HFBoards

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

Why so much hatred and criticism towards the players?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2012, 02:05 PM
  #151
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 6,374
vCash: 500
I think the players are less sympathetic because they aren't being upfront about what they want. Say what you will about the owners, they've been very clear that they want a system that gives them more money because according to their numbers, a lot of franchises need it to stay afloat. What do the players want? Not money obviously, since they've already lost more than they would have gained even if their past proposals were accepted. Not "to play," because if that were the case they'd propose some sort of linked proposal that is more in their favor in order to get down to real negotiations and then start playing. I honestly don't know what they're shooting for and it seems like they might not either.

On top of that, the players are constantly spitting out statements that obviously misrepresent the facts if you've been paying attention.

1. They say owners want to "not honor their contracts" because "honoring a contract" is equal to paying 100% of the number they signed for as is their contracts were never going to adjust to the CBA. Untrue.

2. "We were willing to play under the old CBA" makes no sense at all. If they were willing to negotiate while playing, why didn't they start negotiating during last season? It'd be the same exact situation as extending the CBA a year and negotiating then.

3. "We offered 50/50" has been proven mathematically to be untrue. They offered situations which might, if everything goes as they planned, provide 50/50 at some point down the line.

4. They say the league has record revenues therefore they all deserve raises as if revenues = profits.

5. They keep repeating that they lost the last CBA even though their averages wages increased 100% over an 8 year period.

The owners are upfront about why they want what they want. It's money. The players haven't articulated exactly what they hope to get out of this, and they've attempted to justify their mysterious demands with misrepresentations of reality at every step. I dont think either side is objectively "right" but I find it alot easier to understand what the owners want and why they want it.

haveandare is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:09 PM
  #152
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotchex View Post
The owners are going to win. The outcome is obvious to everyone but the players. Refusing to accept the inevitable isn't wise, reasonable, or admirable.
The number one seeded Vancouver Canucks are going to win their opening round series against the number eight seeded Los Angeles Kings. The outcome is obvious to everyone but the Los Angeles Kings. Refusing to accept the inevitable isn't wise, reasonable, or admirable.

Model62 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:09 PM
  #153
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
Owners want linkage, Fehr's proposals often have a $ amount or 50% whichever is higher. This hard $ amount is not linkage as this could well be above 57%.

I think if the player salary was 57% of the median (multiplied by 30) as opposed to total revenue then the owners would jump all over that IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
Its the opposite. The owners want a linked cap as it reduces their risk should revenues drop. Players want a delinked cap.
Thanks guys. But that does seem a fair bit confusing. Haven't the players benefitted greatly from having a "linked" Cap?

Now of course, with what I'm suggesting about a Cap linked to the "median" of League revenue, and linked only to 50%, that would be a significant reduction for the players. But again, the players have benefitted from the link.

For the owners, they should be arguing for linkage that links to the League revenue median. For that players, if they believe that the median is going to reduce their salary potential too much, they should then be fighting to keep the 57% if it has to be based on the median rather than the average.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:23 PM
  #154
Oshie97
Registered User
 
Oshie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,437
vCash: 500
Their pay has done nothing but sky rocket during times of recession in a league that is having financial trouble but you hear them whining about taking a pay cut. That will get no sympathy from me as I think a REAL 50/50 split is more than far for them. Add to it that they refused to talk to the NHL during last season when offered, not to hard to side with the owners if you look at it.

I know the owners spending and cap circumventing contracts is a big reason this league us in bad shape but I can stomach that more as they are doing it to be competitive, the players just want more money now. If the players were fighting for future players contracts or something like that I would be more tempted to support them but all they care about is making as much as they can now.

Oshie97 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:26 PM
  #155
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Thanks guys. But that does seem a fair bit confusing. Haven't the players benefitted greatly from having a "linked" Cap?
They most certainly have. Unless they believe the league is going to go down the drain, fighting hard for a delinked cap makes absolutely no rational sense.

Renbarg is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:28 PM
  #156
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
They most certainly have. Unless they believe the league is going to go down the drain, fighting hard for a delinked cap makes absolutely no rational sense.
And then there's this question: If there is no linkage, then what the hell would any % be based on, regardless if it's 57%, 50%, 47%, whatever?

Have to say though, that I'm not on the side of the players with this. Linkage is an excellent measuring stick. If the League is doing fine, revenue-wise, then all should benefit; if the League is struggling revenue-wise, then players salary increase potential should mirror that. I simply believe that, for the well-being of a greater number of teams, linkage should be to the revenue median, not the average.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:34 PM
  #157
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
As far as im concerned, the NHL is the best hockey league in the world, in terms of overall talent, revenues, fan support, etc.

My POV on the players is simple. Because the league is the best in the world and generates the most revenue, I expect the players to be treated better than any other league and get paid better than any other league. I think, whether youre pro-owner or pro-player, we all agree.

But heres where I draw my line. The EXTENT to which they are the best treated and highest paid, is to the sole discretion of the owners. As a fan who spends money on the NHL in various ways, I accept the fact that I am choosing to put that money into the hands of the owners, who then decides who gets what from my ''investment''. If he decides to only give 50% or 25% of every dollar i spend to the players, well as an owner, thats his prerogative.

The players always have choices. They CHOOSE to play in the NHL where the owners dictate the way things go. You cant really go into a league where are the leverage is in the owners hands and expect to have things go your way.

As I said earlier, as long as the nhl players are the best treated and highest paid, then i think theyre getting what they deserve. Whether that be 10%, 50% or 200% more salary than another hockey league like the khl, is simply the owners decision. Each and every hockey player whos in the NHL had the choice on whether or not they wanted to be there. And by making that choice, you accept the nature of how the business functions. If you dont like it, you go somewhere. If owners were only paying 10% of hrr, and you dont like it, you go somewhere else. Theres a reason the players go to the nhl, its because working and salary conditions are the best.

Just follow the money. All gate revenue, tv revenue, merchandise revenue is given to the OWNERS to allocate accordingly. Hence, they choose where and how much of it goes to who.

At 50/50, this seems to follow the market of other sports leagues. In fact, considering that then nhl makes less overall revenue and more importantly less TV revenue, it seems the players have it pretty good for being #4 out of the 4 major sports.

The players know full well that there is no league comparable to the NHL. They have no other options, except for a handful of players.

And by standing their ground, whether it be moral or whatever, with the cancellation of 25 games or so, theyve already lost more than the difference between the two latest offers. And its all about money. And no matter what offer is settled on, the players will still be the highest paid and the best treated hockey players in the world.

And the owners, those blood-sucking owners, CHOOSE to have it that way.
Your understanding of revenues seems the same as most players'. For instance, General Motors could record record revenues and still lose billions.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:37 PM
  #158
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
They most certainly have. Unless they believe the league is going to go down the drain, fighting hard for a delinked cap makes absolutely no rational sense.
Fehr's job is not to make sense or care about our favorite sport. His sole personal agenda seems to be the destruction of the NHL's current parity just so the players can get paid more regardless of the situation where rich teams would be guaranteed to make the playoffs year in and year out aka MLB.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:48 PM
  #159
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Your understanding of revenues seems the same as most players'. For instance, General Motors could record record revenues and still lose billions.
No, it seems you didnt understand the idea of my post.

My point is, it only logically makes sense that in this type of industry, (hockey leagues), revenues tend to dictate the salary. Whether or not proportions are the same from league to league

The idea is that in 2 hockey leagues, if ones revenues are 3x that of another league, yes, costs are higher, and so, player salaries are higher.

My argument has absolutely nothing to do with revenues vs profits, nor should it, as thats not my line of thinking.

Players in the NHL should be paid higher than other hockey leagues, BUT, the owners have the right and IMO, deserve to choose how much they want to pay those players out of HRR, whether it be 40% or 60%.

EdAVSfan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 03:58 PM
  #160
buggs
get off my lawn
 
buggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: flatlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,077
vCash: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devil Dancer View Post
So the players' attempts to drum up public support, however ineffective it may be, somehow makes the owners' bargaining position more appealing to you? That doesn't make sense.
I think the reality is that it makes the players themselves less palatable. It started out as billionaires vs. millionaires. Thanks to differing PR approaches it became billionaires vs. smug, uneducated millionaires with a distinct sense of entitlement.

That's not to say the owners aren't smug, potentially uneducated and have a similar sense of entitlement. Rather it means they or their handlers have been smart enough to lock them away where they can't do themselves any harm. If I saw a smarmy, fat owner sipping on $10,000 Scotch and lighting up a $2000 stogie while calling the players cattle it would be pretty darn off-putting and the players might receive more sympathy from me. But the owners have been intelligent, said nothing and let Daly and Bettman take the heat. The Fehr's have taken equal heat and I despise all of them quite frankly.

Most of the player comments simply elicit one of these from me though:

buggs is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:34 PM
  #161
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
They most certainly have. Unless they believe the league is going to go down the drain, fighting hard for a delinked cap makes absolutely no rational sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Ybygyod-jnc

I'll ask this question again:

Not disputing what you're saying, but I am confused. If the players want delinking, then when they say that they'll agree to the 50/50, that then would be 50/50 of what?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:40 PM
  #162
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Ybygyod-jnc

I'll ask this question again:

Not disputing what you're saying, but I am confused. If the players want delinking, then when they say that they'll agree to the 50/50, that then would be 50/50 of what?
They want guaranteed delinked increases in the player salary pool that would make the total paid to the players roughly 50% of HRR assuming that those revenues grow at the NHLPA-projected rate.

rojac is online now  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:42 PM
  #163
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
They want guaranteed delinked increases in the player salary pool that would make the total paid to the players roughly 50% of HRR assuming that those revenues grow at the NHLPA-projected rate.
If revenues grow less or flatline, the players would get much more.

If revenues grow more than expected, there are provisions to increase the player's share to 52-54%.

All the benefits, no drawbacks.

Iggy77 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:44 PM
  #164
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Ybygyod-jnc

I'll ask this question again:

Not disputing what you're saying, but I am confused. If the players want delinking, then when they say that they'll agree to the 50/50, that then would be 50/50 of what?
Do you even believe most of the players actually understand what has been going on? Agreeing on 50/50 is obviously fair but what Fehr didn't tell them is that he has offered to get to 50/50 years down the line in the event of a 5% annual growth and with Delinkage. The 3rd proposal of immediate 50/50 is even more ridiculous as it was on a single sheet without any concrete numbers.

Bunch of idiots those players are as 200 of them will mostly likely never play again in the NHL.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:47 PM
  #165
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Ybygyod-jnc

I'll ask this question again:

Not disputing what you're saying, but I am confused. If the players want delinking, then when they say that they'll agree to the 50/50, that then would be 50/50 of what?
50/50 based on projections of growth. They have run their numbers based on projections of 5% and 7%. If growth is different, then the HRR% will vary as well.

Some of Fehr's offers have some linked aspects to it but, on the whole, the core of their proposals are de-linked.


Last edited by Renbarg: 10-29-2012 at 04:58 PM.
Renbarg is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:49 PM
  #166
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
50/50 based on projections of growth. They have offered projections based on 5% and 7%. If growth is different, then the HRR% will vary as well.
Pro players guys seem to understand this but their type of common sense somehow escapes most HF fans judging be the polls here.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:51 PM
  #167
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,728
vCash: 500
The simple fact that Fehr offered that they'll accept the league's take on 50-50, even down the line, is a concession by the players. Even if it happens 3-5 years down the road, the players are dropping from 57% to 50% of HRR. I see the players making a concession here.

Do I see the owners willing to budge on anything in a concession to the players? No. What are they willing to give up? Nothing.

So to me, it's the owners who aren't negotiating. You can say all you want that the owners don't have to because they run the league. But until the owners concede something of value to the players, who are willing to drop 12% in revenue even over time, I blame the owners. I see this as the owners offering a take-it-or-leave-it deal to the players in which I'd tell them to shove it too. What kind of a negotiation is a negotiation without actual negotiating?

To the owners- negotiate in good faith, concede something, and let's get to playing.

Ginu is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:54 PM
  #168
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
The simple fact that Fehr offered that they'll accept the league's take on 50-50, even down the line, is a concession by the players. Even if it happens 3-5 years down the road, the players are dropping from 57% to 50% of HRR. I see the players making a concession here.

Do I see the owners willing to budge on anything in a concession to the players? No. What are they willing to give up? Nothing.

So to me, it's the owners who aren't negotiating. You can say all you want that the owners don't have to because they run the league. But until the owners concede something of value to the players, who are willing to drop 12% in revenue even over time, I blame the owners. I see this as the owners offering a take-it-or-leave-it deal to the players in which I'd tell them to shove it too. What kind of a negotiation is a negotiation without actual negotiating?

To the owners- negotiate in good faith, concede something, and let's get to playing.
Your statement is just as reasonable as Couture inventing random numbers like 25% salary reduction out there. That supposed concession would only be real under certain projections and conditions. Passionate HF fans don't like being lied to by Fehr and NHLPA. Otherwise, most HFers would still be on the players' side.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:54 PM
  #169
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
They want guaranteed delinked increases in the player salary pool that would make the total paid to the players roughly 50% of HRR assuming that those revenues grow at the NHLPA-projected rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
If revenues grow less or flatline, the players would get much more.

If revenues grow more than expected, there are provisions to increase the player's share to 52-54%.

All the benefits, no drawbacks.
Rather than debate blindly, I'm going to confess that none of that makes much sense to me.

You're saying delinked but still roughly equal to 50% HRR, but "roughly" means **** all. It's either linked or it's not linked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Do you even believe most of the players actually understand what has been going on? Agreeing on 50/50 is obviously fair but what Fehr didn't tell them is that he has offered to get to 50/50 years down the line in the event of a 5% annual growth and with Delinkage. The 3rd proposal of immediate 50/50 is even more ridiculous as it was on a single sheet without any concrete numbers.

Bunch of idiots those players are as 200 of them will mostly likely never play again in the NHL.
You haven't enlightened me any more with that. Sorry, I'm not criticizing, I'm just saying that it doesn't explain much other than to suggest that Fehr is doing one thing and telling the players another. My question would be: How the **** do you know that he's telling the players one thing and trying to swing something else by the owners? How do you know that?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:59 PM
  #170
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,346
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
No, it seems you didnt understand the idea of my post.

My point is, it only logically makes sense that in this type of industry, (hockey leagues), revenues tend to dictate the salary. Whether or not proportions are the same from league to league

The idea is that in 2 hockey leagues, if ones revenues are 3x that of another league, yes, costs are higher, and so, player salaries are higher.

My argument has absolutely nothing to do with revenues vs profits, nor should it, as thats not my line of thinking.

Players in the NHL should be paid higher than other hockey leagues, BUT, the owners have the right and IMO, deserve to choose how much they want to pay those players out of HRR, whether it be 40% or 60%.
I absolutely get what you say, and I agree. I think we all agree that the players should be well-paid. But how well paid? Does it irk me that these guys are millionaires in their mid-20's? Not really. That's the nature of pro-sports. But does it irk me that $2.25 million/year on average is not good enough? Especially when KHL pays far less, and television ratings are terrible? A bit. I joked in another thread that an average episode of Honey Boo Boo drew in as much as the Stanley Cup Finals last year....I wasn't really joking. (Boo Boo average 2.8m, 2012 SCF average 2.9)

In light of the salaries offered in other leagues, and how hockey is sort of the black sheep of the North American sports family...you might want to come down to earth a little and reassess your market worth a bit.

I mean Justin Bieber makes monster dollars. I'm not a fan at all...but I get that he's some kind of worldwide phenomena and commands ridiculous entertainment dollars,and he's high in demand and popularity. Thus he makes what he makes. NHL hockey...slowing getting traction, but the players are no Biebers, they're hardly Honey Boo Boos. $2.25m is fine.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 05:01 PM
  #171
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Rather than debate blindly, I'm going to confess that none of that makes much sense to me.

You're saying delinked but still roughly equal to 50% HRR, but "roughly" means **** all. It's either linked or it's not linked.



You haven't enlightened me any more with that. Sorry, I'm not criticizing, I'm just saying that it doesn't explain much other than to suggest that Fehr is doing one thing and telling the players another. My question would be: How the **** do you know that he's telling the players one thing and trying to swing something else by the owners? How do you know that?
I wasn't trying to argue about Fehr spinning things but to explain the stupidity of Fehr's conditional proposals.

When Fehr says that the players made huge concessions and agreed on 50/50, that is pure BS as it comes with quite a couple IFs that the players seemed to have never heard before.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 05:03 PM
  #172
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
Players negotiate, owners also happen to have far more connections in the media world so therefore they have massive amounts of leverage. Sheepish fans lap up the owners' strategy

LAX attack* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 05:09 PM
  #173
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
When Fehr says that the players made huge concessions and agreed on 50/50, that is pure BS as it comes with quite a couple IFs that the players seemed to have never heard before.
Sorry to be an annoyance, but again, how do you know that? What IFs? I thought we didn't have access to the exact details that Fehr presented to Bettman.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 05:10 PM
  #174
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 16,377
vCash: 500
Every time I see a player say "we just wanna play" it makes me want to kick a puppy.

If you "just wanna play" then you would have done everything you could have to play a full season.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 05:14 PM
  #175
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by porknbeans1000 View Post
Players negotiate, owners also happen to have far more connections in the media world so therefore they have massive amounts of leverage. Sheepish fans lap up the owners' strategy
Owners have more leverage overall.

However, players have more leverage within the media. For a few reasons:

1) Players have actual relationships with the media guys, the owners do not share the same type of relationship.
2) Media needs the players more than the owners. Although we have seen petty disputes between owners and media (Wang and Botta come to mind) lead to a blackball of some sorts. If a media member is deemed to be anti-player, players can easily blackball him.
3) Media in general leans pro-labor, pro-union.

I think its a difficult argument to make that the owners have been receiving the better press. Larry Brooks, Greg Wyshniski and countless others have essentially doubled as a PR wing for the PA.

Renbarg 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 02:41 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.