HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Adrian Dater-Gary Bettman deserves ALL of the blame

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 11:57 AM
  #76
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Wait a minute... Did it actually say in those contracts that the owner was "going to ask for some of that money back"? If that's the case, then I concede, and so should the PA.
The contracts are based on the CBA, which allows somewhere between 14% and 18% of contracts to be in escrow which can be lost to the player (as in given back to the owners). So yes, all contracts signed to date have a 14-18% (can't remember the exact figure atm) potential "give back" to the owners. Which is why the owners have stopped asking for a rollback and asked for the current escrow mechanism to work it out.

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 11:57 AM
  #77
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel View Post
Good Commish? The guy who sold the owners on expansion to markets where the NHL does not belong?
Southern expansion was the plan of the league long before Bettman and a number of those franchises were already playing and/or awarded before Bettman took the job.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 11:58 AM
  #78
RappinHobo
#1 Lehner Fanboy
 
RappinHobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hek View Post
I would venture that most if not all of the NFL owners hold Goodell in a positive light.
Wasn't he talking about people in general? If not then I retract my statement. Obviously the owners love him.

RappinHobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:00 PM
  #79
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,240
vCash: 873
Here's what I have seen to date.

NHL - We want to reduce the amount of money that teh players are getting by reducing the slice of the pie from 57/43 to an even split of 50/50

NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?

NHL - In addition to the reduction in the slice of the pie, we also want to cap contract terms at 5 years

NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?

NHL - We also want to eliminate the arbitration process, shorten ELC's from three to two years and push out UFA status from 27 years old or 7 years service to 28 years and 8 years of service

So my question to the pro owner crowd is, What IS the NHL offering in any of their proposals in terms of any sort of give-back to induce them to agreeing to a deal?


NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:01 PM
  #80
darglor
Registered User
 
darglor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 832
vCash: 50
I detect no bias whatsoever in that blog... None whatsoever! Nope!

darglor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:05 PM
  #81
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?
$1.7B this year?

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:05 PM
  #82
TCNorthstars
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Traverse City, MI
Posts: 890
vCash: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Here's what I have seen to date.

NHL - We want to reduce the amount of money that teh players are getting by reducing the slice of the pie from 57/43 to an even split of 50/50

NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?

NHL - In addition to the reduction in the slice of the pie, we also want to cap contract terms at 5 years

NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?

NHL - We also want to eliminate the arbitration process, shorten ELC's from three to two years and push out UFA status from 27 years old or 7 years service to 28 years and 8 years of service

So my question to the pro owner crowd is, What IS the NHL offering in any of their proposals in terms of any sort of give-back to induce them to agreeing to a deal?


NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?
Jobs paying millions of dollars?

TCNorthstars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:16 PM
  #83
Milhouse40
Registered User
 
Milhouse40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Here's what I have seen to date.

NHL - We want to reduce the amount of money that teh players are getting by reducing the slice of the pie from 57/43 to an even split of 50/50

NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?

NHL - In addition to the reduction in the slice of the pie, we also want to cap contract terms at 5 years

NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?

NHL - We also want to eliminate the arbitration process, shorten ELC's from three to two years and push out UFA status from 27 years old or 7 years service to 28 years and 8 years of service

So my question to the pro owner crowd is, What IS the NHL offering in any of their proposals in terms of any sort of give-back to induce them to agreeing to a deal?


NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?

So i'll answer you another question...also good for anybody who thinks that:

What the owners can give?

Players got a lot, and i mean a lot of money already.
The got fist-class plane and 4-star hotel paid
They all got top of the class facilities to work-out
They got 100 persons taking care of everything for them
They got guarenteed contract even if they sucked like Gomez
They can have contract with NMC, NTC and no maximum lenght
Some can even force a trade to the teams they want
They got the best medical care in the world paid for them
They got their insurance paid for them
They even got all their equipement needs paid for them
They even keep all the money they make from sponsorship (even if it's HRR)



What can the owners give back to them?

Well, they gave what they could.....ELC bonus don't count on the cap (more money for the players). No more contract bury in the minors or any other league. (that's good for the players).

They can trade unhappy players with bad contract (by allowing money trade). Instead of throwing them out of league (Redden, Souray, Huet)

Do you think having a maximum of 5 years on the contract will help the owners?

Most of the owner gives longer contract to reduce the amount of money given.
Actually now, it will only about the amount given, not the terms.
Not sure it sill help the players.....but it sure won't help the owners.
BUT, it will be good for the league...every teams will have a chance to sign the big UFA available = excitement!

Milhouse40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:28 PM
  #84
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,240
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
$1.7B this year?
which they would have gotten under the old agreement.

Next?

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:29 PM
  #85
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,930
vCash: 500
It could also be the NHLPA has no clear direction... changing executive directors 4 times since the lockout...

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:35 PM
  #86
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
which they would have gotten under the old agreement.

Next?
Nope because the old agreement is over...

So you're telling me to the players, there's no difference between getting $0 this year and getting $1.7B this year? It's the same?

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:41 PM
  #87
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
It could also be the NHLPA has no clear direction... changing executive directors 4 times since the lockout...
Nah. It's all Bettman's fault the players brought in a mercenary who refused to even bring forth a proposal until the season was already in jeopardy.

Players are going to lose and lose big.

XX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:45 PM
  #88
Milhouse40
Registered User
 
Milhouse40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
which they would have gotten under the old agreement.

Next?
I'm next....stil waiting for that answer that never comes when i was to pro-players

What the owners can give back?

Milhouse40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:45 PM
  #89
Neil Patrick Harris
Playoffs right MEOW
 
Neil Patrick Harris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Southern expansion was the plan of the league long before Bettman and a number of those franchises were already playing and/or awarded before Bettman took the job.
This this this. They were planning southern expansion since the Ziegler years. They even had the ridiculously high expansion fees already planned out.

Neil Patrick Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 12:54 PM
  #90
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Here's what I have seen to date.

NHL - We want to reduce the amount of money that teh players are getting by reducing the slice of the pie from 57/43 to an even split of 50/50

NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?

NHL - In addition to the reduction in the slice of the pie, we also want to cap contract terms at 5 years

NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?

NHL - We also want to eliminate the arbitration process, shorten ELC's from three to two years and push out UFA status from 27 years old or 7 years service to 28 years and 8 years of service

So my question to the pro owner crowd is, What IS the NHL offering in any of their proposals in terms of any sort of give-back to induce them to agreeing to a deal?


NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?
A lot of money and a league in which to play in North America.

A lot of money and a league in which to play in North America.

A lot of money and a league in which to play in North America.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 01:02 PM
  #91
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
which they would have gotten under the old agreement.

Next?
and that contract is over. It doesnt entitle them to that now.

Kirk Muller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 01:04 PM
  #92
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,327
vCash: 500
This is truly like parents with a spoiled rotten kid.

Parents: "We gotta tighten the purse strings Sydney"

Child: "but mooooooooom, we got this much last time"

Parents: "sorry Sydney, expenses have gone up"

Child: "thats not faaaaaiirr. you not being faaaair!!!"

Then you have the middle child in all this, basically your 3rd and 4th liners, whispering in the corner "ummm, hey guys, ummm hey guys, ummm what about us"

Kirk Muller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 01:05 PM
  #93
ShootIt
Registered User
 
ShootIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 561
Country: United States
Posts: 6,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
A lot of money and a league in which to play in North America.

A lot of money and a league in which to play in North America.

A lot of money and a league in which to play in North America.

Might have to type that a couple more times. Some don't get that.

All for players trying to get a good deal for themselves, but, there comes a point where I hope this back fires on them bad.

ShootIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 01:08 PM
  #94
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootIt View Post
Might have to type that a couple more times. Some don't get that.

All for players trying to get a good deal for themselves, but, there comes a point where I hope this back fires on them bad.
Exactly...Fehr is done, the experiment failed...the players are not the brightest crew out there...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 01:10 PM
  #95
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
Nope because the old agreement is over...

So you're telling me to the players, there's no difference between getting $0 this year and getting $1.7B this year? It's the same?
All that reductionist and technical stuff may feel good to write and think, but it isn't a realistic evaluation of how negotiations work. The players already had jobs making millions of dollars, so they aren't going to be impressed by being "offered" jobs making (fewer) millions of dollars -- no matter how many people on a message board think they should be.

In the real world, if the league wants concessions by the players, they need to offer something new in exchange for those concessions. Their failure to do so is an abject failure in creativity and leadership.

I may be missing something minor, but isn't the number of things the owners have offered the players that the players didn't have in the last agreement .... zero? Literally, zero? That isn't negotiating.

Greschner4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 01:12 PM
  #96
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4 View Post
All that reductionist and technical stuff may feel good to write and think, but it isn't a realistic evaluation of how negotiations work. The players already had jobs making millions of dollars, so they aren't going to be impressed by being "offered" jobs making millions of dollars -- no matter how many people on a message board think they should be.

In the real world, if the league wants concessions by the players, they need to offer something new in exchange for those concessions. Their failure to do so is an abject failure in creativity and leadership.

I may be missing something minor, but isn't the number of things the owners have offered the players that the players didn't have in the last agreement .... zero? Literally, zero? That isn't negotiating.
Or the players can take their talents to South Beach and do something else if they don't like the offer...at the end of the day, the PA doesn't run the league, the owners run the league...the PA has been very short sighted, again...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 01:13 PM
  #97
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,240
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebinne4pres View Post
So i'll answer you another question...also good for anybody who thinks that:

What the owners can give?

Players got a lot, and i mean a lot of money already.
The got fist-class plane and 4-star hotel paid
They all got top of the class facilities to work-out
They got 100 persons taking care of everything for them
They got guarenteed contract even if they sucked like Gomez
They can have contract with NMC, NTC and no maximum lenght
Some can even force a trade to the teams they want
They got the best medical care in the world paid for them
They got their insurance paid for them
They even got all their equipement needs paid for them
They even keep all the money they make from sponsorship (even if it's HRR)



What can the owners give back to them?

Well, they gave what they could.....ELC bonus don't count on the cap (more money for the players). No more contract bury in the minors or any other league. (that's good for the players).

They can trade unhappy players with bad contract (by allowing money trade). Instead of throwing them out of league (Redden, Souray, Huet)

Do you think having a maximum of 5 years on the contract will help the owners?

Most of the owner gives longer contract to reduce the amount of money given.
Actually now, it will only about the amount given, not the terms.
Not sure it sill help the players.....but it sure won't help the owners.
BUT, it will be good for the league...every teams will have a chance to sign the big UFA available = excitement!
Most of the top line item listing is industry standard in terms of Professional Sports world wide. They are getting nothing out of the ordinary as it relates to the Professional Sporting world. Guaranteed contracts aside.

NMC and NTC's are willingly given by teams. during the process of negotiating contracts. Teams are not obligated to include them. Downside they don't get a certain player. Either way, there is NO OBLIGATION to give one out.

Additionally, there is no obligation to trade a player that HAS a NTC or a NMC. If a player insists on the inclusion of such a clause, the team doesn't have to move him. Because they do is 100% an election made by the team. They have no obligation to do so.

Burying contracts in the minors actually HELPS the players. The ones that are significant enough to discuss are one way deals that pay the player 100% of his contratc. Example #1 - Wade Redden has made 13 million playing in the minors. He's not good enough to be an everyday NHL'er, yet he plays in the minors and is still paid his NHL Salary. How does that negatively affect players? Teams do not have the ability to bury anyone in another league. They can send him to the minors via the waiver route, or they can elect to go over-seas thus forefitting his salary which is 100% an election made by the player. Huet case in point was not sent overseas so Chicago didn't have to pay him. That was the choice HE MADE. The Hawks benefitted from that in that they didn't have to pay him. Distinction is the election of the player to go overseas.

Yes, I believe limiting contract terms does help the owners as they are now no longer tied to money being paid to the players who's skills are taking a serious nose dive and are not obligated to play players absurd sums of money well beyond their usefull shelf life.

think about the massive long term contracts that have been given out. the first 5 years is where the teams paid out the largest sums of money. It's going to hurt the team because now we are going to see more 10+ million dollar guys and less opportunity for teams to retain other talent.

I'm not advocating 15 year deals for everyone, in my head I believe any player should be able to sign a contract before the age of 30 that does not take him beyond his 35th birthday. You limit contract lenghts but still allow doe the 10 year deals if a team and player is willing to enter into such a deal.

And no, not every team is going to be able to play in the deep end of the UFA pool. Until the NHL decides to get serious on revenue disparity, there are going to be teams under any Salary Capped scenario in which you will have Have's and Have Not's.

What can the owners give back?

Lets start by leaving the ELC's alone. Leave them at stay 3 years, but reduce the amount of bonus money they can make. Continue to not count it against the Cap.

As mentioned above, allow contract lengthts to be determined by the "No contract shall take a player past his 35th Birthday" rule. This would allow players the ability to sign long term deals, but not long enough that everyone knows they will not continue to play. Think any player is going to be willing to play for league minimum at 30-35?

Tweak the Arb. Process. It's not flawed in its idea, but it is flawed in it's application and the Arbiters that make their ruling. Any system that does not allow for both party walk away rights is wrong. Any stsyem that has a 99% success ratio for one side (that side being the players) is flawed. It needs to be tweaked and the teams need to do a better job arguing on the teams behalf because that is where decisions are rendered.

Allow teams the ability to exceed the cap with a dollar for dollar penalty on each dollar spent above the cap with all additional revenue put into the Revenue sharing pool. Ensure that tehre is significant oversight to make sure that that money is put back into the ON ICE product.

Get rid of the cap floor. Teams have been FORCED to keep up with the jonses by having a floor of 16 million below the cap. Half the team that have lost money would be cut in half if they weren't forced to keep up. Not only that, but that would also act as a drag overall % of money the NHLPA got.

Finally, offer an 8 year CBA that provide a two year step down approach to 50/50 with 6 years flat 50/50. It will allow revenue to grow to the point where the players salary will still pay him the 96%-97% contract value he has received the last 6 years.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 01:13 PM
  #98
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4 View Post
All that reductionist and technical stuff may feel good to write and think, but it isn't a realistic evaluation of how negotiations work. The players already had jobs making millions of dollars, so they aren't going to be impressed by being "offered" jobs making (fewer) millions of dollars -- no matter how many people on a message board think they should be.

In the real world, if the league wants concessions by the players, they need to offer something new in exchange for those concessions. Their failure to do so is an abject failure in creativity and leadership.

I may be missing something minor, but isn't the number of things the owners have offered the players that the players didn't have in the last agreement .... zero? Literally, zero? That isn't negotiating.
Can you come up with anything of value to the players that the league could offer?

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 01:18 PM
  #99
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,240
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
A lot of money and a league in which to play in North America.

A lot of money and a league in which to play in North America.

A lot of money and a league in which to play in North America.
The league will be there.

There's 3.3 billion reasons annually that tells me the owners won't close up shop before offering some concessions.

Silly argument.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 01:22 PM
  #100
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,240
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
This is truly like parents with a spoiled rotten kid.

Parents: "We gotta tighten the purse strings Sydney"

Child: "but mooooooooom, we got this much last time"

Parents: "sorry Sydney, expenses have gone up"

Child: "thats not faaaaaiirr. you not being faaaair!!!"

Then you have the middle child in all this, basically your 3rd and 4th liners, whispering in the corner "ummm, hey guys, ummm hey guys, ummm what about us"
Nope.

More like

Parents: We have to tighten the purse strings

Child: Not happy. Can we reduce the allowence over time so i can get used to the new way things will be done?

Parents: No, and in addition, your curfue is no longer 10pm. You're not allowed to go out after dinner.

Child: What? Why?

Parents: Also, you can't have any friends over....ever

Seems to be what I am seeing.

pld459666 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 05:30 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.