HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

CBA Negotiations II: This is the song that never ends...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 09:34 AM
  #526
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,439
vCash: 500
Interesting article on the players' salaries:

http://m.torontosun.com/2012/10/25/d...nse-in-the-nhl

JLHockeyKnight is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:36 AM
  #527
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
Secondly, to counter the argument; I would think the opposite is just as true. If anything, wouldn't alot of these teams stand to gain MORE by exaggerating the numbers in their favor? Especially teams like CBJ, PHX? Who, if they don't stop BLEEDING money, are going to get shipped off to new cities? Similarly, woudln't it make more sense for a middle of the pack team losing 4-8M to want to skew the numbers in their favor to seem more profitable. More profitable teams are have a higher sell value.
No. When you sell your franchise, you have to open up your books to the buyer so exaggerating the amount of money you're losing doesn't come into play. .

When you're negotiating a CBA however, you don't have to open your books to the other party so you can exaggerate you position.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:36 AM
  #528
Psuhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PAZUZU View Post
http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...pbeatsubs.html

"Revenue grew 15 percent to $16.54 billion, blowing past the $16.07 billion expected by analysts"

one more reason why i'm having a hard time seeing this from the owners perspective
The owners own the business. They can pay their employees what ever percentage of revenues they like. That's what happens when you own things. If the employees don't like it, play somewhere else. Nobody is forcing them to play in the NHL. Plus the owners have all the risk. You don't see Scott Gomez giving back money from his contract after he didn't score in a calendar year. If they want a 50/50 split, that is their right. However, a contract is a contract. They should be honored. I think there is a deal there to accomplish both but I don't think the stand off is about this. Both sides want more and it is now about winning and losing ten fight rather than settling it fairly.

Psuhockey is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:43 AM
  #529
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psuhockey View Post
The owners own the business. They can pay their employees what ever percentage of revenues they like. That's what happens when you own things. If the employees don't like it, play somewhere else. Nobody is forcing them to play in the NHL. Plus the owners have all the risk. You don't see Scott Gomez giving back money from his contract after he didn't score in a calendar year. If they want a 50/50 split, that is their right. However, a contract is a contract. They should be honored. I think there is a deal there to accomplish both but I don't think the stand off is about this. Both sides want more and it is now about winning and losing ten fight rather than settling it fairly.
Setting aside the other parts of this post, isn't that an argument for eliminating the salary cap / floor and the most liberal UFA rules? After all, that would allow players and owners the most open of markets.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:20 AM
  #530
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,262
vCash: 500
This was kind of ironic from that article...sadly the Flyers had a hand in Lupul's contract "extortion" ..of course we also paid for it by having to give up an extra pick to Anaheim in the Pronger trade since the contract was essentially a dump.

Lupul has done well in Toronto but he certainly didn't deserve the raise the Flyers gave him..

Anyway..I don't have much empathy for either side..I usually back labor but not so much in this case.

Suprised the presidential candidates haven't debated the "entitlements" of NHL players

Quote:
Lupulís salary in the year preceeding the lockout: $1.185 million. It dropped post-lockout to $900,000. Then came the pay raises: 67% and 69% in back to back seasons. That was followed by 14% and 47% increases in pay.

The post-lockout scorecard for Lupul: Yes, he was victim of the 24% cutback. But even though his career had all kinds of problems until landing in Toronto, his salary rose from $900,000 to $4.25 million ó and his next contract should dwarf that one.

Lupul post-lockout has seen his salary grow 373% in seven years, an average of 53% per year.

The league grew by about 8% a season on average.

http://m.torontosun.com/2012/10/25/d...nse-in-the-nhl

FreshPerspective is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:39 AM
  #531
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,262
vCash: 500
BTW..at least no NHL player is on record as crying poverty like Sprewell years ago....however I'm sure there are a few floating out there.

Quote:
Latrell Sprewell says he'll ask to be traded if the Minnesota Timberwolves don't sign him to a contract extension by Wednesday night's opener. ''I think this thing is heading towards me leaving, personally,'' Sprewell told reporters after a practice this week. Earlier this preseason, Sprewell said he wanted a contract extension by the Wolves' opener, against the New York Knicks, or he would ask for a sign-and-trade deal or wait to become a free agent. Either way, Sprewell said he didn't want to negotiate during the season. But he took a tougher stance Sunday. Asked if he would play out the season and test the free-agent market, Sprewell said: ''Why would I want to help them win a title? They're not doing anything for me. I'm at risk. I have a lot of risk here. I got my family to feed.'' Sprewell is due to make $14.6 million this year. Sprewell, 34, described the team's latest offer, reported to be worth between $27 million and $30 million over three years, as ''insulting.''
This is a funny parody..

http://www.thebrushback.com/lsprewell_full.htm

FreshPerspective is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:56 AM
  #532
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,047
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccupySouthBroadSt View Post
BTW..at least no NHL player is on record as crying poverty like Sprewell years ago....however I'm sure there are a few floating out there.



This is a funny parody..

http://www.thebrushback.com/lsprewell_full.htm
Didn't Modano also say that during the last lockout?

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:25 PM
  #533
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
The CBA can't reduce their salary without the players agreeing to it. Which is why we are here today. They are doing nothing wrong by demanding the NHL to honor their contracts.
You're right, they are doing nothing wrong by asking them to honor their contracts, but they're asking them to be honored as they stand currently, which is a problem. They want an inclusion in the CBA that promises what they signed for is what they'll get, but they know that rollbacks are a possibility. What you signed for isn't set in stone.

Quote:
You do realize you can't trust those numbers, right?
Shrug. You go on what information you have from various articles. As I've said before, even if the owners were making money over operating costs, on principle they are fine in asking for 50/50. The players proposals have even asked for a raise in the first year. Lewls.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:38 PM
  #534
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,689
vCash: 500
I'll throw a pro-player argument out there. The players have asked about what constitutes "revenue." They may have a point. If they are supposed to be splitting revenue, as a player, I would be very interested in trying to get that tied down, so other possibly money-making ventures the owners are tied to, if related to hockey, aren't somehow outside that umbrella.

The ****** conversation with the NHLexec said it was insulting to probe that question of revenue (it could be seen as calling the owners liars). Maybe the owners don't by right have to disclose or open all their books -- but it certainly could be seen as a good faith gesture. It would be utter poppycock if the owners had player/hockey related revenue streams existing outside of what they are defining as revenue under the CBA.

I do not see a lot of ink being spilled on the question (or I am not looking in the right places or misunderstand the complaint somehow).

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:41 PM
  #535
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 30,707
vCash: 50
the WC is likely to be axed next Wednesday unless both sides do a complete 180.
A rather large amount of money is due to the Michigan Stadium people, with all the uncertianty that would be the reason the game is cancelled.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:45 PM
  #536
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,047
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
I'll throw a pro-player argument out there. The players have asked about what constitutes "revenue." They may have a point. If they are supposed to be splitting revenue, as a player, I would be very interested in trying to get that tied down, so other possibly money-making ventures the owners are tied to, if related to hockey, aren't somehow outside that umbrella.

The ****** conversation with the NHLexec said it was insulting to probe that question of revenue (it could be seen as calling the owners liars). Maybe the owners don't by right have to disclose or open all their books -- but it certainly could be seen as a good faith gesture. It would be utter poppycock if the owners had player/hockey related revenue streams existing outside of what they are defining as revenue under the CBA.

I do not see a lot of ink being spilled on the question (or I am not looking in the right places or misunderstand the complaint somehow).
If you want to use the owners' other ventures, why can't the owners ask for some of the players' endorsement money? That's related to hockey.

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:53 PM
  #537
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
If you want to use the owners' other ventures, why can't the owners ask for some of the players' endorsement money? That's related to hockey.
Sure, but it would have to be related in the right way. I don't think endorsement deals are related in the right way (whatever that way is-- I could imagine from definitions.) The players could simply want to make sure the owners aren't pulling one over on them.

The players could just say 'no.' Just like the owners are annoyed by the question.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:00 PM
  #538
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
You're right, they are doing nothing wrong by asking them to honor their contracts, but they're asking them to be honored as they stand currently, which is a problem. They want an inclusion in the CBA that promises what they signed for is what they'll get, but they know that rollbacks are a possibility. What you signed for isn't set in stone.
It is set in stone unless they agree to a rollback. The owners are locking them out to force them to give into their demands.


Quote:
Shrug. You go on what information you have from various articles. As I've said before, even if the owners were making money over operating costs, on principle they are fine in asking for 50/50. The players proposals have even asked for a raise in the first year. Lewls.
There has been discussion on the BOH board in the past about how the Flyers under report their revenues. Someone pointed out how the Flyers only receive $10M from their local television contract with CSN when comparable sized markets receive around $30M. Ed Snider and Comcast Spectacor are making a lot more than $10M from their television deal since they own CSN and the Flyers. They can make it look like the Flyers are bringing in less money through their television deal when in actuality Snider is profiting big time.

The owners can find these accounting tricks to make them appear as if they generate less. They aren't sharing the money they are hiding with the players and they use it to cry poor. The players have no such tricks.

I do have a problem with the owners like Snider who are asking the players for a salary reduction for no other reason than they want more money. I also don't have a problem with the players asking for more when the owners are dishonest about their revenues. They *are* the league when it is all said and done.

Haute Couturier is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:05 PM
  #539
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
I do have a problem with the owners like Snider who are asking the players for a salary reduction for no other reason than they want more money. I also don't have a problem with the players asking for more when the owners are dishonest about their revenues. They *are* the league when it is all said and done.
This is my issue. Even if 10-12 teams are REALLY losing money, what's the excuse for the rest of the teams to ask for player cuts? Snider, Dolan, Jacobs, etc don't need to save on player expenses. In fact, the cap is probably keeping their spend lower than it would be naturally

It's clear the real problem is a market revenue imbalance. The richer owners have no ground to stand on asking for player reductions. They should be upping the revenue sharing amount if those markets are going to be sticking around.

BringBackStevens is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:10 PM
  #540
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 30,707
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackStevens View Post
This is my issue. Even if 10-12 teams are REALLY losing money, what's the excuse for the rest of the teams to ask for player cuts? Snider, Dolan, Jacobs, etc don't need to save on player expenses. In fact, the cap is probably keeping their spend lower than it would be naturally

It's clear the real problem is a market revenue imbalance. The richer owners have no ground to stand on asking for player reductions. They should be upping the revenue sharing amount if those markets are going to be sticking around.
I am sure the small market owners would whine if not everyone was cutting salaries.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:11 PM
  #541
CharlieGirl
Registered User
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackStevens View Post
It's clear the real problem is a market revenue imbalance. The richer owners have no ground to stand on asking for player reductions. They should be upping the revenue sharing amount if those markets are going to be sticking around.
If I'm not mistaken, that was a key point in the players' proposal, and it's one I agree with completely -- if the players are expected to take a smaller portion of the revenue, then the Toronto/Philly/Montreal/whoevers of the league need to share their larger take with the teams who have less.

CharlieGirl is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:45 PM
  #542
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
Comcast/CSN
I would need it shown that they are truly under-reporting, instead of classifying Flyers revenue from CSN revenue, which are different entities.

Quote:
I do have a problem with the owners like Snider who are asking the players for a salary reduction for no other reason than they want more money.
This is simply false. It has also been detailed at length why the owners are taking the position that they are.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:48 PM
  #543
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
Let's not forget the owners will get 180 million from NBC even if there isn't one second of hockey played.

healthyscratch is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:50 PM
  #544
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,047
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
Let's not forget the owners will get 180 million from NBC even if there isn't one second of hockey played.
They would then extend the NBC contract another year and they won't get paid. So let's not act like it's free money

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:51 PM
  #545
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
Let's not forget the owners will get 180 million from NBC even if there isn't one second of hockey played.
I can't begin to fathom why NBC didn't protect itself from this kind of thing.

It seems absurd.

CS is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:53 PM
  #546
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,047
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I can't begin to fathom why NBC didn't protect itself from this kind of thing.

It seems absurd.
see my post above yours.

They did

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:01 PM
  #547
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
They would then extend the NBC contract another year and they won't get paid. So let's not act like it's free money
Ok, didn't get those details included. So an extra year on the contract with no payment for it? Makes more sense.

healthyscratch is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:02 PM
  #548
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
Let's not forget the owners will get 180 million from NBC even if there isn't one second of hockey played.
Does that money not go into escrow? It's HRR, no? Why would the owners get the full share?

I can't quite remember, but wasn't there something similar in the NFL that the owners got tagged for before their labor dispute?

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:03 PM
  #549
Coffe
Registered User
 
Coffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Didn't Modano also say that during the last lockout?
I think it was his dog who's food couldn't be paid if Modano only made $400 a week.



Also. Fix this lockout, fools!

Coffe is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:03 PM
  #550
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,087
vCash: 500
Why are they threatening to cancel the WC so early? Pressure or is there a payment to be made for the stadium use?

healthyscratch is online now  
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 09:57 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.