HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Why so much hatred and criticism towards the players?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2012, 08:27 PM
  #26
LickTheEnvelope
Decertified Poster
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,059
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Most of them clearly seem to have little understanding or none whatsover of the both sides' offers.
Ya Matt Cullen's comments about 50/50 were very telling...

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 08:30 PM
  #27
StrangeVision
HFBoards Sponsor
 
StrangeVision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 13,968
vCash: 117


Things like that don't help.

StrangeVision is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 08:31 PM
  #28
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,542
vCash: 450
It's easy to hate those you see. Many hockey fans dont know the 29 NHL owners, but they sure know alot to most of the players. Plus the players are allowed to speak unlike the owners and team officials who have been muzzled.

Also you have the jealously factor as we've seen posts here "i'd play for $100,000" and other similar statements.

Sports is the only place where the labor wants a free market and the owners dont.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 08:35 PM
  #29
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,839
vCash: 500
They're position makes little to no sense to me.

I don't care how much money they make or whether or not they "make too much." All that is just silly rhetoric. As is the players *****ing about whether or not owner's can still smoke their cigars (although, interestingly enough, they can, and that's one of the reasons the players will not win such a fight).

What does bug me is the lack of rational thought. Even in a 50-50 situation, the owners have a lot less to lose, both relatively speaking and just going by the cold hard facts. The issue here is how much revenue the players should be taking off the top. Even if its 50% going to the players, the owners have other expenses on top of their revenue, so in reality the players stand to lose at least double what the owners stand to lose (I haven't run the numbers but that's a super conservative estimate). Combine that with the fact that the owners have a lot more money than the players, and therefore are more equipped to handle such a hit and its clear that its the owners with the leverage and not the players. Since the owners have the leverage, the onus is on the players to meet them on their playing field (i.e. linkage). The players have refused, now they lost paychecks and will never ever have as much leverage on the owners as they just did. The owners could absolutely destroy in these negotiations if they wanted to. If I was a negotiator I would absolutely be salivating right now. Its almost like a junky jonesing walking into a pawnshop with a shiny Rolex; if the pawnbroker wanted to, he could buy that Rolex for a twenty. The players are not at that point yet, but everyday they are losing more and more leverage.

95% of the players will have negotiated themselves into making less money in their career than they otherwise would have under the owner's last CBA proposal (that's an estimate, but I have to believe it is close to accurate).

It would be one thing if the owners were making NFL money, but they are not. Some owners are legitimately losing money, some are barely making money (to the point where a bank account could probably generate more ROI), and some are doing well. Those doing well far outnumber the other two. THE PLAYERS HAVE NO LEVERAGE. That's what it boils down to and it boggles my mind that the players don't get this.


Last edited by Renbarg: 10-28-2012 at 08:47 PM.
Renbarg is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 08:42 PM
  #30
5RingsAndABeer
John MacKinnon Fan
 
5RingsAndABeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,183
vCash: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrangeVision View Post


Things like that don't help.
How much are the owners making?

It's not players vs. fans. It's players vs. owners.

5RingsAndABeer is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 08:49 PM
  #31
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5RingsAndABeer View Post
It's not players vs. fans. It's players vs. owners.
No, it's NHLPA vs. Fans.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 08:55 PM
  #32
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5RingsAndABeer View Post
How much are the owners making?

It's not players vs. fans. It's players vs. owners.
The simple fact is that the owners were losing money because of a system they insisted on putting into place in the last CBA. And Ok, so they couldn't forecast how revenues would send player salaries higher than they could afford, fine,... but is that the players fault? No. The players were pretty much forced into agreeing to the last CBA which ending up hurting the owners. The owners now started this CBA negotiations by wanting a 100% flip of the percentages from the last CBA. Essentially, the owners want to bite into all the current contracts that they negotiated with the players leading up to this CBA. If I were a player, I'd say fine, we realize your situation, we'll agree to make the necessary adjustments moving forward, but we don't want changes made in the already established contracts. And that is what the players are fighting for.

Sure, if contractual changes mean gains for you, then you're going to be all for those changes, which is exactly what the owners want. But the proposed changes, as the owners are demanding, mean losses for the players. Not only lower potential salary increases moving forward, which the players are accepting, but lower salaries $ in already negotiated contracts. Who would willing agree to such a thing, at least without a fight?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 08:57 PM
  #33
KaylaJ
Honey Bun
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 13,497
vCash: 500
How was the PA forced to sign the CBA last time?

KaylaJ is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:02 PM
  #34
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
How was the PA forced to sign the CBA last time?
Hey, I'll give you that. Perhaps they weren't. But reading the great majority of opinions around here, one would be sure that the PA eventually caved the last time, because so many are sure that they'll have no choice but to eventually cave now. If the PA didn't ultimately give in the last time, then why is it a sure thing that they'll eventually do it this time?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:09 PM
  #35
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The simple fact is that the owners were losing money because of a system they insisted on putting into place in the last CBA. And Ok, so they couldn't forecast how revenues would send player salaries higher than they could afford, fine,... but is that the players fault? No. The players were pretty much forced into agreeing to the last CBA which ending up hurting the owners. The owners now started this CBA negotiations by wanting a 100% flip of the percentages from the last CBA. Essentially, the owners want to bite into all the current contracts that they negotiated with the players leading up to this CBA. If I were a player, I'd say fine, we realize your situation, we'll agree to make the necessary adjustments moving forward, but we don't want changes made in the already established contracts. And that is what the players are fighting for.

Sure, if contractual changes mean gains for you, then you're going to be all for those changes, which is exactly what the owners want. But the proposed changes, as the owners are demanding, mean losses for the players. Not only lower potential salary increases moving forward, which the players are accepting, but lower salaries $ in already negotiated contracts. Who would willing agree to such a thing, at least without a fight?
The players could have kept their salaries in place if they proposed it within a system that made sense (gradual linked decrease), but they have failed to do so. Every single one of their proposals had some sort of delinked proposal, when the owners made it absolutely clear they would only agree to a linked proposal.

So even if its the worst case scenario and they are forced to chose between taking a 7% hit on their contracts vs. not playing 25%-100% of the season, and therefore losing the corresponding percentage of their salary, then how does choosing the latter make any sense at all.

Renbarg is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:10 PM
  #36
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Hey, I'll give you that. Perhaps they weren't. But reading the great majority of opinions around here, one would be sure that the PA eventually caved the last time, because so many are sure that they'll have no choice but to eventually cave now. If the PA didn't ultimately give in the last time, then why is it a sure thing that they'll eventually do it this time?
A salary cap and a rollback was giving in. And they'll give in again this time, its just a matter of time, which is the frustrating part.

Renbarg is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:12 PM
  #37
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
I just think the players are dumb and delusional.

hockeyfan2k11 is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:13 PM
  #38
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
The players could have kept their salaries in place if they proposed it within a system that made sense (gradual linked decrease), but they have failed to do so. Every single one of their proposals had some sort of delinked proposal, when the owners made it absolutely clear they would only agree to a linked proposal.
Read your own words... Sounds to me like neither side proposed a "gradual linked decrease". But yet, you prefer to put all the blame for that on the players for not proposing it.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:17 PM
  #39
NickyMaz
Registered User
 
NickyMaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Dayton, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckgenius View Post
Everyone I hear, all they say is negative thoughts and opinions towards the players. "theyre already making so much money, ill put my money and time towards minor or other leagues who care more about the sport. "All they care about is the money, which they already have enough of" Everyone assumes its just the players wanting more money.
I certainly don't hate the players, I can't blame them for trying to get the best deal possible. I just think Don Fehr is doing them a terrible disservice. If Fehr thinks he's going to get the salary cap removed or delink the players share from HRR, he is seriously deluded.

Any time I see these comments from the players about how united they are and how much they believe in their principles I just shake my head. Fehr has some of these guys eating out of his hand, but at the end of the day Bettman is going to screw them. That's what they need to realize, that not matter how big and bad Fehr is Bettman is a much bigger ***** and he has the power to screw the players.

NickyMaz is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:17 PM
  #40
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Hey, I'll give you that. Perhaps they weren't. But reading the great majority of opinions around here, one would be sure that the PA eventually caved the last time, because so many are sure that they'll have no choice but to eventually cave now. If the PA didn't ultimately give in the last time, then why is it a sure thing that they'll eventually do it this time?
I have doubts the NHLPA will cave in this time , Fehr was brought in to do something he has done extremely well his entire career which is win these battles.

bbud is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:19 PM
  #41
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Read your own words... Sounds to me like neither side proposed a "gradual linked decrease". But yet, you prefer to put all the blame for that on the players for not proposing it.
Yes because they aren't making any linked proposals at all. The owners aren't going to come out with a bottom line offer (despite what they may say), they'll lowball and hope to meet in the middle. The reason its all on the players is because they refuse to come out with an offer under the owner's framework (i.e. linked).

Renbarg is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:23 PM
  #42
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
A salary cap and a rollback was giving in. And they'll give in again this time, its just a matter of time, which is the frustrating part.
That was my point, or at least my speculation. And as I was pointing out from that, it was the owners who ultimately were hurt by what they essentially forced on the players in the last CBA. And yes, they never predicted how it could work against them. But now wanting to make up for those losses by cutting into already negotiated contracts.

Players may be well aware when they're negotiating contracts that CBA rule changes could effect those contracts, but surely most players negotiated their contracts with the idea that what was signed in the end would be what the contract stood for. Now I dare ask, did the owners negotiate those contracts (which had dates extending beyond the last CBA's expiration) with the same faith that those contracts wouldn't be altered in a way to work negatively against what the player was agreeing to at the time? I'm beginning to suspect that could there well have been a fair bit of dishonorable negotiation on the part of many contracts they made with players in the last year or two, knowing damn well that they were going to be demanding $ value changes in this CBA.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:31 PM
  #43
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
That was my point, or at least my speculation. And as I was pointing out from that, it was the owners who ultimately were hurt by what they essentially forced on the players in the last CBA. And yes, they never predicted how it could work against them. But now wanting to make up for those losses by cutting into already negotiated contracts.

Players may be well aware when they're negotiating contracts that CBA rule changes could effect those contracts, but surely most players negotiated their contracts with the idea that what was signed in the end would be what the contract stood for. Now I dare ask, did the owners negotiate those contracts (which had dates extending beyond the last CBA's expiration) with the same faith that those contracts wouldn't be altered in a way to work negatively against what the player was agreeing to at the time? I'm beginning to suspect that could well have been a fair bit of unhonorable negotiation on the part of many contracts they made with players in the last year or two.
It doesn't really matter whether or not the owner's believed there would be a rollback come the next CBA. Players were paid fair market value given the circumstances (future rollbacks is a circumstance). Let me put it this way: If an owner was truly negotiating with the idea that a future rollback is imminent, his bottom line offer would be whatever % higher he thought salaries would be rolled back. If he believed roll backs were not going to happen (and using this knowledge to negotiate), then his bottom line offer would not take that % into account. In other words, theoretically, if the players maximized their negotiation power (and given the fact that they have agents this is not a stretch) they would have received a % higher in salary if the owners believed a roll back was coming vs. if they believed it wasn't coming.


Last edited by Renbarg: 10-28-2012 at 09:38 PM.
Renbarg is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:33 PM
  #44
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,390
vCash: 500
I don't "hate" the players and I didn't start this thing on either side of the fence. But here's what I've seen:

1) The owners wanted to start negotiating this thing close to a year ago. The players insisted on waiting until the summer and then took until August to get serious.

2) The players rail on Bettman, but their hiring of Fehr (even MORE of a non-hockey mercenary than Gary) was a clear indicator of where they wanted to go with this thing. At that moment it was obvious that this process would be bitter, drawn-out and destructive... because that's what Fehr brings to the table. What is a fan supposed to make of that?

3) The overplayed line about "we just wanted to play while negotiating". How stupid do they think we are? They hired Don ****ing Fehr and want to start the season without an agreement... are they serious!?

4) Honestly, the players need to put a gag order on public statements. The more they speak out, the worse it gets.

5) It's a lost cause. Even if they manage a few extra concessions, what is it going to cost? We're losing games, careers, and the battle for public attention here. Hockey is losing its share in the sports marketplace, and for what? 1% of HRR? A year on ELCs? Exactly how much damage is going to be done to the sport when we all know that the global framework of the new CBA is already in view? It just comes off as ridiculous to continue to see non-starter proposals at this stage of the game, knowing damned well the players will eventually have no choice but to give up the pretense that they're capable of holding out for an ideal offer.

My feelings toward the owners are still basically neutral, because they've done exactly what I expected. But the players have taken the low ground early and often, and it doesn't appear to be getting them anywhere. As far as I'm concerned, we're missing games right now primarily because of the players.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:39 PM
  #45
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Someone pointed this out to me last time and i thought it was funny:

Quote:
Crab bucket
A crab bucket is what it is: crabs in a bucket. However, what happens in the bucket full of crabs is what makes it a famous saying.

When a single crab is put into a lidless bucket, they surely can and will escape. However, when more than one share a bucket, none can get out. If one crab elevates themself above all, the others will grab this crab and drag'em back down to share the mutual fate of the rest of the group.

Crab bucket syndrome is often used to describe social situations where one person is trying to better themself and others in the community attempt to pull them back down.

The argument seems to be that the players should realize that they did very well by the last cba. But it didnt work. So we should try the same guys idea of doing the same thing again.

It seems hard to beleive that people are actually making the argument that the reason the last cba failed was because Bettman and his army of lawyers couldnt forsee that revenues wouldnt grow equally between each of the 30 teams. And more specifically, that although it was designed and sold as a small market helping cba, it failed because all the big markets made too much money.

C'mon, really? You can make this argument with a straight face on a business board where some people have actually got past high school?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:41 PM
  #46
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
C'mon, really? You can make this argument with a straight face on a business board where some people have actually got past high school?
So how much is the NHLPA paying you to post on this board?

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:57 PM
  #47
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,170
vCash: 500
Don't hate them at all. I just call ******** when I see it. I understand that players are looking out for themselves first and foremost. I understand that they will use whatever leverage they can to get the best deal. I don't appreciate several of them endorsing half truths in order to make their cause seem more worthwhile. They're hockey players and unless they can speak intelligently (and I've learned many of them can't), it's best for them to keep their mouth shut and let the guy they hired do the talking for them. I expect Bettman and Fehr to tell half truths and spin tall tales, but it's disappointing and disconcerting to see these players take advantage of their connection with fans in order to spread their propaganda so they don't look like the bad guys. Worry about getting a deal signed instead of publicly vilifying the guys who sign your pay cheques.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 09:58 PM
  #48
Gene Parmesan
Ball-So-Hard-U
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 26,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I have no hatred for the players.

I just don't understand their position or end game because they won't tell us their position. Then some open their mouths and speak about things that are not even in the current proposals, like salary roll backs. It just confuses the masses and sounds like spin to get the PR on their side.

The whole "honoring" contracts is another way to confuse the public. The fact that all contracts signed during the last CBA where never "honored" as the NHLPA claims they should be is never spoken, it is just about paying them the number on their contract, which goes against the last CBA. It's misleading to the public and is pure PR/propaganda.
this.

Gene Parmesan is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 10:03 PM
  #49
PBPantherfan
Here we go again
 
PBPantherfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake Worth, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 2,135
vCash: 500
1) They seem to be very very butt hurt from the last CBA. So instead of trying to get a CBA they want to WIN and show the big bad owners they aren't going to take it.

2) They keep opening their mouths and looking like fools.

3) They are trying to dictate to billionaires how a business should be run and have in general thrown out horrible proposals one of which they couldn't even bother to run the numbers on.

4) And the biggest problem they hired Donald Fehr the man who ruined baseball for me. I am a fan of a small market team and have no desire to be the Pirates or Royals of the NHL (Panthers have been that already through mis-management)

Everyone on the players side *****ing about the owners first proposal; the only reason they did that was to show the players how bad the previous deal was for the owners. Basically you think the last deal was so great here you have our part of the pie and we will have your's. Didn't take the players long to reject that did it?

PBPantherfan is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 10:15 PM
  #50
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
The players had a chance to get 43% of HRR and all 100% of the non-HRR? Wow, you're right, they should have taken that, they'd have got the bigger half.

Why do people keep saying the players wont tell you what they want. How much clearer can it be. They keep telling you but you dont listen or ignore it or call them names. Its very simple what they want.

Its claimed they live in the past, and yet in the same breath Fehr is demonized for ending baseballs troubles 20 years ago with a strike that ended when the courts ordered the owners to stop being crooks. And here in the present he is offering exactly what the majority of fans thought was a fair offer. And yet the players are thought to be living in the past??

It seems to me that in order to rationalize support for the owners, the most amazing cognitive disonnance must occur.

thinkwild 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 04:29 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.