HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Notices

No More Lockout Blues! - 2012 Lockout Part 2 [UPD: AGREEMENT REACHED!]

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2012, 08:38 PM
  #26
videofarmer
thirsty
 
videofarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: ATL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,051
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
You really think the PA is going to pay for that for the entire year? Because there is going to be no NHL this year. And their "insurance" isn't like the NHL benefits they get. American insurance is retarded.

Sucks that there's no Moose to go and see at the MTS Centre. So sick of the NHL and their greediness. It's a game and it should be about the damn game. Not money.
The NHLPA is paying the premiums for the same policies under which the players were already covered when the NHL was paying. So they get the same "retarded" benefits they already had. Perhaps surprisingly, there are lots of articles about this on-line.

videofarmer is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 08:41 PM
  #27
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,059
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
You really think the PA is going to pay for that for the entire year? Because there is going to be no NHL this year. And their "insurance" isn't like the NHL benefits they get. American insurance is retarded.

Sucks that there's no Moose to go and see at the MTS Centre. So sick of the NHL and their greediness. It's a game and it should be about the damn game. Not money.
Kind of harsh words for the US insurance? My relatives in the US all have coverage and they have nothing but good things to say about the medical service they receive. no sysytem is perfect and our friends to the south certainly like to debate this topic but I don't imagine the hockey players are going without?

ps241 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 10:07 PM
  #28
LadyJet26
GO JETS GO!!!
 
LadyJet26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,350
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
Kind of harsh words for the US insurance? My relatives in the US all have coverage and they have nothing but good things to say about the medical service they receive. no sysytem is perfect and our friends to the south certainly like to debate this topic but I don't imagine the hockey players are going without?
I disagree with privatized healthcare. That's what the US is. If US citizens don't have insurance or insurance that doesn't cover costs then a lot of health facilities will deny treatment.

As for the players, I'm tired of them whining. They play a ****ing game for a living. I'm tired of the NHL not willing to sit down and negotiate. And I'm tired of the NHL whining. Oh we don't get enough money. Wahhhh. **** off. Yeah they give back, but they give back to the sick and the poor. What about the middle class that gets the **** end of the stick? The owners don't give up any of their money. They whine and ***** and get fat. And they approve moves like Winnipeg to ****ing Phoenix. It hasn't worked in 16 years. I'm tired of all these rich ass people fighting like little children. Grow up and grow a sack.

LadyJet26 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 10:53 PM
  #29
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,059
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
I disagree with privatized healthcare. That's what the US is. If US citizens don't have insurance or insurance that doesn't cover costs then a lot of health facilities will deny treatment.

As for the players, I'm tired of them whining. They play a ****ing game for a living. I'm tired of the NHL not willing to sit down and negotiate. And I'm tired of the NHL whining. Oh we don't get enough money. Wahhhh. **** off. Yeah they give back, but they give back to the sick and the poor. What about the middle class that gets the **** end of the stick? The owners don't give up any of their money. They whine and ***** and get fat. And they approve moves like Winnipeg to ****ing Phoenix. It hasn't worked in 16 years. I'm tired of all these rich ass people fighting like little children. Grow up and grow a sack.
Although you appear to be a bit more passionate about it this evening I too share your frustration with the fact both sides should have been able to negociate a new CBA by now.

ps241 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 10:58 PM
  #30
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
I disagree with privatized healthcare. That's what the US is. If US citizens don't have insurance or insurance that doesn't cover costs then a lot of health facilities will deny treatment.

As for the players, I'm tired of them whining. They play a ****ing game for a living. I'm tired of the NHL not willing to sit down and negotiate. And I'm tired of the NHL whining. Oh we don't get enough money. Wahhhh. **** off. Yeah they give back, but they give back to the sick and the poor. What about the middle class that gets the **** end of the stick? The owners don't give up any of their money. They whine and ***** and get fat. And they approve moves like Winnipeg to ****ing Phoenix. It hasn't worked in 16 years. I'm tired of all these rich ass people fighting like little children. Grow up and grow a sack.
Edit: Wow I butchered that

They moved Winnipeg to pheonix because we had no arena and no ownership. Right now pheonux has an arena and a city that will cover all losses, why mess with a good thing?

Guess what, the NHL offered to negotiate last year, nhlpa said no.

NHL offered to negotiate in December, nhlpa said no.

NHL offered to negotiate in April, nhlpa said no.

NHL started to negotiate in June, nhlpa dragged its feet.

Did the NHL field good deals? Hell no, but the nhlpa didn't refuse because they were being wronged, they refused cus they'd get more money.

No one is innocent here, you have two greedy parties. The more the owners can win means the more likely winnipeggers are to enjoy NHL hockey for a long time. Again you have one rich ******* arguing with another rich *******, the only difference is ones gains benefit the fans and ones don't. Support the players out of "principle" if you want but the sport is less financially sound with every percentage point they win, and that's what effects me. The players will play regardless of their cut they play for the love of the game right? Might as well make their cut something that is more beneficial to me, the fan.

Not to mention they called 50 50, the end point of NBA discussions "OK for a first offer". Your worth more then NBA players? I'd like to see the backwards economics that support that...


Last edited by Grind: 10-28-2012 at 11:05 PM.
Grind is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:03 PM
  #31
LadyJet26
GO JETS GO!!!
 
LadyJet26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,350
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
Although you appear to be a bit more passionate about it this evening I too share your frustration with the fact both sides should have been able to negociate a new CBA by now.
I'm union and if my union's negotiator was like Fehr I bet our members would have asked for a new one already. Fehr doesn't know hockey. I'm mad at both sides now. I still don't get how anyone would side with the owners on this, but I'm on neither side now. Get a freaking deal done. I wouldn't have been so upset and missing my best friend if I had hockey to watch. This isn't the same as last lockout. We all had the Moose at least. I can't stand non pro hockey besides the Van Giants and the Wolves (the Ice Caps play too early for me to even bother. I'm usually working)

LadyJet26 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:19 PM
  #32
LadyJet26
GO JETS GO!!!
 
LadyJet26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,350
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
Edit: Wow I butchered that

They moved Winnipeg to pheonix because we had no arena and no ownership. Right now pheonux has an arena and a city that will cover all losses, why mess with a good thing?

Guess what, the NHL offered to negotiate last year, nhlpa said no.

NHL offered to negotiate in December, nhlpa said no.

NHL offered to negotiate in April, nhlpa said no.

NHL started to negotiate in June, nhlpa dragged its feet.

Did the NHL field good deals? Hell no, but the nhlpa didn't refuse because they were being wronged, they refused cus they'd get more money.

No one is innocent here, you have two greedy parties. The more the owners can win means the more likely winnipeggers are to enjoy NHL hockey for a long time. Again you have one rich ******* arguing with another rich *******, the only difference is ones gains benefit the fans and ones don't. Support the players out of "principle" if you want but the sport is less financially sound with every percentage point they win, and that's what effects me. The players will play regardless of their cut they play for the love of the game right? Might as well make their cut something that is more beneficial to me, the fan.

Not to mention they called 50 50, the end point of NBA discussions "OK for a first offer". Your worth more then NBA players? I'd like to see the backwards economics that support that...
[mod]

Why the hell should it go on the city of Glendale? Why would the NHL ever let a city take the losses and put them further into debt? That city will never recover from that. Houses are 4 grand there. Houses that are 4 grand there are 230 000 plus here.

It isn't out of just principle and I don't support either anymore. Most unions don't start negotiating until close to when the contract is up, but then again most unions will work while negotiations are going on. My contract is up October 1st, 2013 and they're not negotiating yet. The union hasn't even delegated anything. Why should the player reps have to take time away from their families and their careers to negotiate during the season or when they're gearing up for the playoffs? The NHL told the players to take it or leave it and won't listen to anything they have to say. That is not negotiation; that's the NHL being arseholes. The NHL is corrupt and has been for a very long time. They are the only league to lock out their players for this amount of games. It's pathetic. This can't be put 100% on the players. The owners pretty much got what they wanted and they're the ones that keep giving players what they want. Oh sorry, what the agents want too. We need to be like the MLB fans that said enough is enough, but we won't because majority of the fans that do care won't boycott. Fehr gets all the credit for that when it was the fans saying enough is enough and MLB caved. Don't see what is so great about Fehr. Not that it matters because the NHL doesn't give a **** about fans. Jerseys that cost peanuts to make go for $300. Ridiculous. The owners and the NHL got themselves into this mess and they're the ones being ******. I don't get it. So sorry I'm not on board with the owners. Especially the 6 that are on the BOG. The ones that make the most money and aren't willing to share with the rest. You *******s make over 100 mil a damn year. Give some of it up you condescending *****.


Last edited by Jet: 10-30-2012 at 11:36 AM. Reason: We don't need grammar police here. Stick to the subject
LadyJet26 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:31 PM
  #33
scelaton
Registered User
 
scelaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
You do realize that 95% of these families live in the US year round and now have no benefits whatsoever right? You try living without benefits.

I get that they get paid millions of dollars, etc, but they still have families to support and not all of them are lucky to be Canadian (despite our health care system that continues to fail in this province. Except if you're rich) and have free healthcare. Do you even know what a night in hospital costs? An ambulance ride? Even a broken arm? Plus tons of these guys have their money invested and can't get it out. Most hockey players aren't very good financially. Bad example is Paul Bissionnette, but still guy blows his salary in Vegas every year. Took him 4 years to hire a financial consultant. It isn't just the player and some of these guys locked out have only been playing a year and don't have very much money. Most unions will work thoroughout contract negotiations. Most employers won't lock out their employees. I pay to see the players play, not the ****ing BOG and their greedy ways and them not wanting to part with the 120 mil they make every year with the clubs that don't. My siding with the players is based on my hatred of the BOG and the NHL. They don't give one rats ass about the fans. The players got ****ed over for years pre 1980. Yeah some players don't give a ****, but that's their personality. Most players want what's fair and the way the BOG and the NHL are playing at is not fair. BOG and the NHL are a bunch of greedy ********.
Look, most of us on these boards have nothing against the players, but it is pretty hard to imagine millionaire players as being financially strapped, no matter which side of the border they live on.
I agree that many are poor money managers, but no amount of money is enough for someone with a gambling problem or any other addiction, including one to a life beyond his means. The solution to that is not more money, it's education, support and financial planning, something that Mr Fehr should be negotiating for his players at this very moment. Non-monetary benefits are cheap and will help the players far more than any increment to their already-huge salaries.
The "greedy" BOG doesn't have a lot of money to share --only a few owners make more off their clubs annually than the top tier of players. Revenue sharing will increase, but it won't be a panacea, as it is in sports with huge broadcasting contracts.

And lastly--in fact, the only reason I replied in the first place--what's with the hatred of the BOG and NHL? They are running a business exactly the way you and I would. You should realize that the more the players are convinced that hatred is the appropriate response to the owners, the less likely they are to settle. And the longer they hold out, the more they will suffer financially, because they've only got a few years, they're losing big money, they are poor money managers, etc, etc
So, with all due respect, your "hate" for the owners can only hurt the players. Think about it.

scelaton is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:32 PM
  #34
wpgsilver
HFBoards Sponsor
 
wpgsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,246
vCash: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
The ones that make the most money and aren't willing to share with the rest. You *******s make over 100 mil a damn year. Give some of it up you condescending *****.
I'm not going to address most of what you said because we view this issue VERY differently. And that's totally fine, I don't think you're wrong, I just don't agree.

This last part stuck out to me though. I don't understand this line of thinking. I view revenue sharing as a necessary evil, not an ideal condition. Owners should want to, and have the right to maximize profit. Why should a successful owner WANT to redistribute their profit? Every owner takes on enormous financial risk, successful ones have every right profit. Like I said, revenue sharing is necessary, but I don't expect profitable owners to smile while writing a revenue sharing cheque.

Also the "you make a lot of money, give some of it up" portion can definitely be applied to the players

wpgsilver is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:34 PM
  #35
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
No offense, but you really need to spell check before you post. Trying to read that was like trying to read a very long run on sentence. It's Phoenix, not whatever you typed it as.

Why the hell should it go on the city of Glendale? Why would the NHL ever let a city take the losses and put them further into debt? That city will never recover from that. Houses are 4 grand there. Houses that are 4 grand there are 230 000 plus here.

It isn't out of just principle and I don't support either anymore. Most unions don't start negotiating until close to when the contract is up, but then again most unions will work while negotiations are going on. My contract is up October 1st, 2013 and they're not negotiating yet. The union hasn't even delegated anything. Why should the player reps have to take time away from their families and their careers to negotiate during the season or when they're gearing up for the playoffs? The NHL told the players to take it or leave it and won't listen to anything they have to say. That is not negotiation; that's the NHL being arseholes. The NHL is corrupt and has been for a very long time. They are the only league to lock out their players for this amount of games. It's pathetic. This can't be put 100% on the players. The owners pretty much got what they wanted and they're the ones that keep giving players what they want. Oh sorry, what the agents want too. We need to be like the MLB fans that said enough is enough, but we won't because majority of the fans that do care won't boycott. Fehr gets all the credit for that when it was the fans saying enough is enough and MLB caved. Don't see what is so great about Fehr. Not that it matters because the NHL doesn't give a **** about fans. Jerseys that cost peanuts to make go for $300. Ridiculous. The owners and the NHL got themselves into this mess and they're the ones being ******. I don't get it. So sorry I'm not on board with the owners. Especially the 6 that are on the BOG. The ones that make the most money and aren't willing to share with the rest. You *******s make over 100 mil a damn year. Give some of it up you condescending *****.
Im very confused. [mod] at the end of the day the nhlpa isn't the teamsters union or the nurses union. And as a fan we only benefit from the owners winning, there is literally no benefit for us if the players "win". That's all I'm saying.

If there's a fight between two people one who offers me a beer if he wins, I know who I'm cheering for.


Last edited by Jet: 10-30-2012 at 11:37 AM. Reason: responding to edited content
Grind is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:49 PM
  #36
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
No offense, but you really need to spell check before you post. Trying to read that was like trying to read a very long run on sentence. It's Phoenix, not whatever you typed it as.

Why the hell should it go on the city of Glendale? Why would the NHL ever let a city take the losses and put them further into debt? That city will never recover from that. Houses are 4 grand there. Houses that are 4 grand there are 230 000 plus here.

It isn't out of just principle and I don't support either anymore. Most unions don't start negotiating until close to when the contract is up, but then again most unions will work while negotiations are going on. My contract is up October 1st, 2013 and they're not negotiating yet. The union hasn't even delegated anything. Why should the player reps have to take time away from their families and their careers to negotiate during the season or when they're gearing up for the playoffs? The NHL told the players to take it or leave it and won't listen to anything they have to say. That is not negotiation; that's the NHL being arseholes. The NHL is corrupt and has been for a very long time. They are the only league to lock out their players for this amount of games. It's pathetic. This can't be put 100% on the players. The owners pretty much got what they wanted and they're the ones that keep giving players what they want. Oh sorry, what the agents want too. We need to be like the MLB fans that said enough is enough, but we won't because majority of the fans that do care won't boycott. Fehr gets all the credit for that when it was the fans saying enough is enough and MLB caved. Don't see what is so great about Fehr. Not that it matters because the NHL doesn't give a **** about fans. Jerseys that cost peanuts to make go for $300. Ridiculous. The owners and the NHL got themselves into this mess and they're the ones being ******. I don't get it. So sorry I'm not on board with the owners. Especially the 6 that are on the BOG. The ones that make the most money and aren't willing to share with the rest. You *******s make over 100 mil a damn year. Give some of it up you condescending *****.
If no union begins to negotiate before the end of the contract, why are the owners being negatively described for not discussing the CBA prior to the expiration of the last contract?

Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:55 PM
  #37
LadyJet26
GO JETS GO!!!
 
LadyJet26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,350
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by scelaton View Post
Look, most of us on these boards have nothing against the players, but it is pretty hard to imagine millionaire players as being financially strapped, no matter which side of the border they live on.
I agree that many are poor money managers, but no amount of money is enough for someone with a gambling problem or any other addiction, including one to a life beyond his means. The solution to that is not more money, it's education, support and financial planning, something that Mr Fehr should be negotiating for his players at this very moment. Non-monetary benefits are cheap and will help the players far more than any increment to their already-huge salaries.
The "greedy" BOG doesn't have a lot of money to share --only a few owners make more off their clubs annually than the top tier of players. Revenue sharing will increase, but it won't be a panacea, as it is in sports with huge broadcasting contracts.

And lastly--in fact, the only reason I replied in the first place--what's with the hatred of the BOG and NHL? They are running a business exactly the way you and I would. You should realize that the more the players are convinced that hatred is the appropriate response to the owners, the less likely they are to settle. And the longer they hold out, the more they will suffer financially, because they've only got a few years, they're losing big money, they are poor money managers, etc, etc
So, with all due respect, your "hate" for the owners can only hurt the players. Think about it.
It's not all the owners, it's particular owners I don't like. The Aquilini's in Vancouver, the arsehole in Boston, and the "owners" of the Coyotes. Aquilini's not because of them owning the Canucks, it's how they conduct themselves to the public. They are just not nice people. Boston's owner is on the BOG and is the reason why I think Aaron Rome got suspended 4 games in the finals (not saying what he did was smart) and why Chara got nothing for what he did to Pacioretty and why Lucic got nothing when he ran Ryan Miller. He gets anything he wants because he's on the BOG. The "owners" of the Coyotes are letting a city front the bill for a franchise that is never going to be successful. I hope the lockout is year long so that Phoenix will be no more. Americans in that state couldn't give two craps about hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgsilver View Post
I'm not going to address most of what you said because we view this issue VERY differently. And that's totally fine, I don't think you're wrong, I just don't agree.

This last part stuck out to me though. I don't understand this line of thinking. I view revenue sharing as a necessary evil, not an ideal condition. Owners should want to, and have the right to maximize profit. Why should a successful owner WANT to redistribute their profit? Every owner takes on enormous financial risk, successful ones have every right profit. Like I said, revenue sharing is necessary, but I don't expect profitable owners to smile while writing a revenue sharing cheque.

Also the "you make a lot of money, give some of it up" portion can definitely be applied to the players
What I'd really like to know is what the owners really think. The NHL put a muzzle on them. I'd like to know what they really think of things like the Phoenix situation. I know they all voted yes to lock out the players, but I think many were forced to. The league needs to realize that it needs to downsize or move struggling franchises to cities that actually care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
Im very confused. You can attack my spelling all you want but at the end of the day the nhlpa isn't the teamsters union or the nurses union. And as a fan we only benefit from the owners winning, there is literally no benefit for us if the players "win". That's all I'm saying.

If there's a fight between two people one who offers me a beer if he wins, I know who I'm cheering for.
Canadians will pay whatever the teams will charge. It's called supply and demand. And the basic concept of the union is there. They are the only union I know of that has this many issues with their employer. Maybe if the fans would actually do something then the players might actually listen. The players are being grabbed by the balls here. The NHL won't negotiate. 10 minutes to look over 3 contract proposals is a joke.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Nice debating boys.

LadyJet26 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:05 AM
  #38
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
It's not all the owners, it's particular owners I don't like. The Aquilini's in Vancouver, the arsehole in Boston, and the "owners" of the Coyotes. Aquilini's not because of them owning the Canucks, it's how they conduct themselves to the public. They are just not nice people. Boston's owner is on the BOG and is the reason why I think Aaron Rome got suspended 4 games in the finals (not saying what he did was smart) and why Chara got nothing for what he did to Pacioretty and why Lucic got nothing when he ran Ryan Miller. He gets anything he wants because he's on the BOG. The "owners" of the Coyotes are letting a city front the bill for a franchise that is never going to be successful. I hope the lockout is year long so that Phoenix will be no more. Americans in that state couldn't give two craps about hockey.



What I'd really like to know is what the owners really think. The NHL put a muzzle on them. I'd like to know what they really think of things like the Phoenix situation. I know they all voted yes to lock out the players, but I think many were forced to. The league needs to realize that it needs to downsize or move struggling franchises to cities that actually care.



Canadians will pay whatever the teams will charge. It's called supply and demand. And the basic concept of the union is there. They are the only union I know of that has this many issues with their employer. Maybe if the fans would actually do something then the players might actually listen. The players are being grabbed by the balls here. The NHL won't negotiate. 10 minutes to look over 3 contract proposals is a joke.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Nice debating boys.
Thanks...you don't have any idea how collective bargaining works.

Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:26 AM
  #39
Jetsfan204*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
Thanks...you don't have any idea how collective bargaining works.
please, explain how it works for us then

Jetsfan204* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:46 AM
  #40
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan204 View Post
please, explain how it works for us then
The NHL/NHLPA negotiation is no different than any other collective bargaining agreement that is negotiated. Two sides fighting for their own benefit.


Last edited by Klaus: 10-29-2012 at 01:03 AM. Reason: unnecessary
Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:54 AM
  #41
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,080
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
The NHL/NHLPA negotiation is no different than any other collective bargaining agreement that is negotiated. Two sides fighting for their own benefit.
Ya... less brash but I'd agree
My current weekend job is to work with employees under different unions (HEU, BCNU, HSPA, CUPE, UFCW, and BCGEU) and the line always seems to be:
Union hates ownership/management
Management/ownership hates unions

EDIT:
I'd like to say that there is some difference than most negotiations. It is one of the few where the employees are a part of the marketing and product (but not the entirety!!)


Last edited by garret9: 10-29-2012 at 01:20 AM. Reason: qep
garret9 is online now  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:00 AM
  #42
Jetsfan204*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
The NHL/NHLPA negotiation is no different than any other collective bargaining agreement that is negotiated. Two sides fighting for their own benefit.
Wow really? Thanks for the insight


Last edited by Jetsfan204*: 10-29-2012 at 01:09 AM. Reason: qep
Jetsfan204* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 06:57 AM
  #43
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,059
vCash: 50
Below is an excellant post (IMHO) from the main board by Hazeoke39:


You have your lack/distrust of facts, I have my facts:

1. The NFL gives its players 47%. Albeit without a cap, MLB gives its players ~45%. The NBA gives its players 50%. ALL of these leagues make more in TV revenue, which is the one major source of money that has NO OVERHEAD COSTS for owners, meaning the NHL pays out more in overhead for every dollar they make back than in these other leagues. If any of these leagues are anything like the NHL, this would indicate players should actually get less than 50% in the NHL.

2. Forbes reports that the median NHL team is losing money. The average NHL team makes only $4M/year, well less than a reasonable return on investment on the market. For the NHL to thrive in the long-term, they need to be a reasonably successful investment. For a franchise you paid $300M for, a 1.33% return on investment won't cut it.

3. RS can help plug holes, but not holes this big. No other major sports league has adopted a RS program that relies on 3-4 teams getting pillaged to keep afloat half the league that's underwater. The NFL may have tremendous sharing, but it doesn't amount to tremendous redistribution - even the poorest teams are putting into the pot, and even the richest teams are taking out of it. Even under the most draconian, politically impossible RS program, where you take away 95% of Toronto's profit, you can only get the average team to $4M/year profit. Split that between several owners in some cases, and the average owner makes less than the average player, while being on the line for all liabilities of the franchise and fronting all of its capital. It's not just bad, it's insane. Even the players don't seem to think that RS can do that much, because they only proposed increasing it from 150 to 240, which the owners met them more than halfway on.

4. Back to owners losing money. Owners are the party that makes the least out of this deal by far, and that's why they have all the leverage. If ~25 games get cancelled, players will have lost $500M that they would have earned, the whole amount they were fighting for between the last two proposals. If ~25 games get lost, owners will lose ~30M, net. It would take 4 years of cancelled games before the owners would lose enough to make taking the players offer worth it. So yeah, the owners can damn well sit it out, and the players are going to have to have a come to Jesus moment where they realize the only people keeping them from making money is themselves.

So yeah, maybe the NHL isn't asking for their absolute, can't-operate-without-it, red line here. But the facts all indicate that they're fighting for something close. Hell, the facts indicate they might not even be asking for enough at this point - I think it's likely that they offered more than some owners were comfortable with (as is now rumored) because they knew losing games would hurt the tremendous growth momentum they had, and so were okay with operating a little more underwater for a 5 year term to not lose that.

Players, on the other hand, seem to be living on some other planet where 57=50, revenues=profit, their contracts were never subject to the CBA, and they earned everything they got even if they earned more than their team could literally afford to pay them without robbing the owner's personal bank account. The wake up call has been sounding, and pretty soon they'll realize it.

ps241 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 07:45 AM
  #44
DespoticNewt
Registered User
 
DespoticNewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,897
vCash: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
Below is an excellant post (IMHO) from the main board by Hazeoke39:


You have your lack/distrust of facts, I have my facts:

1. The NFL gives its players 47%. Albeit without a cap, MLB gives its players ~45%. The NBA gives its players 50%. ALL of these leagues make more in TV revenue, which is the one major source of money that has NO OVERHEAD COSTS for owners, meaning the NHL pays out more in overhead for every dollar they make back than in these other leagues. If any of these leagues are anything like the NHL, this would indicate players should actually get less than 50% in the NHL.

2. Forbes reports that the median NHL team is losing money. The average NHL team makes only $4M/year, well less than a reasonable return on investment on the market. For the NHL to thrive in the long-term, they need to be a reasonably successful investment. For a franchise you paid $300M for, a 1.33% return on investment won't cut it.

3. RS can help plug holes, but not holes this big. No other major sports league has adopted a RS program that relies on 3-4 teams getting pillaged to keep afloat half the league that's underwater. The NFL may have tremendous sharing, but it doesn't amount to tremendous redistribution - even the poorest teams are putting into the pot, and even the richest teams are taking out of it. Even under the most draconian, politically impossible RS program, where you take away 95% of Toronto's profit, you can only get the average team to $4M/year profit. Split that between several owners in some cases, and the average owner makes less than the average player, while being on the line for all liabilities of the franchise and fronting all of its capital. It's not just bad, it's insane. Even the players don't seem to think that RS can do that much, because they only proposed increasing it from 150 to 240, which the owners met them more than halfway on.

4. Back to owners losing money. Owners are the party that makes the least out of this deal by far, and that's why they have all the leverage. If ~25 games get cancelled, players will have lost $500M that they would have earned, the whole amount they were fighting for between the last two proposals. If ~25 games get lost, owners will lose ~30M, net. It would take 4 years of cancelled games before the owners would lose enough to make taking the players offer worth it. So yeah, the owners can damn well sit it out, and the players are going to have to have a come to Jesus moment where they realize the only people keeping them from making money is themselves.

So yeah, maybe the NHL isn't asking for their absolute, can't-operate-without-it, red line here. But the facts all indicate that they're fighting for something close. Hell, the facts indicate they might not even be asking for enough at this point - I think it's likely that they offered more than some owners were comfortable with (as is now rumored) because they knew losing games would hurt the tremendous growth momentum they had, and so were okay with operating a little more underwater for a 5 year term to not lose that.

Players, on the other hand, seem to be living on some other planet where 57=50, revenues=profit, their contracts were never subject to the CBA, and they earned everything they got even if they earned more than their team could literally afford to pay them without robbing the owner's personal bank account. The wake up call has been sounding, and pretty soon they'll realize it.

DespoticNewt is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 09:14 AM
  #45
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,125
vCash: 50
That Hazeoke39 knows what he (or she) is talking about.

Huffer is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 09:43 AM
  #46
SensibleGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,264
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
Below is an excellant post (IMHO) from the main board by Hazeoke39:


You have your lack/distrust of facts, I have my facts:

1. The NFL gives its players 47%. Albeit without a cap, MLB gives its players ~45%. The NBA gives its players 50%. ALL of these leagues make more in TV revenue, which is the one major source of money that has NO OVERHEAD COSTS for owners, meaning the NHL pays out more in overhead for every dollar they make back than in these other leagues. If any of these leagues are anything like the NHL, this would indicate players should actually get less than 50% in the NHL.

2. Forbes reports that the median NHL team is losing money. The average NHL team makes only $4M/year, well less than a reasonable return on investment on the market. For the NHL to thrive in the long-term, they need to be a reasonably successful investment. For a franchise you paid $300M for, a 1.33% return on investment won't cut it.

3. RS can help plug holes, but not holes this big. No other major sports league has adopted a RS program that relies on 3-4 teams getting pillaged to keep afloat half the league that's underwater. The NFL may have tremendous sharing, but it doesn't amount to tremendous redistribution - even the poorest teams are putting into the pot, and even the richest teams are taking out of it. Even under the most draconian, politically impossible RS program, where you take away 95% of Toronto's profit, you can only get the average team to $4M/year profit. Split that between several owners in some cases, and the average owner makes less than the average player, while being on the line for all liabilities of the franchise and fronting all of its capital. It's not just bad, it's insane. Even the players don't seem to think that RS can do that much, because they only proposed increasing it from 150 to 240, which the owners met them more than halfway on.

4. Back to owners losing money. Owners are the party that makes the least out of this deal by far, and that's why they have all the leverage. If ~25 games get cancelled, players will have lost $500M that they would have earned, the whole amount they were fighting for between the last two proposals. If ~25 games get lost, owners will lose ~30M, net. It would take 4 years of cancelled games before the owners would lose enough to make taking the players offer worth it. So yeah, the owners can damn well sit it out, and the players are going to have to have a come to Jesus moment where they realize the only people keeping them from making money is themselves.

So yeah, maybe the NHL isn't asking for their absolute, can't-operate-without-it, red line here. But the facts all indicate that they're fighting for something close. Hell, the facts indicate they might not even be asking for enough at this point - I think it's likely that they offered more than some owners were comfortable with (as is now rumored) because they knew losing games would hurt the tremendous growth momentum they had, and so were okay with operating a little more underwater for a 5 year term to not lose that.

Players, on the other hand, seem to be living on some other planet where 57=50, revenues=profit, their contracts were never subject to the CBA, and they earned everything they got even if they earned more than their team could literally afford to pay them without robbing the owner's personal bank account. The wake up call has been sounding, and pretty soon they'll realize it.
Excellent post. Many NHL fans seem to be living in some sort of strange fantasy land where the owners are evil despots raking in ludicrous amounts of cash and trying to steal more from the players. The fact is the NHL is a house of cards. It is far from a healthy league and the players have too large a hunk of a small pie. Yeah yeah, I know..."but its the owners that keep offering these ridiculous contracts." Yep, thats right. Becuase they have no other option until its time to negotiate a new CBA. The CBA is the only opportunity they have to try and get the business in order. Individual owners will always do whatever it takes to strengthen their own franchise and if that means offering a crazy contract becuase they know if they don't they will lose a franchise player to another owner who WILL offer that contract then thats what they will do.

This is their one shot to try and bring some sanity to the operation. 57% of HRR to the players is not sanity.

SensibleGuy is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 09:59 AM
  #47
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
It's not all the owners, it's particular owners I don't like. The Aquilini's in Vancouver, the arsehole in Boston, and the "owners" of the Coyotes. Aquilini's not because of them owning the Canucks, it's how they conduct themselves to the public. They are just not nice people. Boston's owner is on the BOG and is the reason why I think Aaron Rome got suspended 4 games in the finals (not saying what he did was smart) and why Chara got nothing for what he did to Pacioretty and why Lucic got nothing when he ran Ryan Miller. He gets anything he wants because he's on the BOG. The "owners" of the Coyotes are letting a city front the bill for a franchise that is never going to be successful. I hope the lockout is year long so that Phoenix will be no more. Americans in that state couldn't give two craps about hockey.



What I'd really like to know is what the owners really think. The NHL put a muzzle on them. I'd like to know what they really think of things like the Phoenix situation. I know they all voted yes to lock out the players, but I think many were forced to. The league needs to realize that it needs to downsize or move struggling franchises to cities that actually care.



Canadians will pay whatever the teams will charge. It's called supply and demand. And the basic concept of the union is there. They are the only union I know of that has this many issues with their employer. Maybe if the fans would actually do something then the players might actually listen. The players are being grabbed by the balls here. The NHL won't negotiate. 10 minutes to look over 3 contract proposals is a joke.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Nice debating boys.
They didn't work within the owners framework, the deals weren't 50-50, and they didn't even bother to do the math on the 3rd proposal. Yet you wonder why they only spent 10 minutes reviewing those deals?

veganhunter is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 10:33 AM
  #48
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,579
vCash: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
I'm union and if my union's negotiator was like Fehr I bet our members would have asked for a new one already. Fehr doesn't know hockey. I'm mad at both sides now. I still don't get how anyone would side with the owners on this, but I'm on neither side now. Get a freaking deal done. I wouldn't have been so upset and missing my best friend if I had hockey to watch. This isn't the same as last lockout. We all had the Moose at least. I can't stand non pro hockey besides the Van Giants and the Wolves (the Ice Caps play too early for me to even bother. I'm usually working)
The bold pretty much sums it up for me. I just can't argue this thing anymore, my family and I are much happier when we've got a team to cheer for at home or at the arena.

GrandChelems is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 11:11 AM
  #49
Back in the Bigs
and lovin' it !!
 
Back in the Bigs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
" the only people keeping the players from making money is themselves "

.... yep, that's what it boils down to

Back in the Bigs is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:28 PM
  #50
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,080
vCash: 50
Love this from Puck Daddy

Quote:
• According to Suter, "at the time" Leipold "said everything was fine" with the contracts that Parise and Suter signed.
This level of mutual trust, with the lockout looming, ran so deep that the players had $25 million — over one quarter of the total value of their deals — placed into bonuses that wouldn't be affected by a potential salary rollback.
In fact, the top 13 signing bonuses in the NHL are for contracts signed in the last year and a half. Why, it's almost like the players knew their owners were feeding them a line of B.S. about contracts being honored at full value!

garret9 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 04:49 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.