is a free market price for the very best pro hockey players, in other words, those who play in the NHL. This price has risen, and has hurt teams who cannot afford the price. For evidence, look at how owners of rich teams have been more than willing to pay these rising prices. I need not give examples.

The NHL is trying to reduce the fair and natural free market price for players. I disagree with this, especially as owners of all businesses these days, globally, cite the free market when moving their businesses, and laying off staff. If they used these principles to make their money, they should live by them when buying and operating NHL teams. No?

If we agree on this, there are then 2 options, neither of which artificially or by collusion reduces the free market prices players command:

1. Owners who can afford to pay the free market price for NHL players should help owners who cannot.

2. Teams that cannot afford to pay the free market price for NHL players should fail, as businesses fail in almost all other free markets, every minute, every day, everywhere.

The owner's supporters are in fact being anti free market by suggesting that player's value should be artificially lowered by an oligarchic and colluded agreement, that would be illegal in almost all other areas of our economic system. Ironic, is it not?
A couple of points:

1--The free market system was problematic and leading to, at the very least, contraction. The players recognized this and accepted the reduction in revenue share as a partial recognition that having more teams is better for the players and the league than having less teams.

2-
Quote:
1. Owners who can afford to pay the free market price for NHL players should help owners who cannot.
I have no issue with this. Nor does Lyrical. Actually, most people supporting the owners in this thread agree with it. Of course, it is not a Capitalist idea, it is not a free market idea, and should not be something you would agree with. McDonald's sure as heck isn't helping Wendy's to succeed, so why should the owners who are successful help the ones who aren't? The reason is "health of the league" and that is the same reason why the players should enter into a fair and balanced partnership with the owners. Your argument using this point places you into an interesting position. Why is it fair for the owners to help their partners at all levels, but not fair for the players to do the same?

3--
Quote:
Teams that cannot afford to pay the free market price for NHL players should fail, as businesses fail in almost all other free markets, every minute, every day, everywhere.
The problem with letting teams fail in the NHL is that it damages the entire league and can lead to difficulties for all, players and owners alike. Any team that fails takes a number of player jobs and league wide revenue (or potential revenue in some cases) with it. Neither the owners or the players want to see teams fail since it hurts the overall product and revenue stream.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 08:29 AM
  #904
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
A couple of points:

1--The free market system was problematic and leading to, at the very least, contraction. The players recognized this and accepted the reduction in revenue share as a partial recognition that having more teams is better for the players and the league than having less teams.

2-
I have no issue with this. Nor does Lyrical. Actually, most people supporting the owners in this thread agree with it. Of course, it is not a Capitalist idea, it is not a free market idea, and should not be something you would agree with. McDonald's sure as heck isn't helping Wendy's to succeed, so why should the owners who are successful help the ones who aren't? The reason is "health of the league" and that is the same reason why the players should enter into a fair and balanced partnership with the owners. Your argument using this point places you into an interesting position. Why is it fair for the owners to help their partners at all levels, but not fair for the players to do the same?

3--

The problem with letting teams fail in the NHL is that it damages the entire league and can lead to difficulties for all, players and owners alike. Any team that fails takes a number of player jobs and league wide revenue (or potential revenue in some cases) with it. Neither the owners or the players want to see teams fail since it hurts the overall product and revenue stream.
Thanks for saving me the time. Excellent post!

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 09:19 AM
  #905
Born in 1909
Vive la France!
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,967
vCash: 500
This lockout is slowly morphing into a player strike... where wealthy players are dissatisfied with their lot and are refusing to play.

At least that is what the optics are starting to look like.

Opinions on this will differ...

Even the poll is approaching 50/50.

Born in 1909 is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 09:52 AM
  #906
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
No lawyer needed. If the new CBA included having the players pay any amount of the costs it would be with the players agreement.
You need to get it together. You have written that players should pay their share of the costs of running a franchise - which suggests a unilateral decision to deduct costs from paychecks which is illegal. You have never written that it should be part of a CBA. Good luck with that strategy as that has decertification written all over it.

Quote:
There is nothing BC law could really do about it, especially since an argument can be made that the players and owners are partners in the business.
Please show me that the NHL and NHLPA are formal, legal "partners in the business".

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 10:22 AM
  #907
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
1--The free market system was problematic and leading to, at the very least, contraction.
Funny, I don't remember Daly or Bettman uttering the word in 2004-05. And it's not an option for them now. You must be privy to some info the rest of the world doesn't have.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 04:39 PM
  #908
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
You need to get it together. You have written that players should pay their share of the costs of running a franchise - which suggests a unilateral decision to deduct costs from paychecks which is illegal. You have never written that it should be part of a CBA. Good luck with that strategy as that has decertification written all over it.
IL,

A lot of costs are already subtracted.

The players get 57% of HRR, but HRR isn't exactly revenue, it's the difference between revenue and costs as specified in the CBA.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 04:48 PM
  #909
WhiskeySeven
Mr. Worldwide
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,554
vCash: 500
Puck Daddy basically saying what I'm feeling. I really dislike the NHL at the moment, I don't know if it's the same as in 04 and I'll jump back into hockey again or not - this whole thing is just a slap in the fans' face. They've had an average of 7.2% growth since the last lockout, that's including the worldwide depression. It's crazy that now suddenly they're saying it's unsustainable and the only solution is for the players to pay for it.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 06:48 PM
  #910
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
The free market system was problematic and leading to, at the very least, contraction.
I don't think you can argue that contraction would have been more likely than relocation.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:16 PM
  #911
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
You need to get it together. You have written that players should pay their share of the costs of running a franchise - which suggests a unilateral decision to deduct costs from paychecks which is illegal. You have never written that it should be part of a CBA. Good luck with that strategy as that has decertification written all over it.



Please show me that the NHL and NHLPA are formal, legal "partners in the business".
I have it "together", you misunderstood what I wrote. I have never said the owners would or should unilaterally impose the deduction of costs from the players share to pay for the costs of running the league. I have suggested getting the players to agree to doing such a thing, facetiously, as a way of pointing out that the players (and their supporters, in relation to the discussion) should only get 50% of all revenue IF they are WILLING to share in ALL costs. Sorry for your confusion, I hope it is clear, now.

Well, if the players are not partners, there is even less incentive to pay them half of all HRR. Most businesses do not give employees 50% or more of ALL revenue. Heck, most businesses don't even give 50% of their profits to their employees. I know that there are SOME costs taken out of the HRR, but there is still a significant amount NOT taken out of HRR. Also, the owners are not asking for all HRR from the players side to be included in the total HRR of the league even though the players want tax subsidies and other money before costs get paid added to the HRR. How can you agree to it being so one sided for the players? Ah well, everyone has an opinion...

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:26 PM
  #912
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Funny, I don't remember Daly or Bettman uttering the word in 2004-05. And it's not an option for them now. You must be privy to some info the rest of the world doesn't have.
It is not a desirable outcome, and is not something that will be spoken of unless necessary as it would scare away investors. If Bettman had said there was a possibility of contraction, it would have shown the world that the NHL is not worth investing in. It could have cost the league a lot of television money and other advertising losses as well. However, even someone without an economics degree (meaning me) recognizes that the way the NHL was going in 2004 (multiple teams in or around bankruptcy, more teams losing money, players getting 72% of HRR, etc...) would have led to relocations and, quite possibly, contractions. There weren't that many viable locations at the time for 2-4 teams to relocate to, and there were 6 hovering around bankruptcy.

Yes, I am speculating. I don't think it is that far off from the reality and it is at least partially why the owners were so adamant about getting the players down to as low a % of HRR as they could at the time.

In today's NHL there is definitely no possibility of contraction (partially due to the above explanation, and mostly because there are far greater finances available to maintain teams). There are only a couple of teams that might be closer to bankruptcy than owners are happy with, but there are enough viable alternative markets that relocation can cover any potential franchises that falter.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:27 PM
  #913
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
I don't think you can argue that contraction would have been more likely than relocation.
Of course i can argue it. I COULD be wrong, too. However, looking back at the financial situation the NHL had at the time, if the league would have been unable to get the players down to 57%, and they were forced to go with a similar 72% deal, there is no way anyone can state for certain that contraction wouldn't have been considered.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:32 PM
  #914
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Puck Daddy basically saying what I'm feeling. I really dislike the NHL at the moment, I don't know if it's the same as in 04 and I'll jump back into hockey again or not - this whole thing is just a slap in the fans' face. They've had an average of 7.2% growth since the last lockout, that's including the worldwide depression. It's crazy that now suddenly they're saying it's unsustainable and the only solution is for the players to pay for it.
I really dislike the NHLPA at the moment, I don't know if it's the same as in 04 and I'll jump back into hockey again or not - this whole thing is just a slap in the fans' face. They've had 63.5% growth since the last lockout, that's including the worldwide depression. It's crazy that they're saying it's unfair for the owners to get 50% of all revenue from a business they invested hundreds of millions in and pay for. So sorry, I just couldn't resist. Please don't get angry.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:37 PM
  #915
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
Thanks for saving me the time. Excellent post!
You are welcome.


Last edited by Drydenwasthebest: 10-21-2012 at 07:39 PM. Reason: Wrong answer to wrong post! Lol.
Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:38 PM
  #916
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Of course i can argue it. I COULD be wrong, too. However, looking back at the financial situation the NHL had at the time, if the league would have been unable to get the players down to 57%, and they were forced to go with a similar 72% deal, there is no way anyone can state for certain that contraction wouldn't have been considered.
First of all, no one was "forced to go with a 72% deal." No team was forced to do anything.

Second, more to the point, to successfully make your argument, you have to make the argument that the Atlanta/Winnipeg sale couldn't have happened, and that potential owners in QC, the GTA and Seattle would no longer be interested. I don't think you can.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:47 PM
  #917
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
IL,

A lot of costs are already subtracted.

The players get 57% of HRR, but HRR isn't exactly revenue, it's the difference between revenue and costs as specified in the CBA.
I fully understand that but it's pretty clear that Dryden does not understand what HRR is.

It's like he went to the Lance Armstrong School of Debating: say it enough times and it must be true.


Last edited by rafal majka: 10-21-2012 at 08:09 PM.
rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:59 PM
  #918
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
First of all, no one was "forced to go with a 72% deal." No team was forced to do anything.

Second, more to the point, to successfully make your argument, you have to make the argument that the Atlanta/Winnipeg sale couldn't have happened, and that potential owners in QC, the GTA and Seattle would no longer be interested. I don't think you can.
In 2004 those other places you quote were not viable at that time. Remember, we are talking about 2004, not 2012. Also, I DID say that there were 2-4 viable options but about 6 teams that were in serious trouble. I never said there were no options.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 08:08 PM
  #919
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Most businesses do not give employees 50% or more of ALL revenue. Heck, most businesses don't even give 50% of their profits to their employees.
Most businesses aren't the NHL or NFL or NBA.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 08:09 PM
  #920
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
I fully understand that but it's pretty clear that Dryden does not understand what HRR is (although, to be fair, it is convoluted).

It's like he went to the Lance Armstrong School of Debating: say it enough times and it must be true.
HRR is all hockey related revenue minus some small percentage of some of the costs. I have as clear an idea as most people. Unlike SOME people (not necessarily you) on the players' side who are trying to make it seem like HRR is all revenue after all costs are subtracted (I am not going to mention anyone upon whom reverse psychology has worked, I am enjoying not being insulted for the moment...--again, not aimed at you).

Quote:
say it enough times and it must be true
Lol. You DO realize that is exactly what everyone who has posted multiple times has basically been doing, right? We are all saying our point over and over in various ways to try and convince people on the opposite side that we are correct. You are no different than I in this regard. It is called an "argument" (philosophical use, not literal) for a reason. We all want to convince others that we are correct, and we all try to find different ways to say, basically, the same thing in a manner that will reach the other person. It is part of the fun of being on a site like this.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 08:14 PM
  #921
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Most businesses aren't the NHL or NFL or NBA.
We agree on a simple truth. That does not mean that those 3 entities should be held to a completely different standard than almost every business on the planet. They are different but similar, just like McDonald's is different from Walmarts which is different from Google, etc.... There is no reason for the players (be they employees or partners) to deserve more of a share of HRR than the owners...especially when their own HRR is not included in the overall numbers.

I would point out, though, that in 2 of the entities you call similar or seem to place on the same scale, the players get 50% and the owners get 50%. Imagine that. I guess I am not the only one who thinks 50/50 is fair rather than arbitrary... Since you think those 3 entities are on the same level as businesses, does that mean I can count on your changing your own vote?


Last edited by Drydenwasthebest: 10-21-2012 at 08:19 PM. Reason: Added something important.
Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 08:33 PM
  #922
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
In 2004 those other places you quote were not viable at that time. Remember, we are talking about 2004, not 2012. Also, I DID say that there were 2-4 viable options but about 6 teams that were in serious trouble. I never said there were no options.
The new CBA came into effect in 2005-06, not 2004. You believe teams would have immediately contracted had that CBA not guaranteed cost certainty? I call hyberbole.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 08:45 PM
  #923
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
I fully understand that but it's pretty clear that Dryden does not understand what HRR is.

It's like he went to the Lance Armstrong School of Debating: say it enough times and it must be true.
We see where envy of players is going.

This time around it's all about the arbitrary "50/50".

Next time, for the 2018 lockout, it will also be "50/50", but after costs like marketing, and annual salaries and bonuses for the team president are fully subtracted before calculating HRR.

The 29 owners are equal to the 700 players, so each owner should make an average profit that is 700/29 = 24x the average player salary, because that's fair :-)

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 08:56 PM
  #924
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
The new CBA came into effect in 2005-06, not 2004. You believe teams would have immediately contracted had that CBA not guaranteed cost certainty? I call hyberbole.
I know the new CBA came into effect in 2005-2006. We lost 2004-2005 first, though. That is why I was using 2004 since that would be the year the owners decided enough was enough if their league was going to have any chance at growing.

Again, I never said contraction would be immediate. I didn't even say contraction was guaranteed. I did say it was quite possible.

If you want examples of hyperbole, check out post #923 for a couple of doozies...

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 01:03 AM
  #925
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
This wouldn't sit well in NHLPA discussions. Words like 'contraction' don't sit well with them. Sure, cut out 6 teams and 20% of the jobs in the process, let's see the NHLPA sign that. They don't want to hear about cap floor being lowered and all that, because it's money and jobs they lose. Nothing wrong with that but telling me teams should GTFO doesn't help the players whatsoever.

In response to your other post about free market. Shea Weber will recieve 20+ million this calender year, does he deserve it? Just because someone pushed the market to that point does it mean it's representative of his league wide value?

Yes, you're right in certain aspects, if a market suggests a player is worth a certain value then so be it but the reality is it doesn't always work that way. A lot of it is from abuse of the current system so to even the playing field the NHL is putting restrictions on front loading and all that, seems fair to me.

Later into this thread I specifically suggest that the contract amounts should be honored but unlike NHLPA terms where they suggest the last 13% will be paid and not count against the cap, I suggest it does into the year it is deferred. It only seems logical. So in other words, pay the amount, drop the cap but let the remaining caphits and paychecks be deferred within the next CBA.

Also, since your on NHLPA side, do you think it's ethical they want tax payer subsidies to be part of HRR? Do you seriously consider this normal? They want bailouts to count as revenue. It's retarded. Just to increase their revenue shares. That is not normal.

Good post LL. And no, I disagree entirely with players receiving a share of money for any revenue or rebates from governments, or from other teams in revenue sharing. Players should only receive money from:

1: Team owners, paid directly to the player.

2: Fans, by way of TV, radio, internet, gate, food and beverage, and merchandise revenues and:

3. Corporations that pay the player, or the NHLPA, to promote their products or services.


Last edited by bsl: 10-22-2012 at 01:09 AM.
bsl 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 11:39 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.