HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Lockout discussion thread 2.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-02-2012, 02:26 PM
  #176
Lebowski
Registered User
 
Lebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Born in 1909 View Post
Fehr just has to accept that the NHL won't budge this time.

The players will break rank by Christmas...
"This time" ? Your talking as if they budged last time!

The NHL and the PA are currently on even footing. They BOTH realize it's for the good of the league to get to 50/50 revenue sharing, even though it's still, as always, the players' turn to give in.

What the players want is a certain guarantee on their contracts. And I believe they have all rights to do so and am actually cheering for them to go all the way down the road until they get what they are owed. The owners decided to give them x amount of money and gave a contract to the player, but the contract does not equate responsibilities only for the player. It's basically the owner saying that he agrees to give him, for example, 100M$ over the next 10 years. The funny thing is that now, the owners say the contracts are out of hand. Well that's too bad, but it's partly your fault if the contracts are out of hand. The PA is right when they say the owners don't negotiate in good faith. They made their little PR stunt, making the fans believe they could actually save the whole season and such while in fact, they knew the players would never cave in. It was just about putting the fans and the medias on their side, and they apparently succeeded. Gary Bettman is a smart man.

My solution to the lockout would be simple. Bring the revenue sharing at 50/50. Lower the cap-hit of every contracts accordingly, BUT, pay the full salary you owe to the players until the contract is over.

That way, players are happy and they rightfully keep the money they've been promised, while the owners finally have their 50/50 revenue share.

Lebowski is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 03:10 PM
  #177
Capitano
Registered User
 
Capitano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I wish it would happen, but I think they will last a full year. If the players DO last until the summer, I will hope and pray for replacement players. Once we get replacement players, we will see a lot of guys walk away from the union and come back to the best paying league in the world.
Well this is a lockout...so we'll have to see the Union break before we see replacement players. But either way, if some players decide that they have had enough of the NHL owners, then that is their right.

There will always be players ready to play in the NHL. And that is good enough for me. Whether it is considered the 'best in the world' I personally don't even care about. I just care that the habs win the Stanley Cup - been too long since the last one.

In reality the players will run out of money before the owners do...best case scenario for the players is that the league loses some teams as a result of this lockout and the players still lose partially because jobs will be lost. The fans win in that scenario because we lose some dead weight.

But in the end all I care about is watching the habs...and seeing players that care about the CH jersey when I cheer them from the comfort of my living room. The players have a right to stand up for themselves if they want, but I don't see how a battle can be won by the players...and I would be very surprised if the union survives this time.

And in my opinion the longer the lockout lasts, the worse it is for the players...they will age...lose skills, etc. and then they will be replaced by better younger players. There are always players to play. Look at the NFL...they play without guaranteed contracts.

Capitano is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 03:11 PM
  #178
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,452
vCash: 500
I'm hoping for a cancelled season. I want a shot at the top two picks. ;>

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 03:14 PM
  #179
goalchenyuk
Registered User
 
goalchenyuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: montreal
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 8,365
vCash: 500
http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/...hardliner.html

" The commish has three groups of owners: the ones who want to play; the ones in the middle, including Tampa and Nashville, who want a better collective bargaining agreement but recognize not playing is worse; and the hardliners. It would be a mistake to underestimate the last group. There are several who would rather cancel the season than accept a bad deal because they are hemorrhaging money and need immediate satisfaction.
While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas -- enough to block any agreement from getting done (It's tough to lock it down because owners are forbidden to discuss this stuff. Attempts to talk to a couple were politely shot down). "

goalchenyuk is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 03:16 PM
  #180
domdo345
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyzombies View Post
I'm hoping for a cancelled season. I want a shot at the top two picks. ;>
We have less chances than if there's a season...


IM sooo fed up of seeing on Twitter: Don ferh; it's so unfortunate blah blah...not necessary... bla blah...they forced the lockout. Stop the ****ing PR war you Pinocchio ugly face. The lockout is their only leverage in the negotiations. I swear it's the first time I hate someone as much as I do right now without knowing him since Chara hit patches.

domdo345 is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 03:31 PM
  #181
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix60 View Post
"This time" ? Your talking as if they budged last time!

The NHL and the PA are currently on even footing. They BOTH realize it's for the good of the league to get to 50/50 revenue sharing, even though it's still, as always, the players' turn to give in.

What the players want is a certain guarantee on their contracts. And I believe they have all rights to do so and am actually cheering for them to go all the way down the road until they get what they are owed. The owners decided to give them x amount of money and gave a contract to the player, but the contract does not equate responsibilities only for the player. It's basically the owner saying that he agrees to give him, for example, 100M$ over the next 10 years. The funny thing is that now, the owners say the contracts are out of hand. Well that's too bad, but it's partly your fault if the contracts are out of hand. The PA is right when they say the owners don't negotiate in good faith. They made their little PR stunt, making the fans believe they could actually save the whole season and such while in fact, they knew the players would never cave in. It was just about putting the fans and the medias on their side, and they apparently succeeded. Gary Bettman is a smart man.

My solution to the lockout would be simple. Bring the revenue sharing at 50/50. Lower the cap-hit of every contracts accordingly, BUT, pay the full salary you owe to the players until the contract is over.

That way, players are happy and they rightfully keep the money they've been promised, while the owners finally have their 50/50 revenue share (would be close if revenues go up, but still not enough.
.
Don't you see the huge contradiction in this? Players are already on contract for 1,88 billion$... how can they make 50% of 3,3 billion in total revenues and get 1,88 billion which is about 57%????????

The solution would rather be, as revenues should still go up if they do play this year, to downgrade the % through many years like players proposed. The owners get the 50%, but after a few years.

Ozymandias is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 03:56 PM
  #182
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Don't you see the huge contradiction in this? Players are already on contract for 1,88 billion$... how can they make 50% of 3,3 billion in total revenues and get 1,88 billion which is about 57%????????

The solution would rather be, as revenues should still go up if they do play this year, to downgrade the % through many years like players proposed. The owners get the 50%, but after a few years.
That's not all they want. They want a cap on second contracts, they want entry level contracts extended to five years, they want UFA raised. Etc.

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 04:52 PM
  #183
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100th View Post
http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/...hardliner.html

" The commish has three groups of owners: the ones who want to play; the ones in the middle, including Tampa and Nashville, who want a better collective bargaining agreement but recognize not playing is worse; and the hardliners. It would be a mistake to underestimate the last group. There are several who would rather cancel the season than accept a bad deal because they are hemorrhaging money and need immediate satisfaction.
While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas -- enough to block any agreement from getting done (It's tough to lock it down because owners are forbidden to discuss this stuff. Attempts to talk to a couple were politely shot down). "
Which is my main problem "siding" with the owners/blaming the PA. The ones who want more revenue now, generate almost no revenue.

It's no doubt in my mind, that majority of owners would welcome a gradual increase of their share over certain period of time, but that won't work for teams that need $ this season/next season before they go bye bye and become insolvent.
That group of owners who don't create any revenue, is mostly due, of course, to Bettman and the league guaranteeing future revenues the the owners who decided to invest in non existent hockey markets. So it's only natural Bettman is fighting so hard for them, if not, would basically mean Bettman failed at speculating future markets and cost these owners millions of dollars, on top of the millions they have already lost over the years, waiting for that "market" to come to fruit.

uiCk is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 05:53 PM
  #184
domdo345
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,105
vCash: 500
owners will to absorb a part of the make-whole on their last offer. Thats the point players were reticent about. Suddenly feel optimist!

domdo345 is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 06:14 PM
  #185
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,657
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by domdo345 View Post
owners will to absorb a part of the make-whole on their last offer. Thats the point players were reticent about. Suddenly feel optimist!
The league just cancelled the Winter Classic. No way they salvage the season at this point.

WeThreeKings is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 06:15 PM
  #186
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix60 View Post
"This time" ? Your talking as if they budged last time!

The NHL and the PA are currently on even footing. They BOTH realize it's for the good of the league to get to 50/50 revenue sharing, even though it's still, as always, the players' turn to give in.

What the players want is a certain guarantee on their contracts. And I believe they have all rights to do so and am actually cheering for them to go all the way down the road until they get what they are owed. The owners decided to give them x amount of money and gave a contract to the player, but the contract does not equate responsibilities only for the player. It's basically the owner saying that he agrees to give him, for example, 100M$ over the next 10 years. The funny thing is that now, the owners say the contracts are out of hand. Well that's too bad, but it's partly your fault if the contracts are out of hand. The PA is right when they say the owners don't negotiate in good faith. They made their little PR stunt, making the fans believe they could actually save the whole season and such while in fact, they knew the players would never cave in. It was just about putting the fans and the medias on their side, and they apparently succeeded. Gary Bettman is a smart man.

My solution to the lockout would be simple. Bring the revenue sharing at 50/50. Lower the cap-hit of every contracts accordingly, BUT, pay the full salary you owe to the players until the contract is over.

That way, players are happy and they rightfully keep the money they've been promised, while the owners finally have their 50/50 revenue share.

Some owners gave huge contracts, but we don't know what the position of those owners is. Maybe they're not the ones that want the lockout. Maybe they'd be perfectly fine moving forward with the exact same CBA.

But it doesn't even matter. Salary reduction sucks, big time, but as previously mentioned, can Kovalchuk live with 7M instead of 11M? What are we discussing here really, I mean, come on...
Are the players still going to make millions and millions of dollars? Yup.
Do they still get to live out their dreams? Yup.
Do they still get to play in the most elite hockey league in the world? Yup.
Do they still have guaranteed contracts? Yup.

The agents and capologists found loopholes around the previous cap. They made ridiculous offers possible to owners, once one owner decided to go with it, others didn't have a choice but to follow the trend.
It's not like they could impose a rule right after to ban those contracts, they had to wait for the renewal of the CBA, which is now. But before then, owners played the game.
Players were dumb if they did not foresee the rollback as very high possibility.
Suck it up, you got away with some, now the league is trying to fix that problem. Let it be.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 06:18 PM
  #187
HabsRealist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 102
vCash: 500
FACT : 95 - 100 % of the owners will be around in 4 years.

FACT : 2/3 of the NHL players wont be around in 4 years.


This is a negotiation the players cannot win. They lost last time, are losing now. They will come back and take close to what the NHl is offering prior to Jan 15.

Again, both owners and players have agreed on the main principle 50/50 is the deal.
All other issues are resolvable.

HabsRealist is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 06:51 PM
  #188
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,452
vCash: 500
The way it looks to me, there are two deadlocks right now:

1. Weak teams vs. $$$ players re rollbacks and 50-50/entry level contracts/2nd contracts/UFA age
2. Weak teams vs. Stable teams re revenue sharing

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 07:36 PM
  #189
PunkinDrublic*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sutton,Qc-Sudbury,On
Posts: 8,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
The league just cancelled the Winter Classic. No way they salvage the season at this point.
Haha dont kid yourself or others...that can all be turned around.

PunkinDrublic* is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:50 PM
  #190
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,218
vCash: 500
Right now Subban is a RFA and we cannot sign him to a new contract until the lockout ends so if it lasts all year will he be a UFA after this? Holy **** why isn't Molson pushing hard to get us playing hockey again? If we lose Subban for nothing Molson should get hung by his nuts. Why didn't Bergevin sign him up before the lockout hit?

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 10:03 PM
  #191
Aurel Joliat
Registered User
 
Aurel Joliat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,609
vCash: 500
Hockey players (NHLPA) are so stupid. They don't want to loose an average of 100K/player/year (considering the average salary is 2,3M$), but they go play in Europe for free or almost...

Aurel Joliat is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 10:37 PM
  #192
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
First off, you have no idea what their lifetime earnings are. All you know is their salary and cap hit. How much money they make from endorsements and investments is unknown to any of us.
People that are signed for 5 years are the ones losing 20% of the value of their contract. A guy like Gomez isn't losing close to 20% of it.
Actually, if there's a lockout every five years, the average player will certainly lose 20% of his lifetime earnings.

I realize that the ratio will be lower or higher for many players, and that 20% is just an average, and that there's a correction because the average length of a career might change and you might have more players with shorter careers. Thank you for your pedantry ...

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 10:45 PM
  #193
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurel Joliat View Post
Hockey players (NHLPA) are so stupid. They don't want to loose an average of 100K/player/year (considering the average salary is 2,3M$), but they go play in Europe for free or almost...
If the players folded at will whenever the owners want, the player share would rapidly assymptote to floor-level, i.e. the average NHL salary would be a little higher than the average European salary.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 10:46 PM
  #194
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Right now Subban is a RFA and we cannot sign him to a new contract until the lockout ends so if it lasts all year will he be a UFA after this? Holy **** why isn't Molson pushing hard to get us playing hockey again? If we lose Subban for nothing Molson should get hung by his nuts. Why didn't Bergevin sign him up before the lockout hit?
Could we really lose Subban?

With that said, though we can't know for sure, I'd be shocked if Geoff Molson was one of the hardline owners.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-02-2012 at 10:53 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 10:47 PM
  #195
Tusk
Registered User
 
Tusk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 3,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Right now Subban is a RFA and we cannot sign him to a new contract until the lockout ends so if it lasts all year will he be a UFA after this? Holy **** why isn't Molson pushing hard to get us playing hockey again? If we lose Subban for nothing Molson should get hung by his nuts. Why didn't Bergevin sign him up before the lockout hit?
No, he won't be one. He started pro at 20, not 18, and I'm saying that based on not knowing how old he is off the top of my head. Relax about that one my friend.

edit: will be 24 in May.

Tusk is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 11:01 PM
  #196
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,657
vCash: 500
At least the NHL is trying: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408711

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 11:05 PM
  #197
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
At least the NHL is trying: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408711
Smoke and mirrors. They still have a shift to 57% happen immediately.

The only way for current contracts to be honoured and to have a shift from 57% to 50% in year one is to transfer money from future contracts to current contracts.

As long as the shift to 50% happens immediately, it's still the players paying.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 11:20 PM
  #198
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Smoke and mirrors. They still have a shift to 57% happen immediately.

The only way for current contracts to be honoured and to have a shift from 57% to 50% in year one is to transfer money from future contracts to current contracts.

As long as the shift to 50% happens immediately, it's still the players paying.
Paying a couple of hundreds of millions directly to the players is not considered a concession?

At least the NHL has offered to soften the blow to the players this year. Guys with long term contracts are barely affected either way so the sooner Fehr drops delinkage the more likely he'll still have a job after this mess.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 11:22 PM
  #199
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Paying a couple of hundreds of millions directly to the players is not considered a concession?

At least the NHL has offered to soften the blow to the players this year. Guys with long term contracts are barely affected either way so the sooner Fehr drops delinkage the more likely he'll still have a job after this mess.
A couple hundred million... 200 million dollars, you mean the players will get 55.2% rather than 50%?

They won't, not in this offer, the players still get 50/50, which means current contracts are hard to deal with.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 11:25 PM
  #200
Lebowski
Registered User
 
Lebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Don't you see the huge contradiction in this? Players are already on contract for 1,88 billion$... how can they make 50% of 3,3 billion in total revenues and get 1,88 billion which is about 57%????????

The solution would rather be, as revenues should still go up if they do play this year, to downgrade the % through many years like players proposed. The owners get the 50%, but after a few years.
I don't think it's a contradiction. I'd rather call it assuming it's choices [the owners]. They wouldn't register that much more revenue the first year, I know that, but as the cap rises up and as the pre-lockout contracts expire, they will get more revenues. One thing is for sure, the player have all rights to ask for their full salary, no matter what. It's a contract that the owner has to respect as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Some owners gave huge contracts, but we don't know what the position of those owners is. Maybe they're not the ones that want the lockout. Maybe they'd be perfectly fine moving forward with the exact same CBA.

But it doesn't even matter. Salary reduction sucks, big time, but as previously mentioned, can Kovalchuk live with 7M instead of 11M? What are we discussing here really, I mean, come on...
Are the players still going to make millions and millions of dollars? Yup.
Do they still get to live out their dreams? Yup.
Do they still get to play in the most elite hockey league in the world? Yup.
Do they still have guaranteed contracts? Yup.

The agents and capologists found loopholes around the previous cap. They made ridiculous offers possible to owners, once one owner decided to go with it, others didn't have a choice but to follow the trend.
It's not like they could impose a rule right after to ban those contracts, they had to wait for the renewal of the CBA, which is now. But before then, owners played the game.
Players were dumb if they did not foresee the rollback as very high possibility.
Suck it up, you got away with some, now the league is trying to fix that problem. Let it be.
You're not looking it the right way, in my opinion. Take aside the amount of money off the equation for a second and ask yourself, does that feel right? Does it feel right that a guy like Craig Leopold spends over 200 millions within a week, but then tells you: "Yeah well, these contracts are getting out of hand and I won't pay you the amount of money we discussed in the contract. Instead of 200 millions, I'll give you 150 millions. Suck it up, you're still rich anyway!"

The players have a legitimate case and have all rights to demand what they are owed. Once again, they caved in, saying they were willing to go down to 50% revenue sharing. All they need is the owners to fulfill their part of the agreements relatively to the contracts. And I won't even start on how it's basically Bettman's and the owner's fault if the league is in such a delicate posture financially.

Lebowski 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 01:25 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.