HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

And we are locked out again (No Progress ,, Talks collapse)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2012, 03:32 PM
  #876
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,332
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
I'm curious to find out Wirtz's exact position on this lockout.
You'll never get the truth from him but if we went off what he said, he's benefittnig since according to him, the Hawks were...haha....one of the...lol...teams...lol...losing money, ok, I got it out.

coldsteelonice84 is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 03:41 PM
  #877
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
You'll never get the truth from him but if we went off what he said, he's benefittnig since according to him, the Hawks were...haha....one of the...lol...teams...lol...losing money, ok, I got it out.
Hahaha. Unfortunately. I wonder what he actually thinks? For obvious reasons, he's not one of the hardliners.

The insistence of players and owners to meet for so long so consistently lately has me thinking they are either extremely intent on getting the season started in early December (i.e. a 48 game slate or so) or are just playing games with the fans like usual.

Chris Hansen is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 03:47 PM
  #878
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
limits to contract length (esp. when combined with changes with to the elc and ufa periods) make it difficult for players to cash in big time and also get big contracts early.
In regards to the 5 year limit, I agree with that comment and that's why I mentioned the PA "as a whole". Only a relatively small % of NHL contracts are 5 years or greater (only a few dozen). This is more an issue for agents of star players than even most of the players in my opinion, unless they are trying to mislead the kids on EL contracts to solidy the group for a protracted stoppage. DiPietro, Luongo, Gomez, Pronger (applies to summer overages lately), Savard, LeCavalier, etc. have done or are going to do very little for the overwhelming majority of the PA's members. A few players suck a huge chunk of money out of the pot and it does nothing for the game they (most players) claim to care so much about.

Here's part of the memo:
Quote:
As you know, these include - among other things - losing a year of salary arbitration eligibility, allowing the team to file for salary arbitration in any year that the player can file, extending UFA eligibility to age 28 or 8 seasons, limiting contracts to 5 years, and permitting only 5% year to year variability in player contracts. Individually each is bad for players; taken together they would significantly reduce a player's bargaining power and give the owner much more leverage over a player for most if not all of his career.
The highlighted part is what I take exception to. I agree the combination is a negative for the players but not all the individual items are a negative for the group, only portions of the group. Obviously a couple of the contractual restrictions are a negative for all, and that's a major reason why I don't understand why he included the parts about contract length and variability in the memo.

Throwing everything under an umbrella in a press release (I mean "leaked" internal memo) is cheap PR and it distorts the arguments and understanding for the public and unfortunately, probably a large group of players. It also puts the owners in the unfortunate position where they may be compelled to spew out more of their own b.s. for us to enjoy.

If the afternoon session doesn't conclude well I expect plenty of b.s. to read for the next two weeks. Hopefully players won't use the league run sites for their anti-owner rants after this break.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 03:50 PM
  #879
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
As a loyal NHL fan who thinks both sides are wrong, I can't help but think they are having these meetings so each side can say they tried and follow it up by pointing fingers and say the other side is at fault. How far off am I?

Cullksinikers is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 03:55 PM
  #880
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cullksinikers View Post
As a loyal NHL fan who thinks both sides are wrong, I can't help but think they are having these meetings so each side can say they tried and follow it up by pointing fingers and say the other side is at fault. How far off am I?
I'm not happy that I agree with you on this round of meetings.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 04:05 PM
  #881
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
Why should just other owners take a hit for this. It makes no sense to me. So the Coyotes are losing money but should pay Doan a huge sum of money and then the Maple Leafs should pay the Coyotes for losing money. So in the end the Maple Leafs pay Foans contract to play for another team and that seems "fair" to most people on here?

You can't bring up other leagues when it comes to revenue sharing because of how other leagues make money. The NHL relies on ticket sales to generate it's revenue for then any other sport. Baseball, Football and Basketball have huge TV contracts that cover most of their revenue, hell the NFL could close all it's stadiums and never sell 1 ticket and still make millions because of their TV contract so therefore lots more revenue sharing makes sense, since you not asking a few teams to carry the whole league. In the NHL where the TV contact isn't worth that much a much higher revenue share doesn't make as much sense because you'd be asking a few teams to carry the league. Why as the owner of the Maple Leafs would I give up half of my profit so other teams can succeed?

Again it's not a smart business model.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 04:14 PM
  #882
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
They are offering to transfer over 1.2 Billion dollars over a 5 year agreement.

How is that 'not doing anything to help them out'?

The 50/50 split is a minor thing now, they want contractual rights, which the league has completely ****ed them over on in their most recent proposal.
No they're not, yes if the old CBA where to somehow extend into forever then that would be the case but right now the players are making 0 so how can they give anything back?

That is the problem in a nutshell and I have said it for months. The players and Fehr are living in the past and keep acting as if 04 matters and what the old CBA was matters. IT DOESN'T! IT'S DEAD! MOVE ON! The old CBA doesn't exsist so quite trying to use it as a bargaining chip in how much your giving up, your making 0 so you can lose 0 SIMPLE!

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 04:48 PM
  #883
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Why should just other owners take a hit for this. It makes no sense to me. So the Coyotes are losing money but should pay Doan a huge sum of money and then the Maple Leafs should pay the Coyotes for losing money. So in the end the Maple Leafs pay Foans contract to play for another team and that seems "fair" to most people on here?

You can't bring up other leagues when it comes to revenue sharing because of how other leagues make money. The NHL relies on ticket sales to generate it's revenue for then any other sport. Baseball, Football and Basketball have huge TV contracts that cover most of their revenue, hell the NFL could close all it's stadiums and never sell 1 ticket and still make millions because of their TV contract so therefore lots more revenue sharing makes sense, since you not asking a few teams to carry the whole league. In the NHL where the TV contact isn't worth that much a much higher revenue share doesn't make as much sense because you'd be asking a few teams to carry the league. Why as the owner of the Maple Leafs would I give up half of my profit so other teams can succeed?

Again it's not a smart business model.
The players aren't suggesting they should currently get 57% of HRR. They know they have to take a reduced amount. The real question is how reduced and over what time should it be reduced.

You don't like revenue sharing but think all the players should make less because some teams are in trouble. Why should the Leafs pay Shane Doan's salary? Well, why should Phil Kessel get paid less by the Leafs because the Phoenix Coyotes have financial problems?

As far as "why should the Leafs give up profit so others can succeed"...I agree with you, they shouldn't. Let the teams have whatever payroll they want. If the Leafs want to blow $100 mill on salaries because they can afford to then let them go ahead...people in Toronto are deserving of watching an on ice product that's commensurate with the wealth of the team and the dedication of the fan base. Let the Coyotes have the payroll they can afford...and if all 10 of their fans don't like it they can go try to rally more support in the community.

However, the teams themselves have collectively decided they do not want that model - instead, they have insisted (and, indeed, lost an entire NHL season insisting) that there needs to be a salary cap/floor which is based on a split of HRR b/w the owners and the players...and now find themselves in trouble of it. Why should the players alone bear the financial burden of fixing an untenable system.

The idea solution is the luxury tax...but as coldsteel pointed out this toxic "everyone needs to get a chance to be a winner" attitude prevents it.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 04:51 PM
  #884
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
No they're not, yes if the old CBA where to somehow extend into forever then that would be the case but right now the players are making 0 so how can they give anything back?

That is the problem in a nutshell and I have said it for months. The players and Fehr are living in the past and keep acting as if 04 matters and what the old CBA was matters. IT DOESN'T! IT'S DEAD! MOVE ON! The old CBA doesn't exsist so quite trying to use it as a bargaining chip in how much your giving up, your making 0 so you can lose 0 SIMPLE!
Really? Isn't that what the owners are doing by assuming the same basic structure exists and just trying to move around numbers and contract lengths? They're certainly not suggesting that the economic structure of the NHL revert back to what existed prior to the CBA just b/c the CBA is at an end

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 05:00 PM
  #885
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,459
vCash: 500
I see Fehr is back to his PR games disguised as "memo to the players". I'm sick of it and I'm sure the owners are as well.

BobbyJet is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 05:24 PM
  #886
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
The players aren't suggesting they should currently get 57% of HRR. They know they have to take a reduced amount. The real question is how reduced and over what time should it be reduced.

You don't like revenue sharing but think all the players should make less because some teams are in trouble. Why should the Leafs pay Shane Doan's salary? Well, why should Phil Kessel get paid less by the Leafs because the Phoenix Coyotes have financial problems?

As far as "why should the Leafs give up profit so others can succeed"...I agree with you, they shouldn't. Let the teams have whatever payroll they want. If the Leafs want to blow $100 mill on salaries because they can afford to then let them go ahead...people in Toronto are deserving of watching an on ice product that's commensurate with the wealth of the team and the dedication of the fan base. Let the Coyotes have the payroll they can afford...and if all 10 of their fans don't like it they can go try to rally more support in the community.

However, the teams themselves have collectively decided they do not want that model - instead, they have insisted (and, indeed, lost an entire NHL season insisting) that there needs to be a salary cap/floor which is based on a split of HRR b/w the owners and the players...and now find themselves in trouble of it. Why should the players alone bear the financial burden of fixing an untenable system.

The idea solution is the luxury tax...but as coldsteel pointed out this toxic "everyone needs to get a chance to be a winner" attitude prevents it.
I'm fine with revenue sharing to a certain point, again you can't look at other leagues, and I think revenue sharing like the cap should be tied to the CBA. but there are people on here who think revenue sharing should be the only thing that happens. I think the players in the league should take just as much irresponsibility for the teams issues are other owners.

The players have known this would be happening for some time, it's why the owners wanted to negotiate years ago but the players refused and refused then hired a man who is famous for labor stoppages very late in the process. That to me screams that the players wanted this all along and are now refusing any kind of give way.

Their bargaining a pension plan. The average NHL player right now will make between 5-7 million dollars in his career, that is going based off lasts years avg salary and avg playing career. Why does someone who made more money in 2-3 years then more then 90% of people in this country will make in their entire lifetime need a pension?

The owners want a salary roll back now the players want to phase it in over 3 years? Why? I understand the current contracts should be paid out I don't have an issue with that but why the hurry for the $ now?

Sorry but the government is meeting to make sure the country doesn't fall over the "fiscal cliff" and the country go bankrupt meanwhile players are refusing to take a 7% roll back on an average salary of over $2 million a year?

I understand I have a biased opinion in this, seeing as my job involves an NHL team and I am still employed despite my employer not making any gains from me or this business meanwhile his other employess are making more a month then most of us in a year simply because of the escrow and most of them are still making other salaries around the world but I am only seeing one side of greed in this situation.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 05:26 PM
  #887
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 107,530
vCash: 400
Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib
#NHL #NHLPA talks have broken off for now, and not in a good state, I'm told. NHLPA having conf. call with Exec. Board/Neg Committee soon

Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib
Sources: #NHL perplexed #NHLPA did not inform players they are willing to go 50/50 and "Make Whole" every cent + interest by Year 3

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
Source from talks says no real progress today

Dan Tencer ‏@dantencer
Word is that Donald Fehr is more "agitator" than "negotiator" as far as the league is concerned right now.

Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA Bettman just spoke but declined to say anything about discussions. Said they are awaiting word on whether PA will return tonight

Its over people ,, I told you there was no reason to think there would be a season


Last edited by Blackhawkswincup: 11-09-2012 at 05:37 PM.
Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 05:44 PM
  #888
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
To continue my point.

The NHLPA doesn't want some of the contractual stipulations in the owners proposal but they see it as something happening to them, instead of seeing it as something that protects all the teams in the NHL. Some of the smaller market teams can't compete with the big market teams in terms of contract length and overall money so limiting contracts allows smaller market teams to be able to compete. Keep in mind that front and back loaded contracts are gone and one of the new things in the CBA will almost certainly be your cap hit is your pay that year period not the whole of the contract so those huge contracts are gone so limiting them helps teams, however it can also help players. Sure you won't get that 10 year deal but if your smart you'd realize that by limiting it can also benefit you. Say you sign a 13 year deal like Parise based on that years HRR, well say in 5 years the HRR went up 20% over that time, now your making much less then similar players, now you can get another contract based on a higher HRR then before.

Same thing with when a player becomes a FA, it's to help smaller teams keep top talent they draft and not become feeder systems for the bigger clubs.

I know the players don't like these but instead of outright rejecting them as they have maybe they should offer counter proposals and other ideas instead of just saying no to these offers. Again these issues aren't just for attacking the players they are to help the league and more importantly the smaller clubs but the players are looking at it simply from their perspective and for themselves only and taking it personally instead of seeing the bigger picture.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 06:04 PM
  #889
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,459
vCash: 500
/\ ... not to mention they're oblivious to what they are doing to the sport. They may get a real shocker to see how empty NHL rinks will be when they return and the damage gets worse by the day.

BobbyJet is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 06:14 PM
  #890
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 107,530
vCash: 400


Fehr wants 100% of 2012-13 salaries even in shortened season.

Yeah that was never happening the owners already lost games and are going to lose more ,, NHLPA showing again they aren't even attempting to come to agreement with NHL

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 06:26 PM
  #891
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post


Fehr wants 100% of 2012-13 salaries even in shortened season.

Yeah that was never happening the owners already lost games and are going to lose more ,, NHLPA showing again they aren't even attempting to come to agreement with NHL
you need to get a grip. you're starting to worry me.

the change to the thread title was a little unexpected.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 06:30 PM
  #892
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
/\ ... not to mention they're oblivious to what they are doing to the sport. They may get a real shocker to see how empty NHL rinks will be when they return and the damage gets worse by the day.
No they are clueless and it was one of my first points.

The PA would have been better off taking a slightly worse deal with no lockout and therefore no lose in HRR then getting a slightly higher % after a lockout and losing lots of HRR.

It's clear they aren't thinking smartly, they waited until the last possible moment to negotiate, they hired someone who is famous for work stoppages that accomplish nothing, and they are now bargining as if the past CBA is in effect, as if the 04 lockout matters and as if the country is in secure and booming economic times.

In the NBA I saw players fire their union head and get a deal done because they clearly saw that is was better for them to make their own deal and not have some middle man make one of them and that a sooner deal was better then a later deal. Who would have ever thought NBA players much smarter then NHL players.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 06:30 PM
  #893
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 107,530
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
you need to get a grip. you're starting to worry me.

the change to the thread title was a little unexpected.
Stating the NHLPA's misguided beliefs is losing it?

I said this year was dead the moment Fehr was hired and it will be worse once this season is officially cancelled in a couple months

Fehr and NHLPA refusing NHL calls to begin CBA talks last year were sign of the coming storm

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 06:32 PM
  #894
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Stating the NHLPA's misguided beliefs is losing it?

I said this year was dead the moment Fehr was hired and it will be worse once this season is officially cancelled in a couple months

Fehr and NHLPA refusing NHL calls to begin CBA talks last year were sign of the coming storm
what will you do if there's a season this year. will you admit you were wrong all along?

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 06:34 PM
  #895
sketch22
Registered User
 
sketch22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
I'm fine with revenue sharing to a certain point, again you can't look at other leagues, and I think revenue sharing like the cap should be tied to the CBA. but there are people on here who think revenue sharing should be the only thing that happens.
The Owner's proposal has the players making more than $200 million less than least year, but they are only sharing $50 million more than last year. Until those numbers start getting closer together revenue sharing will be the single biggest problem in the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
I think the players in the league should take just as much irresponsibility for the teams issues are other owners.
Why? The players didn't decide to take teams from stable hockey markets in Canada and move them to horrible markets in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
The players have known this would be happening for some time, it's why the owners wanted to negotiate years ago but the players refused and refused then hired a man who is famous for labor stoppages very late in the process. That to me screams that the players wanted this all along and are now refusing any kind of give way.
This negotiation could have started 2 years ago and we would still be in this same exact spot right now. Because neither side was ever going to make any type of substantial concession until both sides started losing money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Their bargaining a pension plan. The average NHL player right now will make between 5-7 million dollars in his career, that is going based off lasts years avg salary and avg playing career. Why does someone who made more money in 2-3 years then more then 90% of people in this country will make in their entire lifetime need a pension?
That entire paragraph just reeks of jealousy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
The owners want a salary roll back now the players want to phase it in over 3 years? Why? I understand the current contracts should be paid out I don't have an issue with that but why the hurry for the $ now?
Inflation, investment, and risk. Three years from now the money they make will be worth relatively less than it is today. Three years from now the players would have lost out on the ability to use that money in the interim. Why should the players let the Owners (who as a group MADE money from the league last year) differ payments to a later date?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Sorry but the government is meeting to make sure the country doesn't fall over the "fiscal cliff" and the country go bankrupt meanwhile players are refusing to take a 7% roll back on an average salary of over $2 million a year?
Because one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. You just sound jealous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
I understand I have a biased opinion in this, seeing as my job involves an NHL team and I am still employed despite my employer not making any gains from me or this business meanwhile his other employess are making more a month then most of us in a year simply because of the escrow and most of them are still making other salaries around the world but I am only seeing one side of greed in this situation.
Yet again you just sound very jealous and petty.

sketch22 is online now  
Old
11-09-2012, 06:36 PM
  #896
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 107,530
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
what will you do if there's a season this year. will you admit you were wrong all along?
Oh gladly ,, Sadly it wont be happening

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 06:54 PM
  #897
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 107,530
vCash: 400
Quote:
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Told that PA proposed that players get last year's share plus 5 pct this yr regardless of schedule length/actual revenue...

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Last year's share was 1.883B...plus 5 pct would be $1.977B...would likely eat 65-67 pct of revenue in 66-68 game season....
Brooks is very pro-player so on one can accuse him of being an Owner mouthpiece

Absolutely ridiculous demand by players

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 07:01 PM
  #898
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 107,530
vCash: 400
Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
NHL is very frustrated by Fehr...they are going after him. The gloves are off now.

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 07:09 PM
  #899
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch22 View Post
The Owner's proposal has the players making more than $200 million less than least year, but they are only sharing $50 million more than last year. Until those numbers start getting closer together revenue sharing will be the single biggest problem in the league.



Why? The players didn't decide to take teams from stable hockey markets in Canada and move them to horrible markets in the US.



This negotiation could have started 2 years ago and we would still be in this same exact spot right now. Because neither side was ever going to make any type of substantial concession until both sides started losing money.



That entire paragraph just reeks of jealousy.



Inflation, investment, and risk. Three years from now the money they make will be worth relatively less than it is today. Three years from now the players would have lost out on the ability to use that money in the interim. Why should the players let the Owners (who as a group MADE money from the league last year) differ payments to a later date?



Because one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. You just sound jealous.



Yet again you just sound very jealous and petty.
I am not jealous of anyone and if you think I points are from jealousy then you clearly aren't understanding anything I am writing.

So what that revenue sharing isn't going down the same as the players are losing, again other owners shouldn't pay for all other franchises. Plus if you averaged out what the players would be making over the terms of the deal and what revenue sharing would be it would be players lose 1.3 billion and owners share 1.5 billion.

But again it's a useless point, so players who are making 57% of the leagues revenue and are giving 0% back to the league now what some of the owners to take their 43% and spent on other teams? What business model does that work in? Your living in some fantasy world if you think that's a fair business model and it makes sense. Seriously you can't ask the owners of the most successful teams to foot the bill for all the other teams because quickly they won't be making any profits because all their money will be going to other teams, but that's fair to you?

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 07:12 PM
  #900
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
This from LeBrun
Quote:
Both sides still far apart on player contracts issues. NHL still wants same changes. NHLPA says no way; feels 50-50 HRR is a huge concession
Tells me everything, the fact that the players thinking 50-50 is a huge concession is a joke.

50-50 is the starting point and you negotiate off that, look around the world 50-50 is on par with the NBA and still higher then what the NFL and MLB and any other league makes but the NHLPA thinks it's a huge concession.

Sir Psycho T 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 06:00 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.