HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VI: The "What Comes Before Square One?" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 08:11 AM
  #701
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
In what world are the economic issues solved? Both sides agree that there needs to be a 50/50 split, but they cant decide when - and the make-whole issue is hundreds of millions of dollars apart.
RangerBoy's latest post doesn't sound like that.

jniklast is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:13 AM
  #702
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,865
vCash: 500
MLB is the only other league besides the NHL with salary arbitration. Its takes 6 years to be a free agent in MLB. 3 non arb years. The NHL is the most restrictive sport and the NHL wants to make it more tighter. The NHL sees at least 4 non arb years for most of the players. The NHL sees players become arb eligible in 4 years for players signing their ELC between 18-20 such as DZ. Many of the players sign between 18-20. 21 year olds are arb eligible after 3 years such as McDonagh. The NHL needs contract term restrictions. The 5% cap on increases and decreases serves as the same thing as a 5 year or 7 year term limit. No more 50% drops. If a team wants to sign a player to a 10 year contract with the 5% rule,let them. There won't be $12M in annual salaries in the 1st 2 years and a $6M drop is allowable later on the SPC. Going from $7M to $1M shouldn't be not allowed anymore. The dummy years at the end of the SPC lower the cap hit. Contracts are insured for 7 years. Buyer beware for that team. According to some reports,the players wouldn't mind the 5% because they lost more money in escrow with $12M salaries in the first and second years.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:17 AM
  #703
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
I am just curious. Why is it a concession to have the owners pay the contracts that they rushed out and signed?
Did I say it was a concession? The league wanted 50:50 and pretty much everybody expected the final deal to be. And with the make whole provision paid for by the league, the owners will pay all the contracts. And that's pretty much all that the players can expect from the new deal on the economical side (plus they get heavily increased revenue sharing, which they asked for).

Even though 50:50 is pretty much standard by now in other sports, overall that new split undoubtley is rather a concession by the players. Hence why I said, that the league shouldn't expect any more on the contracts issues.

jniklast is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:50 AM
  #704
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Not surprising, and IMO probably means the "outrageous" demands we've heard from the NHLPA have been more like "look Gary, we agree on a lot of the economic stuff, but if you expect us to accept these contract rules as is, then our stance on the economic stuff is going to change to this", not that the NHLPA just wildly decided to ask for the moon when they were close on economic stuff

Each part doesn't happen in a vacuum...it's all related, and the NHLPA wants a gain on the owners side to be offset by a gain somewhere else by the players

edit: it's also pretty funny that if you took some kind of poll before the lockout started, most people would have probably been saying that a split more like 52 or 53% for the players would have been fair and should get the job done. Now suddenly 50-50 is fair and the players are lucky to even be getting that because they should be grateful to be playing hockey. Just goes to show how little people care about fair bargaining when it impacts their hobbies, and to a larger extent, how much this country doesn't give a **** about things like unions and workers rights
I agree with the sentiment of your post but I can't for the life of me get why the NHLPA feels that their players should be making a higher percentage of revenue than the other big 3 sports when hockey is AT BEST #4 in popularity and revenue generating.

It's time for the league an the players who play in that league to start acting like a real league in a real sport. Part of that will mean solvent franchises and spending appropriate % of revenue on costs... Like labor. It's going to have to happen if they want to stay in the discussion of "who's #4?"

Riche16 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:53 AM
  #705
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Maybe I am way off base here, but if they are "close" on the 50/50 thing, does it make much difference from a player perspective what the contract lengths are?

We are really just talking about how the dollars get allocated.
So if a UFA can only sign a 5 year contract instead of 10, that means on the back end some other player will be earning money.

i.e. if the Rangers had only been able to sign richards to a 5 year deal, somebody else would earn more money when that deal expired that would not have otherwise.

Don't get me worng, I think the 5% rule would solve most of the owners issues, but from a player perspective, we know the owners are going to hand out the contracts regardless of the system, so do all these issues have a huge impact?

Maybe I am oversimplifying.

Cliffy1814 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:01 AM
  #706
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy1814 View Post
Maybe I am way off base here, but if they are "close" on the 50/50 thing, does it make much difference from a player perspective what the contract lengths are?

We are really just talking about how the dollars get allocated.
So if a UFA can only sign a 5 year contract instead of 10, that means on the back end some other player will be earning money.

i.e. if the Rangers had only been able to sign richards to a 5 year deal, somebody else would earn more money when that deal expired that would not have otherwise.

Don't get me worng, I think the 5% rule would solve most of the owners issues, but from a player perspective, we know the owners are going to hand out the contracts regardless of the system, so do all these issues have a huge impact?

Maybe I am oversimplifying.


^ Not only that................ but you think the non-star players would revolt. Only the Sidney Crosbys, Brad Richards, and Ilya Bryzgalovs get the really really long deals. What are they, like 2% of the league?

The vast majority of players get much shorter deals. If I was Mike Rupp I'd be pissed the Union is drawing a line in the sand to protect the top 2% of player earners and not the low-end guy who actually IS gonna have to get a job after he retires from hockey.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:05 AM
  #707
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
I agree with the sentiment of your post but I can't for the life of me get why the NHLPA feels that their players should be making a higher percentage of revenue than the other big 3 sports when hockey is AT BEST #4 in popularity and revenue generating.
For one, the revenue they're splitting isn't 100% of all the revenue that the NHL brings in. What's included is specified and may exclude other sources of revenue. Other leagues also do this and how they define revenue may differ from the NHL, so comparing leagues one-to-one is a bit hard to do. It's not an exact comparison.

Also, there's nothing to say that other PA's aren't getting ripped off and did a poor job bargaining for their split.

Quote:
It's time for the league an the players who play in that league to start acting like a real league in a real sport. Part of that will mean solvent franchises and spending appropriate % of revenue on costs... Like labor. It's going to have to happen if they want to stay in the discussion of "who's #4?"
The NHL will never be completely healthy if it relies on % of revenue split to be the key factor. Some teams just cannot make enough money for one reason or another and constantly lowering the % probably isn't going to fix that. You'd have to go so low that you'd lose a LOT of talent to other leagues at that point.

The disparity between the top revenue producing teams in the league and the bottom producing teams is way too big for a simple fix like revenue split to make everything peachy, but it's the easiest thing for the league to push for and keeps it as an "us against them" type of debate rather than the owners having to fight among themselves to figure out a healthy system.


edit: I'm also not really arguing at this point that the NHLPA deserves a higher percentage. It seems like they've more or less accepted that they will be getting around 50-50 when things shake out, I'm just partly noting how our perceptions have changed and I think there were a lot more people around here who thought that 52 to 54% for the players would have been fine before the lockout actually started and people started jonesing for some hockey


Last edited by Levitate: 11-12-2012 at 09:13 AM.
Levitate is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:22 AM
  #708
ltrangerfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 940
vCash: 500
I keep reading about "fairness". It's a theme that has spread throughout the land.

I hate that word. Who is the judge of what's fair or not? Those in the majority dictating to the minority? I guess?

If left to me I believe the business owners deserve 60 percent of the revenues. That's fair. I would like to see the owners control their spending on salaries so their costs will be put back under control and we wouldn't be seeing these lockouts. If the owners were truly successful in paying the players based on true costs of running teams (rather than egotistical desires to win) we probably would be seeing player strikes right now and screams from the PA that the owners aren't paying fair salaries. We would be seeing lawsuits against the owners for collusion.

The problem.. is who am I to decide what's fair? I believe that's between two warring parties.

ltrangerfan is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:27 AM
  #709
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
^ Not only that................ but you think the non-star players would revolt. Only the Sidney Crosbys, Brad Richards, and Ilya Bryzgalovs get the really really long deals. What are they, like 2% of the league?

The vast majority of players get much shorter deals. If I was Mike Rupp I'd be pissed the Union is drawing a line in the sand to protect the top 2% of player earners and not the low-end guy who actually IS gonna have to get a job after he retires from hockey.
I agree.
Shorter contract lengths would help guys like Mike Rupp who would only earn 2-3 year contracts anyway.
To your point, more Mike rupp's in the league than guys capable of signing a 10 year deal.
The whole conept of 50/50 split linked to revenue is the players will get paid their share. All the issues around contracting really impact competitive balance and the manner in which teams put together their roster and manage the cap.
Players don't care about that.

If they are really as close as has been portrayed on the HRR and make whole, I cannot see these issues de-railing a deal for reasons stated.

Cliffy1814 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:34 AM
  #710
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltrangerfan View Post
I keep reading about "fairness". It's a theme that has spread throughout the land.

I hate that word. Who is the judge of what's fair or not? Those in the majority dictating to the minority? I guess? .
I couldnt agree more. Its a disease - one that has permeated everything from politics to sports. We used to live in a country where tons of people didnt feel like they were owed something out of "fairness."

But in regards to sports, and the NHL in particular, it becomes even more ridiculous. The bottom line is a few hundred players get paid $1.7B per year to play hockey. Thats it. They dont have to worry about the business or the myriad of things that come along with running one. They play a game and go home, and they get paid handsomely for it. And that will continue to happen once this CBA gets finalized.

What is so "unfair" about that?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:37 AM
  #711
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
I agree with the sentiment of your post but I can't for the life of me get why the NHLPA feels that their players should be making a higher percentage of revenue than the other big 3 sports when hockey is AT BEST #4 in popularity and revenue generating. "
I'm not sure the players ultimately felt they were getting more than the other sports on this cba. Yes, they bargained that way but isn't that how this works? That was the one thing the union had to minimize the league demands on player rights. You can't just concede your cut without bargaining other areas, not with bettman. Even now with the economic issues wrapping up, he says no more, enough give and take, accept contract rules. The players bargained their cut away for make whole, now bettman is squeezing without pa leverage.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:41 AM
  #712
SaveByLundqvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
While we are on the fairness topic... I keep hearing "Record Revenues" from Don Fehr... This is the way im looking at the argument in my head.

Last CBA

57% Revenues ------> Players----> Players pay taxes = profit

43% Revenues ------> Owners-----> Building Expenses, Team Travel and Accomodations, Pay all the arena employees and staff to run team ----> Have to face risk areas of a financial loss, a star player signed on a big contract getting hurt come olympics time, etc. ------> pay taxes = profit

My thought process is still very general, however I hate this constant record revenues talk. I wish they would talk about the numbers that really tell the story.

And this whole ordeal, is a slap in the face to the die hard fans. Both sides look GREEDY, and it is disgusting the die hard fan base, while the casual fan get lost.
That pie that was once looked like a large pizza from Adriennes is soon gonna look like a Mama Celeste.

SaveByLundqvist is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:51 AM
  #713
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,865
vCash: 500
Its was 54-46 for the early part of the CBA. Players had 54%

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:58 AM
  #714
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Also, there's nothing to say that other PA's aren't getting ripped off and did a poor job bargaining for their split.



The NHL will never be completely healthy if it relies on % of revenue split to be the key factor. Some teams just cannot make enough money for one reason or another and constantly lowering the % probably isn't going to fix that. You'd have to go so low that you'd lose a LOT of talent to other leagues at that point.

The disparity between the top revenue producing teams in the league and the bottom producing teams is way too big for a simple fix like revenue split to make everything peachy, but it's the easiest thing for the league to push for and keeps it as an "us against them" type of debate rather than the owners having to fight among themselves to figure out a healthy system.
While that may be true... let's keep in mind that these guys make a killing to play a sport. This whole Union, worker's rights stuff in this context are blown way out of proportion. It's not like they're pulling coal out of a mine and want more canaries so they can see if the carbon monoxide levels are leathal.

The owners don't want to pay more than 50% for labor... it's well within their right to ask for that... and at this point they're asking for other things so their GMs will have to operate in a system that keeps things honest with less loopholes than the last CBA. Every new CBA solves another problem... they also create new ones... but every new CBA takes care of a few things that probably should have been in the last CBA. It's the nature of the beast.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:01 AM
  #715
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy1814 View Post
Maybe I am way off base here, but if they are "close" on the 50/50 thing, does it make much difference from a player perspective what the contract lengths are?

We are really just talking about how the dollars get allocated.
So if a UFA can only sign a 5 year contract instead of 10, that means on the back end some other player will be earning money.

i.e. if the Rangers had only been able to sign richards to a 5 year deal, somebody else would earn more money when that deal expired that would not have otherwise.

Don't get me worng, I think the 5% rule would solve most of the owners issues, but from a player perspective, we know the owners are going to hand out the contracts regardless of the system, so do all these issues have a huge impact?

Maybe I am oversimplifying.
imo the exact opposite is true...if the players are locked in at 50/50 then why do the owners care how the contracts are split up. if a team wants to sign a player to a 10 year deal and screw themselves under the cap then they are only hurting themselves as long as they are still at 50%. forcing them to split up the contracts more evenly or wisely shouldn't matter...

but on the flipside the individual contract rules are HUGE when it comes to individual players and what they can earn...granted that means screwing other players if you get a higher % of your teams cap but people only worry about themselves

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:37 AM
  #716
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
While that may be true... let's keep in mind that these guys make a killing to play a sport.
Well, some of the teams/leagues also make a killing

Quote:
This whole Union, worker's rights stuff in this context are blown way out of proportion. It's not like they're pulling coal out of a mine and want more canaries so they can see if the carbon monoxide levels are leathal.
But yes this is true as well, I mainly mentioned it because in general, workers rights and unions aren't well regarded in the US anymore (if they ever really were) and people seem to view a group of workers taking a stand for their rights as a bad thing if it inconveniences them in any way.

Quote:
The owners don't want to pay more than 50% for labor... it's well within their right to ask for that... and at this point they're asking for other things so their GMs will have to operate in a system that keeps things honest with less loopholes than the last CBA. Every new CBA solves another problem... they also create new ones... but every new CBA takes care of a few things that probably should have been in the last CBA. It's the nature of the beast.
I think the players are also fighting on this because they don't want to facilitate a slippery slope where every CBA the owners take more and more and it reaches the point where the players really are being screwed big time because the owners have beaten them down over the years.

I'm no expert on the NFL, but it seems like that league may be approaching that point...the NFL is incredibly brutal and hard on a players body and you have guys who are crippled for life after playing a relatively short amount of time, yet the league is incredibly profitable and has a very favorable deal and pushed for more last CBA.

Levitate is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:28 AM
  #717
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
I'm no expert on the NFL, but it seems like that league may be approaching that point...the NFL is incredibly brutal and hard on a players body and you have guys who are crippled for life after playing a relatively short amount of time, yet the league is incredibly profitable and has a very favorable deal and pushed for more last CBA.
All very true... but during the last CBA in the NFL there was some kind of pension plan put in place I believe. IF that were the fight here, every fan would be on the players' side (I would think). We all know that these guys (in the NFL, the NHL and to an extent the other leagues as well) put their bodies through hell... have short careers mostly and should be able to make enough to survive after they leave the field/ice, etc.

That isn't this fight. The players want to keep things as close to to how they were as they can because they were taking home the lions share, even in a cap system that was supposed to limit their %.

It was a flawed and ulitmately doomed system they were playing under... the owners scrwed up... everyone knows it (including the owners themselves). They lost an entire season for the salary cap, and none of the resrictions that need to be in place to allow a cap system to function properly.

Hopefully this CBA will solve some of those issues.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:15 PM
  #718
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,567
vCash: 500
Rights and fairness are things that in this case cut two different ways. Should the usually fabulously wealthy owners be indemnified every CBA against their own lack of restraint--their own manipulations in figuring out how to subvert the agreement like we all know they will and then lavishly spending on players to put their franchises over the top? Beyond all that why would people worry about whether Ed Snider, Jeremy Jacobs or Philip Anschutz have a few more million in the bank? Do they really need it? Does James Dolan? I suppose in Ayn Rand's world there's never enough. The admiration for the super wealthy knows no bounds. The thing is as well the fans don't come out to see Dolan--or Jacobs. For some owner's this is not even 'just business'--a professional sports team is just about equivalent to an 80 year old duffer with liver spots showing off his trophy wife.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:21 PM
  #719
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
imo the exact opposite is true...if the players are locked in at 50/50 then why do the owners care how the contracts are split up. if a team wants to sign a player to a 10 year deal and screw themselves under the cap then they are only hurting themselves as long as they are still at 50%. forcing them to split up the contracts more evenly or wisely shouldn't matter...
I am so tired of this argument.

"Teams should just show restaint and not sign bad contracts."

No. Just, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Of course teams should try not to sign bad contracts. But in a competitive system where the best players get the biggest and longest deals, the system itself perpetuates the handing out of bigger and longer contracts in order to attract the star players. If an owner isn't trying to compete for a Stanley Cup by handing out these deals, he's failing the fans as an owner.

The system itself promotes people having to gamble to give out these deals. If they don't, they aren't getting the best players.

So every time someone says "The owners should just not give out these bad deals," that is just a complete lack of awareness of what is going to happen every time you have a free agent system that is based on the highest bidder.

The owners cannot "not give out bad deals." If they all sit there and agree not to give out those long deals, it's collusion. It's illegal. If any number of them try to compete with each other (even if it's just a handful of the owners), the inevitable outcome will be risky, bad contracts as the competition pushes the scope of the deals to the edge of whatever is allowed under the rules. Those owners who aren't competing by bidding up the contracts are failing their fanbases even worse.

The CBA is THE TIME that owners try to get these things under control. And it is the only logical, moral, or practical time for them to do so.

It's ridiculous to blame the owners for requesting contract limits because "they could just not sign long contracts."

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

WRONG

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:30 PM
  #720
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I am so tired of this argument.

"Teams should just show restaint and not sign bad contracts."

No. Just, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Of course teams should try not to sign bad contracts. But in a competitive system where the best players get the biggest and longest deals, the system itself perpetuates the handing out of bigger and longer contracts in order to attract the star players. If an owner isn't trying to compete for a Stanley Cup by handing out these deals, he's failing the fans as an owner.

The system itself promotes people having to gamble to give out these deals. If they don't, they aren't getting the best players.

So every time someone says "The owners should just not give out these bad deals," that is just a complete lack of awareness of what is going to happen every time you have a free agent system that is based on the highest bidder.

The owners cannot "not give out bad deals." If they all sit there and agree not to give out those long deals, it's collusion. It's illegal. If any number of them try to compete with each other (even if it's just a handful of the owners), the inevitable outcome will be risky, bad contracts as the competition pushes the scope of the deals to the edge of whatever is allowed under the rules. Those owners who aren't competing by bidding up the contracts are failing their fanbases even worse.

The CBA is THE TIME that owners try to get these things under control. And it is the only logical, moral, or practical time for them to do so.

It's ridiculous to blame the owners for requesting contract limits because "they could just not sign long contracts."

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

WRONG
i'm sick and tired of every single one of your rambling 'i love the owners' post so that makes even LOL

but seriously 50% is 50%, how you split up that 50% whether its forced by rules or subject to the teams descretion it doesn't change the fact that 50% is still 50%. that doesn't even remotely hint at 'owners should control themselves'. you are already controling the owners by capping the players at 50%.

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:39 PM
  #721
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Rights and fairness are things that in this case cut two different ways. Should the usually fabulously wealthy owners be indemnified every CBA against their own lack of restraint--their own manipulations in figuring out how to subvert the agreement like we all know they will and then lavishly spending on players to put their franchises over the top? Beyond all that why would people worry about whether Ed Snider, Jeremy Jacobs or Philip Anschutz have a few more million in the bank? Do they really need it? Does James Dolan? I suppose in Ayn Rand's world there's never enough. The admiration for the super wealthy knows no bounds. The thing is as well the fans don't come out to see Dolan--or Jacobs. For some owner's this is not even 'just business'--a professional sports team is just about equivalent to an 80 year old duffer with liver spots showing off his trophy wife.
This is true... however, they also don't come out to watch Crosby or Lundqvist waving and smiling. They come out to watch hockey played by these guys.

In order for that to happen you need stuff (equipment, elctricity, an ice surface in an arena, a staff to run that arena, insurance, etc etc etc.). The players don't have anything to do with that. The owners do.

The players bring their talent and skill, the owners supply everything it takes to showcase those skills to the largest number of people possible.

It's a symbiotic relationship when done right.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:39 PM
  #722
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
i'm sick and tired of every single one of your rambling 'i love the owners' post so that makes even LOL
I actually love hockey. This is what's best for hockey.

Quote:
but seriously 50% is 50%, how you split up that 50% whether its forced by rules or subject to the teams descretion it doesn't change the fact that 50% is still 50%. that doesn't even remotely hint at 'owners should control themselves'. you are already controling the owners by capping the players at 50%.
Yeah, 50% is 50%, but if it's all tied up in a long term deal that obviously decreases owner flexibility at re-shaping their roster. Yet another handicap that is a detriment to teams putting out the best possible on-ice product.

Never mind the other argument about how long term deals only benefit the top 1% of players.

But specifically, I am addressing the argument that owners should just refrain from giving out long deals. I'm saying that without a CBA provision limiting the length of deals, those deals will just keep going up and up until you eventually get lifetime deals, basically. We're already practically there with the 12 and 14 year contracts.

It is simply impossible. If there is competition, it will happen. If there is not competition, it's either collusion, or some teams are simply not trying to win. Either should be unacceptable to the league.

There is only one legitimate way to control contract lengths: that is to set the max length with a CBA agreement.

This is no different than putting it into the rules that you're not allowed to skate into the crease or carry the puck with your hands. You set the rules before the games are played to avoid chaos.

Frankly, like I said, I'm shocked that the players (the 99% anyway) don't realize they are being sold out for the benefit of Sidney Crosby. The players are dumb if they don't realize this. So this is really a pro-player stance.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:43 PM
  #723
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,290
vCash: 500
some of the individual contract rules are redundant...if you eliminate backloading of contracts by only letting it vary year to year by 5% so you can't add fake years to the end to lower the average then there is really no need/benefit to limiting the contract length to 5 years. the extra years were only a problem because it lowered the cap hit with fake years but you already eliminated that with the first thing

so the owners can 'give in' on some of the rules but still get what they wanted from the bottom line...which very likely is their strategy in the first place.

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:48 PM
  #724
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I actually love hockey. This is what's best for hockey.
the first part was joking obviously

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:55 PM
  #725
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
So the owners get absolved for bad contracts. They get a pass for setting up in bad markets. That's an odd sentiment in a competitive market. If this is the direction the league wants to take and reduce player rights, they ought to give players a say in franchise locations. You want to share/minimize risk, make the pa a true partner and give them a vote. I doubt the owners would have any interest in that. They hate asking for re-alignment.

DutchShamrock 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 03:43 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.