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
10-24-2012, 09:06 AM
  #501
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 8,423
vCash: 500
Existing contracts need to be honored and grandfathered in. Why the owners/NHL can't agree to this is now what is holding everything back.

Honor existing contracts, the NHLPA will agree to the 50/50 split.

We play hockey.

nevesis is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:15 AM
  #502
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
I'm right with Melrose and TB when I say I'll be back watching games when it all resumes but in the meantime I've found other things to occupy my time which means I'll probably have a little bit less later on and by the way I'm even figuring on retiring at the end of February.
It's a little more than that, eco. If they are gone for more than one season, I am more than likely done as a fan of the NHL.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:20 AM
  #503
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
The stars are still gonna come to the NHL.
Not if they are offered several million more per year, by some Russian or Swedish billionaire. Yes, I feel that they are not coming here if the total contract paid to them at home is worth let's say $10m more.
Quote:
If that ends up changing someday, it will be because hockey is simply not popular in North America as compared to Europe and the revenues are to be made across the pond moreso than here.
The first step to that is to net some of the bigger NHL stars to stay home. Not saying that it WILL happen, but it is a likely scenario if the league cancel's a season or two.
Quote:
And you know what else is capitalism? The owners saying "We are losing money, we need to cut costs, so our newest contract is going to reduce your salaries." Nothing immoral about that any more than Ovechkin not honoring his contract by staying in Russia, it's just capitalism.
Sure, but then the owners are ALWAYS saying that. Whether or not it is true. What is immoral is signing a player to a contract, and then the next day crying poverty and claiming that you cannot pay it.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:21 AM
  #504
KreiMeARiver
Have Confidence
 
KreiMeARiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,519
vCash: 500
Someone should start a facebook group asking them to cancel the season, now.

Regardless whether or not they come back, I'm not spending a cent on anything.

KreiMeARiver is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:30 AM
  #505
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
NHLPA should table a proposal. One with 50/50 but a gradual drop from 53%, by year, linking salaries to revenue. The owners would have to listen. (Btw this is the same post I and probably countless others posted a month(s) ago).

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:33 AM
  #506
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,781
vCash: 500
Awards:
Bettman has time to go to the Barclays Center to announce a team that is not playing is moving to Booklyn. Brilliant.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:34 AM
  #507
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Not if they are offered several million more per year, by some Russian or Swedish billionaire. Yes, I feel that they are not coming here if the total contract paid to them at home is worth let's say $10m more.
Well I'm agreeing with you that if they are paid more to stay overseas, that is what they'll do.

But what I'm saying is that in general that has not been the case when the players are getting paid 1.8 bn collectively. I doubt it will be the case when they are paid 1.6 bn either.

There's a tipping point somewhere, sure.

Quote:
The first step to that is to net some of the bigger NHL stars to stay home. Not saying that it WILL happen, but it is a likely scenario if the league cancel's a season or two.
That isn't the first step, the first step is that owners overseas are generating more revenue than owners here.

The occasional player might get homesick or something and stay over there, but you won't see a vast migration of all the top stars until those leagues over there consistently can pay more.

One or two players staying over there won't mean anything though.

Quote:
Sure, but then the owners are ALWAYS saying that. Whether or not it is true.
My position is based on the fact that most owners are either losing money or making very little to none.

If you have proof that is not the case, I'd love to hear it. But so far Forbes has reported different facts.

Quote:
What is immoral is signing a player to a contract, and then the next day crying poverty and claiming that you cannot pay it.
There is nothing immoral about that for reasons that have already been outlined here, here, here and here.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:35 AM
  #508
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
NHLPA should table a proposal. One with 50/50 but a gradual drop from 53%, by year, linking salaries to revenue. The owners would have to listen. (Btw this is the same post I and probably countless others posted a month(s) ago).
And if the owners tabled the same proposal, the NHLPA would have to listen.

It's the same thing. And in reality, if the owners want the drop the percentage down to 50%, it's their responsibility to entice the players there.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:40 AM
  #509
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
If you have proof that is not the case, I'd love to hear it. But so far Forbes has reported different facts.
The Forbes article doesn't report facts, it reports estimates. And it's estimates on franchise values and revenues have been known to be as inaccurate as they are accurate. Just take a look at sale prices on NHL teams and compare them to the supposed Forbes valuation at the same time. Sometimes it's spot on, sometimes it's way off.

Also, remember that Forbes had the Rangers losing $3.3m in the season before the lockout. Yeah ****ing right.

Stop putting so much stock into the Forbes numbers. To me, the evidence that so many teams are not losing so much money is very simple: very few teams are even up for sale.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:45 AM
  #510
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Forbes cites actual numbers.

Speculating that few teams are up for sale is just that, speculation. It COULD indicate that teams aren't really losing money. Or there could be other reasons to explain it.

In the absence of someone getting some numerical evidence that the majority of owners are not losing money, I simply can't buy that position.

It's like asking me to believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Ok, show me the proof. The opinions of a couple speculators in the intelligence field isn't good enough.

If the owners are making money, there should be some kind of numerical reports demonstrating that. And I've already said, if the owners are making money hand over fist, I'd side with the players.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:53 AM
  #511
KreiMeARiver
Have Confidence
 
KreiMeARiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Bettman has time to go to the Barclays Center to announce a team that is not playing is moving to Booklyn. Brilliant.
I hope the league folds. Stop wasting my time, and taking advantage of my loyalty.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice....

I'll find another hobby or maybe actually join a men's league during the week. F these clowns and their greed.

KreiMeARiver is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:57 AM
  #512
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,781
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KreiMeARiver View Post
I hope the league folds. Stop wasting my time, and taking advantage of my loyalty.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice....

I'll find another hobby or maybe actually join a men's league during the week. F these clowns and their greed.
An owner gets richer during a lockout. Unreal.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:01 AM
  #513
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Forbes cites actual numbers.

Speculating that few teams are up for sale is just that, speculation. It COULD indicate that teams aren't really losing money. Or there could be other reasons to explain it.

In the absence of someone getting some numerical evidence that the majority of owners are not losing money, I simply can't buy that position.

It's like asking me to believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Ok, show me the proof. The opinions of a couple speculators in the intelligence field isn't good enough.

If the owners are making money, there should be some kind of numerical reports demonstrating that. And I've already said, if the owners are making money hand over fist, I'd side with the players.
So, you really think that Forbes has access to all team's books. The naivety of that statement is beyond words. Forbes numbers are estimates.

And good job ignoring the fact that they've been wrong as often as they've been right. Pierre McGuire, an actual hockey reporter with sources in every front office, says that 5 more teams are making money than Forbes reports.

Again, I'm not saying so much that Forbes is absolutely wrong. I'm saying that they are not the be-all/end-all and the simple fact that they are the only ones reporting hard numbers doesn't make their numbers right. There's evidence that they aren't.

There are owners out there who wouldn't put up the team even if they were losing money. Like Terry Pegula. Craig Leipold, however, is not one of those owners (we know this from his history). And yet the Wild are not up for sale (a team up for sale is an impossible fact to keep secret in this age) while Forbes has them losing over $5m per season. The facts don't jive.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:03 AM
  #514
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
An owner gets richer during a lockout. Unreal.
Maybe, maybe not.

I still think of Doug MacLean on XM stating that the Blue Jackets lost $17m during the last lockout.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:05 AM
  #515
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Maybe, maybe not.

I still think of Doug MacLean on XM stating that the Blue Jackets lost $17m during the last lockout.
It didn't stop them from overpaying Rick Nash.....but then again they couldn't ice a team around him.

RGY is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:06 AM
  #516
bubba5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,011
vCash: 500
At least Bettman is not pulling that BS this time that the lockout is for the fans so we can lower ticket prices, etc. He knows it is a money grab and that is it.

bubba5 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:06 AM
  #517
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
It's a little more than that, eco. If they are gone for more than one season, I am more than likely done as a fan of the NHL.
Well you'd be missed at least by some here as I've usually found your posts to be very insightful.

As a kid I was very sports crazy but I only came to hockey after baseball, football, basketball. As an adult all those other sports have fallen away and basically I just follow the Rangers. Not intending to leave them. I don't like the general trend of corporatized sports which has been exponentially increasing for a long time but that is also the trend our society is on--these things mirroring each other--one of the better examples is what has happened to the Olympics. There will never be another gold medal in hockey like the gold medal the American team amateurs won in 1980--some people act like the USA winning it again would be of the same scale.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:06 AM
  #518
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Forbes cites actual numbers.
Forbes does not have access to a team's books and records.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:08 AM
  #519
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,781
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Maybe, maybe not.

I still think of Doug MacLean on XM stating that the Blue Jackets lost $17m during the last lockout.
I'm talking bigger picture. Wang isn't moving to Brooklyn if he isn't going to profit from it.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:09 AM
  #520
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
The owners lose all credible arguments when they offer huge paydays to RFAs like Seguin and Kane. Guys with no leverage or options. Signing them at the zero hour to 6 yr deals with insane raises... and then both owners sit down with Bettman and call for instant reductions and contract reform. There is no reason to rush those signings when you can easily wait foe the new CBA and take advantage of the rules you demand. Oh, other than getting huge escrow payments. Say what you want about Parise and Suter, they were UFA and free market products.

A league where Sather exhibits the most restraint isn't in need of rules. It needs to use the ones they already have, the ones the poster child of foolish spending discovered.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:11 AM
  #521
GordonGecko
Stanley Cup 2015
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,692
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipNash27 View Post
Last time I checked, player salaries are higher now than they were before the last lockout. So how exactly did they get ****ed?
Because those players lost a year that they can never get back, and on top of that they got their paychecks cut and their share of future earnings capped. The new players can benefit from greater league revenue, but that is still less than the previous free market system.

Compare that to the owners who won't get that year back either, but they won't retire after 15 years either. They're owners basically til death and then their kids or shareholders stay owners until their death. The owners always win, they have the stock. The players don't have the stock, they have the options. Options expire, stocks don't.

GordonGecko is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:15 AM
  #522
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,013
vCash: 500
Torts referring to his players via Brooks:

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Tortorella tells Post: "I'm worried players have lost mindset [but lockout] will be no excuse." http://nyp.st/PPEtrJ

RGY is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:21 AM
  #523
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
So, you really think that Forbes has access to all team's books.
No, but I'm believing them over you.

I'm not taking Forbes over SOME OTHER credible source; there is no other source.

Someone show me SOMETHING that says the owners are all making money.

In the absence of any evidence, it is unreasonable to just assume something it the case.

You have no evidence.

Quote:
Pierre McGuire, an actual hockey reporter with sources in every front office, says that 5 more teams are making money than Forbes reports.
Well I'd like to see some numbers. Otherwise it's pretty much hearsay.

Quote:
Again, I'm not saying so much that Forbes is absolutely wrong. I'm saying that they are not the be-all/end-all and the simple fact that they are the only ones reporting hard numbers doesn't make their numbers right. There's evidence that they aren't.
I'm not saying that Forbes is absolutely right.

I'm saying, if we put on trial the question as to whether the NHL owners were making money, and the attorney for the league said "Here's the numbers are crunched by Forbes, we are losing money," that would be a decent amount of evidence.

Then if your counter to that is "Forbes is wrong, nobody is selling their teams, and plus, Pierre MacGuire said he talked to some dudes who say they are making money," well, that's a crappy case you have.

Who are those people? What do their numbers say?

Get me that evidence and I'll change my mind, if it is legit.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:21 AM
  #524
KreiMeARiver
Have Confidence
 
KreiMeARiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,519
vCash: 500
Players need to give on the 12131233 year contracts

Owners need to give on the "make it whole"

Get a deal done this week or go away, forever.

KreiMeARiver is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:30 AM
  #525
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
NHLPA should table a proposal. One with 50/50 but a gradual drop from 53%, by year, linking salaries to revenue. The owners would have to listen. (Btw this is the same post I and probably countless others posted a month(s) ago).
The owners dont' have to listen...they could dismiss it out of hand like they have with everything else and just say "the NHLPA is still not negotiating on our proposal and insists on bringing things to the table that aren't under negotiation"

Levitate 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 10:12 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.