HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-27-2012, 06:27 AM
  #876
egelband
Registered User
 
egelband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: north finchley
Country: United States
Posts: 1,922
vCash: 500
have pretty much written-off the nhl... when they come back, i will probably be interested. but who knows. i kinda secretly hope i'm *not* interested and many other people feel the same way. these clowns need a reality check. unfortunately i'll probably be back cuz the rangers will still be good. but this league is doing it's best to grind-down the fan in me.

question...is there any chance that all this nastiness and stress leads to a legit long-term solution? i feel like it's just a pissing contest that will beget a bandage solution and more of the same in a few years. very very poor management. (and i still think this could end up in court at some point).

egelband is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:16 AM
  #877
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,775
vCash: 500
The PA started with 54%. Revenues surpassed $2.7B. Went to 57%. Players will lose 12% of their salaries in escrow. Brooks has reported the players lost 4% of their salaries to escrow. Put a cap of 4% on escrow for the players. Without a full 82 game season,the transiton period has to be 2 years. If 13-14 cap is based 12-13 revenue and they played 70 games in 12-13,they need to extend the transition period by an extra year. $70.2M for 2 years. Give the Rangers an amnesty buyout for their $24M revenue sharing contribution.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:21 AM
  #878
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDMSG View Post
All I see happening is a few months (or more?) down the line the players taking it up the rear, and then a few seasons later saying it was pointless to lockout and they lost money that they will never get back etc.
Which is exactly what some players have already said. Do you think those players that are only stay in the NHL for 2-3 seasons are happy about losing 1 of those to a lockout?

beastly115 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:25 AM
  #879
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Quite a dilemma in NY regarding the Rangers. Dolan is commonly know as anti-lockout, anti-constraints. As pro-player as you get on the ownership side. Very few complaints about him since the last lockout. I get the reaction from many fans, cancel season tickets, boycott the league, products, Rangers... But he isn't the enemy for me.

Ultimately, I'm not punishing myself. When hockey comes back I will do whatever makes me happy. If its turning on the game so be it. Tickets are too expensive so thats moot. Just sucks for Dolan I guess. Financed the remodel himself, against work stoppages, his team is run top notch. But he won't suffer a back lash... his games will sellout.
I agree with all of this.

I'm mad at the situation, I'm mad at both sides, I'm in the fans' and sports' side. But why should I spite myself when the lockout ends?

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:45 AM
  #880
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
I can back you up on that. It was 53% they started out IIRC and hit 57% last year. Even if the 53% number isn't correct, it was something similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
It's hung up on two things. The owners wanting 50/50 IMMEDIATELY.

And the players wanting their current contracts honored, in FULL with no risk, no linkage and no escrow.

Those principles are NOT mathematically possible. The players WILL lose. Why? Because the Owners want something else. They "own" the teams/league... They will get what they want... Eventually. It's my contention that the players have been making well over 50/50 for a while now. If they don't make their entire 57% for the contracts going forward then so be it.

Like I said, if the players said "Keep our 7% but it must go to revenue sharing for the weakest teams" or something thereabouts... I'm on their side and HAPPY to be so. I hate being on the owners' side. I HATE Bettman.
Why does it have to be 50/50 tomorrow? CBAs are by definition compromises. Generally when you get two sides to agree, there is give and take. They aren't asking for 57% of revenue going forward. Based on revenue projections, their take should be 54% this season. Under 52% the following.

The players ask for $240m in revenue sharing. The league offered less, $160m and think, and finally $200m. They have asked for the money they are losing to help the problem teams. Mr. Jacobs thinks the big teams do enough, he's entitled to earnings. Nice unity. They asked for the stupid qualifiers to receiver sharing to be removed. I don't think you realize how much the players have tried to address small market problem. More than the Negotiation Committee. With revenue sharing, with the players getting full value, most teams will turn a profit next season which they aren't entitled to. The problem is down the road when the cap hits $4trillion, but Nashville or Carolina's income is close to flat. They'll never reach the cap floor. The players see the problem, no one thinks they get a say in how the league is run. But people are still blaming the financial situation of the last CBA on them.


Last edited by DutchShamrock: 10-27-2012 at 07:53 AM.
DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:50 AM
  #881
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
Richie--the players' share decreased substantially in the CBA that just expired (it was well over 70% the last year before the lockout). and the percentage that the players received was linked to the growth in revenue. I don't remember exactly what % the players started out with (it was closer to 50% than 55%), but it increased to 57% because of the growth in revenue since the last lockout. I'll try and dig up an article to back up the numbers, but right now I'm too tired.
Yeah... I couldn't remember the #s either... And was way to tired (and beer soaked) to try to look them up.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:51 AM
  #882
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastly115 View Post
Which is exactly what some players have already said. Do you think those players that are only stay in the NHL for 2-3 seasons are happy about losing 1 of those to a lockout?
Funny because the two guys that cried about 2004 lost close to $8m during the lockout. I guess they were really concerned about the little guy in hindsight. In fact, Guerin couldn't stop whining about his money. No mention of how guys like prust cashed in later.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:00 AM
  #883
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Why does it have to be 50/50 tomorrow? CBAs are by definition compromises. Generally when you get two sides to agree, there is give and take. They aren't asking for 57% of revenue going forward. Based on revenue projections, their take should be 54% this season. Under 52% the following.

The players ask for $240m in revenue sharing. The league offered less, $160m and think, and finally $200m. They have asked for the money they are losing to help the problem teams. Mr. Jacobs thinks the big teams do enough, he's entitled to earnings. Nice unity. They asked for the stupid qualifiers to receiver sharing to be removed. I don't think you realize how much the players have tried to address small market problem. More than the Negotiation Committee. With revenue sharing, with the players getting full value, most teams will turn a profit next season which they aren't entitled to. The problem is down the road when the cap hits $4trillion, but Nashville or Carolina's income is close to flat. They'll never reach the cap floor. The players see the problem, no one thinks they get a say in how the league is run. But people are still blaming the financial situation if the last CBA on them.
The simple answer for your first question is: because the owners want it that way. Since they own everything, they are entitled to ask for things... Especially when it comes to how much is spent and how much is made.

As far as the players and the rev sharing... I completely agree that they seem to want more rev sharing for small market teams. The problem as the casual fan sees it, is that they're not banging the drum on that point. They're crying foul on not getting the money they're owed in their pockets. The sticking point is how much they are losing... Not what's being done to help the small market clubs. If, say, the players turned around and said "We will take 50/50 as long as rev sharing was brought up to 260$" or something similar, more fans would back them in all of this. As it stands they come off as interested solely in "whats in it for them"... or worse, spoiled brats, especially those in Russia who's names rhyme with Momechkin.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:31 AM
  #884
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The PA started with 54%. Revenues surpassed $2.7B. Went to 57%. Players will lose 12% of their salaries in escrow. Brooks has reported the players lost 4% of their salaries to escrow. Put a cap of 4% on escrow for the players. Without a full 82 game season,the transiton period has to be 2 years. If 13-14 cap is based 12-13 revenue and they played 70 games in 12-13,they need to extend the transition period by an extra year. $70.2M for 2 years. Give the Rangers an amnesty buyout for their $24M revenue sharing contribution.

I cant see how amnesty buyouts wont be part of an agreement, when that eventually happens.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:34 AM
  #885
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
The simple answer for your first question is: because the owners want it that way. Since they own everything, they are entitled to ask for things... Especially when it comes to how much is spent and how much is made.

As far as the players and the rev sharing... I completely agree that they seem to want more rev sharing for small market teams. The problem as the casual fan sees it, is that they're not banging the drum on that point. They're crying foul on not getting the money they're owed in their pockets. The sticking point is how much they are losing... Not what's being done to help the small market clubs. If, say, the players turned around and said "We will take 50/50 as long as rev sharing was brought up to 260$" or something similar, more fans would back them in all of this. As it stands they come off as interested solely in "whats in it for them"... or worse, spoiled brats, especially those in Russia who's names rhyme with Momechkin.
So "because I want that way" is an acceptable answer for the players' money, but they better fight more for some owners that actually get in Bettman's ear, they actually get a vote.

If the talks, either here or at the table, get to "because I want it that way" then they have run their course. Not bitter, but the principle is greater than the deal. One concession is one too many for the PA

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 09:43 AM
  #886
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Why does it have to be 50/50 tomorrow?
The problem is, in every "step down to 50/50" scenario that the NHLPA provided, the NHLPA gets more than 50%. Only in the last year do they actually get 50/50.

So saying "both sides have agreed to 50/50" and then proposing a CBA that isn't 50/50 over it's life, obviously isn't the same thing.

If the players don't want immediate 50/50 (ie, no rollbacks) then it should be stepped down to below 50/50 for a few years to make up for the few years it is above 50/50, before eventually re-settling at 50/50.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 10:05 AM
  #887
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
The simple answer for your first question is: because the owners want it that way. Since they own everything, they are entitled to ask for things... Especially when it comes to how much is spent and how much is made.

As far as the players and the rev sharing... I completely agree that they seem to want more rev sharing for small market teams. The problem as the casual fan sees it, is that they're not banging the drum on that point. They're crying foul on not getting the money they're owed in their pockets. The sticking point is how much they are losing... Not what's being done to help the small market clubs. If, say, the players turned around and said "We will take 50/50 as long as rev sharing was brought up to 260$" or something similar, more fans would back them in all of this. As it stands they come off as interested solely in "whats in it for them"... or worse, spoiled brats, especially those in Russia who's names rhyme with Momechkin.
Right now they own empty buildings. Signing someone to a contract whether it is someone to paint your house or skate for your hockey team puts obligations on both parties. The one party does not 'own' the other party and being fabulously wealthy doesn't entitle someone to change the terms of agreements that they've made just because they want to.

eco's bones is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 10:08 AM
  #888
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
The problem is, in every "step down to 50/50" scenario that the NHLPA provided, the NHLPA gets more than 50%. Only in the last year do they actually get 50/50.

So saying "both sides have agreed to 50/50" and then proposing a CBA that isn't 50/50 over it's life, obviously isn't the same thing.

If the players don't want immediate 50/50 (ie, no rollbacks) then it should be stepped down to below 50/50 for a few years to make up for the few years it is above 50/50, before eventually re-settling at 50/50.
It's been covered. Why can't the PA negotiate high and the NHL counter? The PA has some invisible standard to hit the nail on the head and the league can lowball because that's how negotiations work.

The NBA is effectively giving the players more than 50% (or 49%... whatever the agreement is) because the league capped escrow to preserve contracts. The players aren't punished later with drops in percentages. There is no reason the lifetime of the deal has to equal 50/50. The following CBA isn't going to be a blank slate. They'll start at 50% minimum and be in the owners' favor going forward.

Fine, the players don't deserve a fair deal. There's no logical reason to deny them any semblance of fairness be it record revenues, the fact we are coming off a unilaterally owner imposed CBA, losses and concession on every issue. I don't know if it is anemosity towards the union, the path to quicker hockey, jealousy, spite... but that's why the chances of hockey are quickly fading.

This is an agreement. If you give them no reason to settle, they won't settle. The owners have roughly 10 solid reasons/concessions to agree. It's not enough. Keep tapping the well, total victory.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 11:10 AM
  #889
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Right now they own empty buildings. Signing someone to a contract whether it is someone to paint your house or skate for your hockey team puts obligations on both parties. The one party does not 'own' the other party and being fabulously wealthy doesn't entitle someone to change the terms of agreements that they've made just because they want to.
I hate arguing for the owners. So I'm going to stop. It's crap either way. Both sides are wrong, spiteful, greedy a-holes.

But every contract signed is subject to the CBA. Both parties negotiated and signed contracts (some just before the CBA expired) knowing FULL WELL that those contracts will be subject to the new CBA.

They both understood what they were doing. That's why they're both wrong.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 11:22 AM
  #890
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Why can't the players negotiate to keep all or most of the last contracts? That is the point of the C.Bargaining.A. That is the one concession they have asked for. NBA figured it out and honored it despite it raising the players' share above the bargained amount. The owners figured it out. They didn't go for the kill in every single area.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:56 PM
  #891
silverfish
Mr. Glass
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 14,736
vCash: 500
I'm not sure who the guy is that wrote this article, but I kind of like this idea...

The players have the choice to agree to the "make whole" 50% deal, or declare themselves a UFA.

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/inde...ng_those_year/

Quote:
This is how it would work:
Ted Leonsis: “Alex, we’re not going to honor the deal we signed as if it was subjected to 57% of league revenues. We’ll honor it only if it is subjeted to 50% of league revenues.”

Alex Ovechkin: “No problem Ted. I hereby declare myself a free agent. With the new maximum salary, I’m sure I’ll be better off.”

Marc Bergevin: “Scotty, we won’t honor the deal as-is. It has to be based on the 50% rule.”

Scott Gomez: “I’ll accept that deal. Otherwise, if I declare myself a free agent, boy oh boy will I see a huge drop in salary.”

Mario Lemieux: “Sid. Who’s kidding who? I’ll make whole on the deal out of my pocket.”

Sidney Crosby: “That was an easy decision for you, wasn’t it?”
It's an interesting idea, and automatically better than anything the league or the union have proposed... because well, it's fresh and new and someone is actually thinking about something.

silverfish is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 06:23 AM
  #892
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,480
vCash: 500
What's Brooks writing today (anyone got the paper edition)?

I don't like it when the people updating the Post's website is this slow...

Ola is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 06:26 AM
  #893
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,775
vCash: 500
Brooks didn't write today. There is nothing to write about.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 07:15 AM
  #894
bubba5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Brooks didn't write today. There is nothing to write about.
Nothing to see here. Move on to another sport.

bubba5 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:34 AM
  #895
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,560
vCash: 500
I highly doubt we see anything Mon-Wed because of the storm.

Tick-tock.

Jabroni is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:52 AM
  #896
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Right now they own empty buildings. Signing someone to a contract whether it is someone to paint your house or skate for your hockey team puts obligations on both parties. The one party does not 'own' the other party and being fabulously wealthy doesn't entitle someone to change the terms of agreements that they've made just because they want to.
Theres also a contract that signed called the CBA that serves as the umbrella for all player contracts. Player contracts are susceptible to change under subsequent CBA's. So, trying to say the owners are moving the chains on contract terms "just because they want to" is awfully disingenuous. They have the right to do that considering, right now, the league is not operating under any CBA.

Unethical? Probably. A shameless power grab that seems to happen when each CBA expires? Yup.

But some sort of lawless breach? Nope.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:58 AM
  #897
IBleedNYRBlue
Registered User
 
IBleedNYRBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabroni1994 View Post
I highly doubt we see anything Mon-Wed because of the storm.

Tick-tock.
Probably nothing this whole week.

There's another week go by. Not like there is any urgency from either side to negotiate, anyways.

IBleedNYRBlue is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 10:30 AM
  #898
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Theres also a contract that signed called the CBA that serves as the umbrella for all player contracts. Player contracts are susceptible to change under subsequent CBA's. So, trying to say the owners are moving the chains on contract terms "just because they want to" is awfully disingenuous. They have the right to do that considering, right now, the league is not operating under any CBA.

Unethical? Probably. A shameless power grab that seems to happen when each CBA expires? Yup.

But some sort of lawless breach? Nope.
Oh--they're not going to jail. I'd prefer to term it as sleazy behavior though. And sleazy people are a ****ing drag. Taking Ed Snider or Jeremy Jacobs for instance--locking their guys into 6 and 7 year terms--then trying to impose rules against those lengths. Hypocrisy. It's not just asking players to roll back their salaries after several years of growing revenues. Mr. Leipold out in Minnesota with the Suter-Parise deals turning right around and crying poverty. I'm a working person--and a union person--I don't really look at NHLPA members as part of us--we don't share anywhere near the same kind of daily reality but if we're looking at the owners it's almost impossible to feel any sympathy for their position and I don't really understand why so many fans are on their side apart from the need for an instant hockey fix. That point of view is worthy of being put in druggie terms.

They got everything they wanted in 2004 but couldn't control themselves. Pathetic. You make a deal with someone--you should have enough honor to abide by it--not try to reset the terms after the fact. The wealthiest people of this nation are the ones that have been tearing it apart with all their continuous scheming for more and more. **** them.

eco's bones is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 01:15 PM
  #899
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
The players are *******s if you believe owners are entitled to 50%. 50% is a number, and te best part is it's negotiated. Every anti-player sentiment is grounded in the idea that 50% is the player cut AT BEST. The player cut is 57%, if it drops it is bargained for. There's no unilateral implimentation, it's give and take.

Or hey, if you think the owners get what they want and too bad: they set the last CBA. So tough **** if you imposed a bad deal. It's a business, not a charity. You pay for mistakes. So too bad, if the owners want 50% they negotiate it.

I'm tired of the owners crying over bad markets, bad CBAs, bad contracts.. there's one source for all those issues- owners. How they got you to buy into the BS that the players are greedy, at fault and not entitled to compromise is beyond me. "We're losing money" isn't a license to circumvent the labor process. It doesn't mean you just impose terms. If they could have, they would have and we would have hockey. If the owners offered a solution to inked deals, we would have hockey too. Not one gain and they are still the problem... astonishing.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:54 PM
  #900
Jumbo*
TARGET: ACQUIRED
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 16,720
vCash: 500
Glad the men decided to take a week off, no rush or anything.

Jumbo* 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 08:02 AM.

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.