HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

NHL vs. NHLPA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-23-2012, 09:57 PM
  #151
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Why is a struggling team overpaying? No poor team should be spending to the cap or overpaying players. It's like yelling at the kid at the cashier for getting your order wrong after you ate the burger! So when owners are whining about costs after they handed out gross salaries, why should the players pay the price? The players just want their contract.

What is the purpose of the cap? How is that purpose defeated by luxury tax or cap space trading?
The purpose of the cap is to give a level playing field we all know that with a luxury tax NYR, Toronto, Montreal would not play on a level playing field. A lot of teams aren't overpaying to go to the cap they are trying to get over the minimum like Florida was.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 10:14 PM
  #152
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
The purpose of the cap is to give a level playing field we all know that with a luxury tax NYR, Toronto, Montreal would not play on a level playing field. A lot of teams aren't overpaying to go to the cap they are trying to get over the minimum like Florida was.
I thought it was cost certainty. So when a team like Toronto is paying 5 million in salaries because that's cost effective for Pheonix, is that fair to the players? I mean Pheonix needs money to stay afloat, so even 5 million in salaries is too much. Where does the madness end?

An equal playing field is great, but that's for leagues that has their **** together. The NHL had so many work stoppages and relocated teams over the years that its embarrassing. Maybe financially healthy teams should be the priority, not a level playing field. Especially when one end of the level is Bill Gates while the other end is a homeless cat lady. Does that seem right?

A luxury tax or cap trading will help struggling teams stay afloat long enough to build a fanbase. IMO, The league expanded too soon and now it's asking the players to pay for their mistake.


Last edited by MarkGio: 10-23-2012 at 10:59 PM. Reason: spelling error
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 10:37 PM
  #153
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
I thought it was cost certaintly. So when a team like Toronto is paying 5 million in salaries because that's cost effective for Pheonix, is that fair to the players? I mean Pheonix needs money to stay afloat, so even 5 million in salaries is too much. Where does the madness end?

An equal playing field is great, but that's for leagues that has their **** together. The NHL had so many work stoppages and relocated teams over the years that its embarrassing. Maybe financially healthy teams should be the priority, not a level playing field. Especially when one end of the level is Bill Gates while the other end is a homeless cat lady. Does that seem right?

A luxury tax or cap trading will help struggling teams stay afloat long enough to build a fanbase. IMO, The league expanded too soon and now it's asking the players to pay for their mistake.
Your right lets pander to only the most profitable lets say teams that have at least broken even over the last 3 years so we lose 14 teams being Ottawa, Minny, Anaheim, St.Louis, Carolina, NYI, Buffalo, Nashville, San Jose, Washington, Florida, Columbus, Phoenix. So it turns out that half the teams are losing money so we should cut the dead weight and let teams spend like their is no tomorrow I mean it makes the MLB very exciting because nothing says exciting like the same 10 teams dominating but then there is a even bigger division in money between the top 8 teams and the other 7 as they have made 40 million in the last 3 years so we should only have 8 teams since they are the real markets. But again we see another large gap as only the Leafs made over 200 million in that span so lets just have 1 team since they will be able to out spend any team.

The reason the cap was needed was because with out in the 80s - 90s the rich teams out spent the rest and built up dynasties while the small market teams (the Canadian teams at the time) were losing vast amounts of money to keep up. The Cap allows teams to compete and they won't have to worry about the large teams out bidding them. If we allow a Luxury tax or trading cap then the leafs can load up and offer Sven 15+ million a year when he is a RFA and we wouldn't be able to match it as the majority of our owners aren't billionaires and can't offer that kind of cap.


Last edited by TheHudlinator: 10-23-2012 at 11:01 PM.
TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 10:58 PM
  #154
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Your right lets pander to only the most profitable lets say teams that have at least broken even over the last 3 years so we lose 14 teams being Ottawa, Minny, Anaheim, St.Louis, Carolina, NYI, Buffalo, Nashville, San Jose, Washington, Florida, Columbus, Phoenix. So it turns out that half the teams are losing money so we should cut the dead weight and let teams spend like their is no tomorrow I mean it makes the MLB very exciting because nothing says exciting like the same 10 teams dominating but then there is a even bigger division in money between the top 8 teams and the other 7 as they have made 40 million in the last 3 years so we should only have 8 teams since they are the real markets. But again we see another large gap as only the Leafs made over 200 million in that span so lets just have 1 team since they will be able to out spend any team.

The reason the cap was needed was because with out in the 80s - 90s the rich teams out spent the rest and built up dynasties while the small market teams (the Canadian teams at the time) were losing vast amounts of money to keep up. The Cap allows teams to compete and they won't have to worry about the large teams out bidding them. If we allow a Luxury tax or trading cap then the leafs can load up and offer Sven 15+ million a year when he is a RFA and we wouldn't be able to match it as the majority of our owners aren't billionaires and can't offer that kind of cap.
Why did you add "Fine lets cut all teams that don't earn" to my original post? I never said that! That's not cool at all try and put words into my post. I've been a gentlemen about this debate and I better receive the same treatment. I simply won't respond to you when you pull that kind of ****...

When you act like that it belittles your entire argument. It's like a serial killer ranting about parenting ethics. Nobody respects the messenger.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 11:01 PM
  #155
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Why did you add "Fine lets cut all teams that don't earn" to my original post? I never said that! That's not cool at all try and put words into my post. I've been a gentlemen about this debate and I better receive the same treatment. I simply won't respond to you when you pull that kind of ****...

When you act like that it belittles your entire argument. It's like a serial killer ranting about parenting ethics. Nobody respects the messenger.
Thats my bad it was straight up an accident I started typing in the middle of your quote and I thought I deleted it all clearly I did not, its not my intention at all but I stand by my stands that we can't pander to the top teams.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 11:08 PM
  #156
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Your right lets pander to only the most profitable lets say teams that have at least broken even over the last 3 years so we lose 14 teams being Ottawa, Minny, Anaheim, St.Louis, Carolina, NYI, Buffalo, Nashville, San Jose, Washington, Florida, Columbus, Phoenix. So it turns out that half the teams are losing money so we should cut the dead weight and let teams spend like their is no tomorrow I mean it makes the MLB very exciting because nothing says exciting like the same 10 teams dominating but then there is a even bigger division in money between the top 8 teams and the other 7 as they have made 40 million in the last 3 years so we should only have 8 teams since they are the real markets. But again we see another large gap as only the Leafs made over 200 million in that span so lets just have 1 team since they will be able to out spend any team.

The reason the cap was needed was because with out in the 80s - 90s the rich teams out spent the rest and built up dynasties while the small market teams (the Canadian teams at the time) were losing vast amounts of money to keep up. The Cap allows teams to compete and they won't have to worry about the large teams out bidding them. If we allow a Luxury tax or trading cap then the leafs can load up and offer Sven 15+ million a year when he is a RFA and we wouldn't be able to match it as the majority of our owners aren't billionaires and can't offer that kind of cap.
^^ No worries. Sorry for freaking out

Before the cap we had competition disparity and teams were struggling financially. Now we have great competition, and still teams are struggling financially. So how is a reduced cap going to change things? Wasn't it Einstein that said it's insane to try the same thing over and expect different results. I mean, it seems like a happy medium of all the problems we've seen over the past few CBAs is by having a cap (competition) and a luxury tax or cap trade system (financial assistance). I'm sure a CBA could put a limit on how much a team can spend regardless of system.

Oh, and like I was saying before, I'm almost certain that Bettman said the purpose of the cap was cost certainty.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 11:21 PM
  #157
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
^^ No worries.

Before the cap we had competition disparity and teams were struggling financially. Now we have great competition, and still teams are struggling financially. So how is a reduced cap going to change things? Wasn't it Einstein that said it's insane to try the same thing over and expect different results. I mean, it seems like a happy medium of all the problems we've seen over the past few CBAs is by having a cap (competition) and a luxury tax or cap trade system (financial assistance). I'm sure a CBA could put a limit on how much a team can spend regardless of system.

Oh, and like I was saying before, I'm almost certain that Bettman said the purpose of the cap was cost certainty.
Technically all particle physics is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result (Einstein was wrong). The cap has grown to quickly to be sustainable. The majority of owners also own the building and must pay the staff etc and can't cover the cost but an increase in 7% would be huge in fact based off last season we would see almost half the teams that lost money break even that is a huge difference.

Yes Bettman did say that but I am willing to argue that it is equally important in making the 10+ other teams have a chance at succeeding even if they aren't in the top profitability.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 11:40 PM
  #158
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Technically all particle physics is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result (Einstein was wrong). The cap has grown to quickly to be sustainable. The majority of owners also own the building and must pay the staff etc and can't cover the cost but an increase in 7% would be huge in fact based off last season we would see almost half the teams that lost money break even that is a huge difference.

Yes Bettman did say that but I am willing to argue that it is equally important in making the 10+ other teams have a chance at succeeding even if they aren't in the top profitability.
The cap grew because the game grew. What didn't grow, however, was the amount of fans in the middle of the desert. Is it not coincidential that the financially struggling teams are the expansion teams?

Let's start from square 1 and try again. The league needs 50/50 right away, yes? So then what? Teams like Pheonix can't even afford to sell the club, so even with a new 35 million cap floor, an immediate 50/50 split won't help the teams. Meanwhile the game will continue to grow, the cap floor will grow, and all those sunbelt teams will be back looking for a 30/70 split to reduce costs.

So again, where does the madness stop?

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 11:52 PM
  #159
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
The cap grew because the game grew. What didn't grow, however, was the amount of fans in the middle of the desert. Is it not coincidential that the financially struggling teams are the expansion teams?

Let's start from square 1 and try again. The league needs 50/50 right away, yes? So then what? Teams like Pheonix can't even afford to sell the club, so even with a new 35 million cap floor, an immediate 50/50 split won't help the teams. Meanwhile the game will continue to grow, the cap floor will grow, and all those sunbelt teams will be back looking for a 30/70 split to reduce costs.

So again, where does the madness stop?
Am I not defending Phoenix lets get that straight I am talking about are the majority of the teams, I am talking about the teams that average less than 10 million in losses a year. If those owners get their 7% a vast majority at least break even. I think Phoenix is a lost experiment and there has to be a better option. But I am willing to let Bettman have his desert team for the sole fact that he fought this hard to keep Canadian teams in Canada when our dollar was worthless and that has greatly paid off. A 50-50 split makes sense on so many levels as right now it costs to much to pay the support staff and the hockey players but if they players sacrifice a bit of salary (we aren't talking about making the minimum wage 100k its about bring down the 4 million dollar players) so that way all 30 teams stay a float and all 690 nhl players keep their jobs but if the top players won't sacrifice a little bit we will see several teams fail and that will result in upwards of 100 nhl jobs lost + all the arena staff. If the NHL cannot be sustainable we will see the game shrink which will result in less profit and the cap will come down anyway.

And when I say sacrifice they aren't really giving anything up since all contracts will remain the same this just brings down the maximum salary for a player and brings down player salary demands in the future no one actually loses money.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 12:35 AM
  #160
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Am I not defending Phoenix lets get that straight I am talking about are the majority of the teams, I am talking about the teams that average less than 10 million in losses a year. If those owners get their 7% a vast majority at least break even. I think Phoenix is a lost experiment and there has to be a better option. But I am willing to let Bettman have his desert team for the sole fact that he fought this hard to keep Canadian teams in Canada when our dollar was worthless and that has greatly paid off. A 50-50 split makes sense on so many levels as right now it costs to much to pay the support staff and the hockey players but if they players sacrifice a bit of salary (we aren't talking about making the minimum wage 100k its about bring down the 4 million dollar players) so that way all 30 teams stay a float and all 690 nhl players keep their jobs but if the top players won't sacrifice a little bit we will see several teams fail and that will result in upwards of 100 nhl jobs lost + all the arena staff. If the NHL cannot be sustainable we will see the game shrink which will result in less profit and the cap will come down anyway.

And when I say sacrifice they aren't really giving anything up since all contracts will remain the same this just brings down the maximum salary for a player and brings down player salary demands in the future no one actually loses money.
So let's say the players do this. They'll save the day, the league becomes viable, and (although doubtfully) all the teams are financially sound. It's a paradise for all, emulating the NFL.

Will the players get back their 57% after?

They saved the day after all.

Did a "perfect" NFL give players 57%? Hell, they fought the refs over 3 million dollars!

The owners will want more and more. It's their nature to be greedy. It's not the players job to save the league. Bring in a luxury tax, an owner's obligation to helping the poor teams.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 12:50 AM
  #161
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
So let's say the players do this. They'll save the day, the league becomes viable, and (although doubtfully) all the teams are financially sound. It's a paradise for all, emulating the NFL.

Will the players get back their 57% after?

They saved the day after all.

Did a "perfect" NFL give players 57%? Hell, they fought the refs over 3 million dollars!

The owners will want more and more. It's their nature to be greedy. It's not the players job to save the league. Bring in a luxury tax, an owner's obligation to helping the poor teams.
Your right its not the players job to save the league how ever if they are truly united they will do whats best for all 690 nhl players interest not the top 50 players. If they agree to 50-50 they can help each other. Also how is it if the owners want half of the product they fund in the buildings they build run by their employees they employ they are greedy but when the players want 57% of the leagues revenue not paying for gear hotels traveling etc they are just getting what they are owed?

Last CBA the players wanted a constant cap of 42 million and the owners wanted the cap to be tied to the income so they wouldn't be paying for a failing product if the nhl had agreed it would be players complaining that the make less than 45% of income but now they make the majority its they fair share?

Again if the players take 50-50 they don't lose any actual money, they cry about they want a fair share as 17 teams lose money but they aren't being asked to give up any more at all, the owners simply want to make players value less on the open market they saying that Hudler who was worth 4 million on the open market is worth 3.72 million in the future (he doesn't lose money just showing how little future value changes)

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 08:23 PM
  #162
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Your right its not the players job to save the league how ever if they are truly united they will do whats best for all 690 nhl players interest not the top 50 players. If they agree to 50-50 they can help each other. Also how is it if the owners want half of the product they fund in the buildings they build run by their employees they employ they are greedy but when the players want 57% of the leagues revenue not paying for gear hotels traveling etc they are just getting what they are owed?
Are the owners united? Will they help out their fellow owner pay the bills? Maybe the owners need to start doing what's best for the 20 other owners and solve the problems with the league's disparity. A luxury tax is a good start.

And if not the players, and it's definately not the refs, then by deductive reasoning it's the league's job to fix the problems. They need to adjust the system because it's not sustainable no matter what the percent is. You don't have all those lock-outs because you're good at your job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Last CBA the players wanted a constant cap of 42 million and the owners wanted the cap to be tied to the income so they wouldn't be paying for a failing product if the nhl had agreed it would be players complaining that the make less than 45% of income but now they make the majority its they fair share?

Again if the players take 50-50 they don't lose any actual money, they cry about they want a fair share as 17 teams lose money but they aren't being asked to give up any more at all, the owners simply want to make players value less on the open market they saying that Hudler who was worth 4 million on the open market is worth 3.72 million in the future (he doesn't lose money just showing how little future value changes)
So if player's take a 50/50 split they won't lose money. I'm pretty sure they were getting 57% of HRR for the past 7 years, and I'm sure that 50% for the next 7 years will be less money. C'mon now.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:35 PM
  #163
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,108
vCash: 291
They're guaranteed to lose 100% of their salaries if the season is lost - and it will be silly to do that when they'll just give in to the owners demands anyways.

Stewie Griffin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 01:03 AM
  #164
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Are the owners united? Will they help out their fellow owner pay the bills? Maybe the owners need to start doing what's best for the 20 other owners and solve the problems with the league's disparity. A luxury tax is a good start.

And if not the players, and it's definately not the refs, then by deductive reasoning it's the league's job to fix the problems. They need to adjust the system because it's not sustainable no matter what the percent is. You don't have all those lock-outs because you're good at your job.



So if player's take a 50/50 split they won't lose money. I'm pretty sure they were getting 57% of HRR for the past 7 years, and I'm sure that 50% for the next 7 years will be less money. C'mon now.
Are they owners united? That answer is no according to the insider sources but that is not the point. The NHLPA's job is to fight for each individual players right equally keeping with the the past 7 years sees several teams go bankrupt and 100+ nhl players lose their jobs that should be the priority for the NHLPA not making sure Ovy makes 8+ million a year.

Yes the players earned 57% HRR these past 7 years but every existing contract will not change under 50-50, the players like Ovy consistently whine that they want "their" money that is what their problem is, well under the proposed NHL CBA they keep 100% of their money. The players say they won't accept anything that reduces what they are owed so then NHL offers that at 50-50 (which is the best in the big 4 professional sports in NA) and the players say it is unfair in some manner? No the players are proving to be the greediest union in pro sports headed by the least useful leader of professional sports unions and they want the public's sympathy for it. I am personally done with their poor me act, they were offered a very good offer that could use several tweeks like max years on a contract and the players countered with ridiculous proposals. For the second time in 7 years the NHL is going to miss playing time and this time it is because the players are to greedy to even accept the best revenue split in pro sports.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 02:04 AM
  #165
Body Checker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
I am more for the owners than the players.

Players should of negotiated like heck around the NHL's offer.

I think there would of been a deal if the players responded somewhere around the following:

-We don't like 5 year contract lengths, how about 7 years?

-New UFA rules. Nah let's keep it where it's at.

-One year transition where teams can spend to 70 million? Let's add one more year to that.

-50-50, sure but agree to the above first.

Body Checker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 06:53 PM
  #166
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Are they owners united? That answer is no according to the insider sources but that is not the point. The NHLPA's job is to fight for each individual players right equally keeping with the the past 7 years sees several teams go bankrupt and 100+ nhl players lose their jobs that should be the priority for the NHLPA not making sure Ovy makes 8+ million a year.

Yes the players earned 57% HRR these past 7 years but every existing contract will not change under 50-50, the players like Ovy consistently whine that they want "their" money that is what their problem is, well under the proposed NHL CBA they keep 100% of their money. The players say they won't accept anything that reduces what they are owed so then NHL offers that at 50-50 (which is the best in the big 4 professional sports in NA) and the players say it is unfair in some manner? No the players are proving to be the greediest union in pro sports headed by the least useful leader of professional sports unions and they want the public's sympathy for it. I am personally done with their poor me act, they were offered a very good offer that could use several tweeks like max years on a contract and the players countered with ridiculous proposals. For the second time in 7 years the NHL is going to miss playing time and this time it is because the players are to greedy to even accept the best revenue split in pro sports.
It's clear you have a hard-on for the players, Ovi especially. So maybe you need to review the history of the situation:

(1) Players started late in negotiations

(2) Owner's lock out the season

(3) Owner's put out an "aggressive" offer wanting 43/57 split and slavery contract restrictions. This was the owners trying to take away from the players

(4) Player's respond with an "action plan" to fix league disparity. This was the players NOT taking away, but not losing anything

(5) Owner's propose a less aggressive, but still want to take away.

(6) Player's propose nothing much, but don't take away

(7) Events 4 and 5 are repeated.

(8)Owner's offer a 50/50 split to save an 82 game season

(9) Player's offer 3 proposals, one being an eventual 50/50 split to save an 82 game season

(10) Both stopped talking

So based on these events alone, meaning that we exlude tweets, "cattle" interviews, and certain owner's trying to rob an Albertan city, we can cleary see a negotiating tactic from the owners to TAKE AWAY FROM THE PLAYERS, while the players use a negotiating tactic to LOSE NOTHING.

So who's greedy exactly? I think you need to be told straight up, you're player hating.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 06:57 PM
  #167
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Are they owners united? That answer is no according to the insider sources but that is not the point. The NHLPA's job is to fight for each individual players right equally keeping with the the past 7 years sees several teams go bankrupt and 100+ nhl players lose their jobs that should be the priority for the NHLPA not making sure Ovy makes 8+ million a year.

Yes the players earned 57% HRR these past 7 years but every existing contract will not change under 50-50, the players like Ovy consistently whine that they want "their" money that is what their problem is, well under the proposed NHL CBA they keep 100% of their money. The players say they won't accept anything that reduces what they are owed so then NHL offers that at 50-50 (which is the best in the big 4 professional sports in NA) and the players say it is unfair in some manner? No the players are proving to be the greediest union in pro sports headed by the least useful leader of professional sports unions and they want the public's sympathy for it. I am personally done with their poor me act, they were offered a very good offer that could use several tweeks like max years on a contract and the players countered with ridiculous proposals. For the second time in 7 years the NHL is going to miss playing time and this time it is because the players are to greedy to even accept the best revenue split in pro sports.
Seriously, where are you getting this **** from? It's completely inaccurate and speculative to characterize the NHLPA as favouring players like Ovechkin.

It's the players job to keep teams from going bankrupt? What the **** man?! Now you're just acting silly.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 07:24 PM
  #168
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Seriously, where are you getting this **** from? It's completely inaccurate and speculative to characterize the NHLPA as favouring players like Ovechkin.

It's the players job to keep teams from going bankrupt? What the **** man?! Now you're just acting silly.
What are you talking about? The NHLPA has adopted the "we won't lose any money this year" slogan even tho we just saw 17 teams lose money last year. The NHLPA may not be intentionally favoring the richer players but don't kid yourself that that isn't exactly what their offers do. In order to play under the cap the players want we will see the majority of teams have to lose money for many years which is not feasible for several franchises and we will see several teams disappear costs nhlpa jobs. But the NHLPA is more concerned with keeping the cap as high as they can so players like Iginla, Perry, Getzlaf, etc can cash in as much as they can. They aren't worried about the 4th line grinders anymore than the NHL is.

I never said it was the players jobs to keep the teams from going bankrupt it is the NHLPA's job to look out for all of its player equally when the NHLPA is more concerned with making sure Ovy makes his 8+ million a year salary than keeping all teams financially viable so that they don't lose dozens of jobs due to teams contracting they aren't looking out for everyone equally.

You keep saying its not the players job to stop the nhl from going bankrupt, guess what happens if the nhl goes bankrupt all players those there jobs so at the end of the day it is their job to make sure the league doesn't go bankrupt and under the current system that say 17 teams lose money in 2011 and most likely more in 2012 that isn't happening.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 07:30 PM
  #169
cashman rules*
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Timmins ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,413
vCash: 500
Mike Cammalleri on tsn shooting his mouth off about the owners,ummm Mike, at 6 million/yr you must have put the shakedown on someone for that contract...cause that's a disgrace for what you bring to the table.

cashman rules* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 07:31 PM
  #170
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
It's clear you have a hard-on for the players, Ovi especially. So maybe you need to review the history of the situation:

(1) Players started late in negotiations

(2) Owner's lock out the season

(3) Owner's put out an "aggressive" offer wanting 43/57 split and slavery contract restrictions. This was the owners trying to take away from the players

(4) Player's respond with an "action plan" to fix league disparity. This was the players NOT taking away, but not losing anything

(5) Owner's propose a less aggressive, but still want to take away.

(6) Player's propose nothing much, but don't take away

(7) Events 4 and 5 are repeated.

(8)Owner's offer a 50/50 split to save an 82 game season

(9) Player's offer 3 proposals, one being an eventual 50/50 split to save an 82 game season

(10) Both stopped talking

So based on these events alone, meaning that we exlude tweets, "cattle" interviews, and certain owner's trying to rob an Albertan city, we can cleary see a negotiating tactic from the owners to TAKE AWAY FROM THE PLAYERS, while the players use a negotiating tactic to LOSE NOTHING.

So who's greedy exactly? I think you need to be told straight up, you're player hating.
Which proposal was that exactly? The 3rd one they didn't run the numbers on and costs teams more in the next 2 years than the current system gee what a great way to save money just spend more(Fehr sounds alot like Mitt Romney maybe he should run for the republicans in 4 years). The owners are looking to take away something from the players but perhaps it would be better to keep the 57-43 split and the players pay for flights trainers hotels, etc because that will cost more than the 7%. You think the owners are so greedy and yet 17 of the "greedy" owners LOST MONEY in 2011, players didn't lose money they gained over a billion. The owners don't want to have to lose money to have a sports team. If you think it is greedy to not want to throw your money away then I guess every single person is greedy. The players asking for 57-43 is no more ridiculous than the owners asking for 43-57 in their favor.

You act like the players aren't greedy and yet they are upset with the best cap split in pro sports god thats got to be hard for them. Are the owners greedy YES some owners are greedy but the fact that more than half of the "greedy" owners are losing money means that this system isn't viable and will lead to less teams in the longer run.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 08:19 PM
  #171
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
I lost serious respect. To place blame of owners losing money on the players is low, really low. Poor management of teams? Poor ownership decisions like putting an arena 30 minutes out of town? Poor league decisions like putting a ice-hockey team in the desert, where kids can't even play ice-hockey? Players just go out on the ice and play. They can't manage a team in order to generate profits. Hell, some players even take hometown discounts, sign autographs, and do many charities. To call them so greedy is cold.

And players aren't even making open market value. They could be paid A LOT MORE than they are.

And I'm not entirely on the players side. I wanted them to take 50/50 eventually, even less than that in order to help fund arenas and travel costs, etc. But the owners need to start employing a means to helping the small markets, such as a luxury tax. But you act like they did something wrong to you. Damn.


Last edited by MarkGio: 10-25-2012 at 08:33 PM.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 08:34 PM
  #172
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
I lost serious respect. To place blame of owners losing money on the players is low, really low. Poor management of teams? Poor ownership decisions like putting an arena 30 minutes out of town? Poor league decisions like putting a ice-hockey team in the desert, where kids can't even play ice-hockey? Players just go out on the ice and play. They can't manage a team in order to generate profits. Hell, some players even take hometown discounts, sign autographs, and do many charities. To call them so greedy is cold.

And payers aren't even making open market value. They could be paid A LOT MORE than they are.

And I'm not entirely on the players side. I wanted them to take 50/50 eventually, even less than that in order to help fund arenas and travel costs, etc. But the owners need to start employing a means to helping the small markets, such as a luxury tax. But you act like they did something wrong to you. Damn.
I have said several times the owners are also at fault but of course this partly the players fault. Forget everything that has lead up to this and look at where we now, each year more owners lose money than the previous season. If you look at the middle 20 teams (discounting the top 5 and bottom 5) last year they earned -16.5 million dollars total. The average nhl team loses money or just breaks even. Now the owner latest offer (that expires at 12 tonight) had a 50-50 split and saw the average team earn money the players responded with 2 offers that took at least 3 years until teams averaged 0 earnings based on 2011 numbers and that is under their most likely estimates. The also offered a 3rd option that required the owners to pay out a vast amount of money now and then they can break even. The players aren't being realistic and are asking the owners to lose millions of dollars for years because they refuse to negotiate anything around 50-50.

I find it sad that I have somehow lost your respect because I find the players offers as unhelpful and slowing down the process. I have expressed my views sighting numbers and facts and if that somehow offends you I am sorry but I find it sad if it does.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 08:45 PM
  #173
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,108
vCash: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashman rules View Post
Mike Cammalleri on tsn shooting his mouth off about the owners,ummm Mike, at 6 million/yr you must have put the shakedown on someone for that contract...cause that's a disgrace for what you bring to the table.
Really any player would be better off keeping his yap shut. They are just looking stupid and hurting their own image.

Stewie Griffin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 08:47 PM
  #174
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,900
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
Really any player would be better off keeping his yap shut. They are just looking stupid and hurting their own image.
Jagr had a really good interview and was very interesting as he is a player and owner (he owns a team in the Finnish league). But for the most part yes they come off as whinny and misinformed.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 08:58 PM
  #175
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
I have said several times the owners are also at fault but of course this partly the players fault. Forget everything that has lead up to this and look at where we now, each year more owners lose money than the previous season. If you look at the middle 20 teams (discounting the top 5 and bottom 5) last year they earned -16.5 million dollars total. The average nhl team loses money or just breaks even. Now the owner latest offer (that expires at 12 tonight) had a 50-50 split and saw the average team earn money the players responded with 2 offers that took at least 3 years until teams averaged 0 earnings based on 2011 numbers and that is under their most likely estimates. The also offered a 3rd option that required the owners to pay out a vast amount of money now and then they can break even. The players aren't being realistic and are asking the owners to lose millions of dollars for years because they refuse to negotiate anything around 50-50.

I find it sad that I have somehow lost your respect because I find the players offers as unhelpful and slowing down the process. I have expressed my views sighting numbers and facts and if that somehow offends you I am sorry but I find it sad if it does.
Forget everything up until now? I'm suppose to base my opinions around the premise of having amnesia? C'mon.

And where you getting these numbers from? Forbes? We all know that books aren't open, and while Gretzky says 10/10/10, and while Pierre McGuire says 13 losing money, you tend to believe some serious doom and gloom about this league.

Meanwhile Penguins fans can't believe that a team that sells out, sells expensive tickets, and goes into the playoffs while rostering the two most marketable players in the world is somehow losing money.

Meanwhile, the league has been operating for the past 100 years, during the 1980's recession, the 2K bubble, the great depression, etc.

What's also interesting is that a current owner is barking a message similiar to Bettman to Edmontonians about the dire financial dire situation, but Forbes disagrees. And Edmonton is supposively the only team in the league that has a 3rd party owned arena.

So where teams are desperate, Balsille is willing to open his cheque book any day now to bring a team to Canada. Also, while Markham and Seattle look like they can help the league, for some reason Bettman is SOOOO adamant about paying 25 million to keep a team in Pheonix.

And how did we get in the current situation? Oh wait, the league had a RECORD year in revenue GROWTH during one of the worst economic meltdowns in the history of the human race!!

So what exactly must I forget to build my opinion?

You must be really naive.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:44 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.