HFBoards

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

Lockout discussion thread 2.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 05:40 PM
  #451
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
What I'm getting at is that Bettman has more riding on the future of the game than Fehr does, who has no connection to it at all. If the NHL as a business is not successful, then he's screwed.
Bettman would have 8 000 000 dollars to lose by not having NHL this year whereas Fehr hasn't arrived to meetings on time and takes minutes to pour a glass of water.

Childish tactics are just lame.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 06:00 PM
  #452
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I understand this, and agree with it. I am just sick of hearing them say it. They don't have to say anything about the fans. If a reporter asks them ''what about the fans'', well they can come up with something like ''fans are really the ones suffering from it, but this is our lively hood and it just needs to be done''. Something more genuine.
Would it really be that hard? Not that I care about the players, just sick of the BS.
I'm just growing my annoyance in the every day world of people that just spew out crap. Sick of it. World would be a better place if people just stayed honest and told the truth. Call it a phase if you'd like.

But I really hate it when I hear some fans talk as if they're entitled to something. Find that absolutely idiotic.

As for this lockout, I've said from the beginning, both sides handled it poorly, they're both at fault.
I really dont see why you're getting so ticked off when the players are being just being politically correct like they usually do. What do you expect them to say really? We dont give a crap about the fans, we just want as much money as possible so we can have a better life?

I still believe the players more than I believe Bettman when i hear them say they want hockey back asap for the fans.

Rosso Scuderia is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 06:30 PM
  #453
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
I really dont see why you're getting so ticked off when the players are being just being politically correct like they usually do. What do you expect them to say really? We dont give a crap about the fans, we just want as much money as possible so we can have a better life?

I still believe the players more than I believe Bettman when i hear them say they want hockey back asap for the fans.
The MLB strike in 1994 doesn't ring a bell?

Latest from Twitter:

Kevin Paul Dupont ‏@GlobeKPD
Had Kelly remained union boss, Recchi feels, bargaining would have begun long ago, lockout avoided. Kelly's ouster a 'dark time' for NHLPA.

Kevin Paul Dupont ‏@GlobeKPD
Recchi: 'No matter what the contract, the owners always find a way to pay them more. That's why I say, get a deal and get back in there.'

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:23 PM
  #454
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
I really dont see why you're getting so ticked off when the players are being just being politically correct like they usually do. What do you expect them to say really? We dont give a crap about the fans, we just want as much money as possible so we can have a better life?

I still believe the players more than I believe Bettman when i hear them say they want hockey back asap for the fans.
I don't understand this idea that the only answers a player can give regarding fans is either ''we love them'' or ''screw them, it's about the money''. Would it be that hard to say ''we know it sucks for the fans, but we need to take care of this''? What's so darn difficult in saying this??
Also, they are not being politically correct, they are flat out lying. Huge difference.

And neither Bettman nor the players care about the fans. Otherwise there would have been no lockout, and negotiations would not look like two 5 year old kids debating over who's dad is strongest.

Every time the NHLPA feels the NHL is trying to rip them a new one, yet they end up doing more than fine. Why would it be any different this time around? It won't be.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:16 PM
  #455
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
What I'm getting at is that Bettman has more riding on the future of the game than Fehr does, who has no connection to it at all. If the NHL as a business is not successful, then he's screwed.
Bettman will keep making 8 million dollars a year and counting no matter how badly he bungles things.

He's had three lockouts in 15 years and his southern franchises are in crisis. He's losing a season now. He cancelled a winter classic.

And he'll probably get a raise next year. Even if the season is cancelled, I'll be shocked if he gets fired.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-12-2012 at 09:27 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:19 PM
  #456
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
You can spin it anyway you like. It does not change the reality that attendance in baseball is stagnant and not growing. Attendance in baseball was growing yearly prior to Fehr and his alienation of MLB baseball fans.
This has already been explained to you:

Attendance in baseball may be static, but total revenues and profits are skyrocketing. People are more likely to stay home to watch the games on their 50 inch plasmas TVs, as can be inferred from the rapid increase in revenue from cable companies. If you can simultaneously have the same attendance at the games, and double the number of people watching on TV, you're making huge money.

The overall economic status of MLB in the post-Fehr era is one of economic boom for the players, for the owners, and of parity for the fans with 7 diifferent teams winning the world series in the past 10 years.

*********

Let me know how many more times this needs to be explained to you.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:20 PM
  #457
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
You are actually wrong, this can't be applied to all 'high-end' talent unions. Most labour unions are a set hourly rate, they don't get a piece of the pie when we bid a job, for example
I didn't say it could be applied to all high-end unions, I said that it is common.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:27 PM
  #458
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Revenues aren't profits.
That is something that every single person on this board understands.

For the record, the NHL officially has ~3.8 billion dollars in revenue, and ~160 million dollars in pre-tax profits, though the true profits are no doubt vastly higher once you include synergies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Generally speaking profits are revenues minus expenses. They may have had record revenues but they likely had record expenses as well. In addition, those record revenues were concentrated in the hands of a very few teams meaning that many teams lost money.
That's the way the business world works. Most profits come from a small subset of franchises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Perhaps the "median" revenue rather than the "average" revenue should considered when calculating the cap. That would eliminate a lot of the distortions that occur when you use averages.




Maybe the salary cap should be based on median salary, rather than total salary, to eliminate a lot of distortions that occur when you include the salaries of star players.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:29 PM
  #459
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I don't understand this idea that the only answers a player can give regarding fans is either ''we love them'' or ''screw them, it's about the money''. Would it be that hard to say ''we know it sucks for the fans, but we need to take care of this''? What's so darn difficult in saying this??
Also, they are not being politically correct, they are flat out lying. Huge difference.

And neither Bettman nor the players care about the fans. Otherwise there would have been no lockout, and negotiations would not look like two 5 year old kids debating over who's dad is strongest.

Every time the NHLPA feels the NHL is trying to rip them a new one, yet they end up doing more than fine. Why would it be any different this time around? It won't be.
I'm sure some of the players care about fans. They just care more about themselves, as 100% of human beings would in their situation.

There's no scandal here. Stop worrying.

In any case, players have to lie and say politically correct things all the time, regardless of what the genuine truth is. Whenever players say the genuine truth, the media gangs up on them, they get traded, etc.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:40 PM
  #460
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'm sure some of the players care about fans. They just care more about themselves, as 100% of human beings would in their situation.

There's no scandal here. Stop worrying.

In any case, players have to lie and say politically correct things all the time, regardless of what the genuine truth is. Whenever players say the genuine truth, the media gangs up on them, they get traded, etc.
I'm not worried about anything. I'm sick of hearing them say they care about the fans, I'm very well allowed to be annoyed by that. I really don't understand why you're defending this issue. They are full of BS, and I'm saying screw them for it. That's it that's all. No scandal, no need to even keep talking about this.

And again, there's nothing politically correct about a lie. Who would get traded for saying ''sucks for the fans, but we need to resolve this issue''??
Stop defending the players on every issue. They're full of BS and that's it. End of discussion.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:42 PM
  #461
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I don't understand this idea that the only answers a player can give regarding fans is either ''we love them'' or ''screw them, it's about the money''. Would it be that hard to say ''we know it sucks for the fans, but we need to take care of this''? What's so darn difficult in saying this??
Also, they are not being politically correct, they are flat out lying. Huge difference.

And neither Bettman nor the players care about the fans. Otherwise there would have been no lockout, and negotiations would not look like two 5 year old kids debating over who's dad is strongest.

Every time the NHLPA feels the NHL is trying to rip them a new one, yet they end up doing more than fine. Why would it be any different this time around? It won't be.
Oh come on.. does it matter THAT much that they didn't say they way you would like them to? And I'm sure the players are basically saying what you just said. I don't have a feeling that the players are being hypocritical when they say they care about the fans.

Caring about the fans doesn't mean that have to sacrifice thousands of hundreds or millions of dollars for them.

They care about the fans.. but they care about the well-living and their families/future more. I don't see the outrage in that. I want hockey back just as much as anyone here but I understand that the players that already have a contract wants it to be respected.

Rosso Scuderia is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:58 PM
  #462
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
Oh come on.. does it matter THAT much that they didn't say they way you would like them to? And I'm sure the players are basically saying what you just said. I don't have a feeling that the players are being hypocritical when they say they care about the fans.

Caring about the fans doesn't mean that have to sacrifice thousands of hundreds or millions of dollars for them.

They care about the fans.. but they care about the well-living and their families/future more. I don't see the outrage in that. I want hockey back just as much as anyone here but I understand that the players that already have a contract wants it to be respected.
I don't care THAT much. I said I was fed up of hearing about them and it sparked some kind of never ending discussion over it, for some reason.

They are already sacrificing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if they miss out this season, some will have gone as high as to lose 10M dollars and even more.

I don't think you really read my first post on the subject. I said guys like Ovi and Kovalchuk who threaten to stay in the KHL if there's a salary rollback show that they don't really care about the fans, or the league. Even a guy like Cole that threatens to retire, how exactly is that loyalty towards the fans they apparently love?
Oh right, because the well being of their family is at risk if Kovalchuk gets his poor salary rolled back to 7M instead of 11M??

Is the league better? Of course not, but who here loves Bettman? Heck, guys supporting the owners side still want Bettman out. But he's not the sole moron here.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:01 PM
  #463
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I don't think you really read my first post on the subject. I said guys like Ovi and Kovalchuk who threaten to stay in the KHL if there's a salary rollback show that they don't really care about the fans, or the league.
I don't think Ovie or Kovalchuk care more about fans in the NHL than fans in the KHL. They probably care (a little bit) about whoever happens to be cheering for them in a given point of time, it's like being traded and being accepted/rejected by a new fanbase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Even a guy like Cole that threatens to retire, how exactly is that loyalty towards the fans they apparently love?
It's the third work stoppage in his brief career.

The man values his dignity, that doesn't mean he doesn't value the fans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Oh right, because the well being of their family is at risk if Kovalchuk gets his poor salary rolled back to 7M instead of 11M??
There's a huge difference between having 10 million in the bank when retiring at 40 and having 40 million.

If they appear the same then you're not thinking of money in terms of how it works. They're not the same. They're totally different.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:11 PM
  #464
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I don't care THAT much. I said I was fed up of hearing about them and it sparked some kind of never ending discussion over it, for some reason.

They are already sacrificing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if they miss out this season, some will have gone as high as to lose 10M dollars and even more.

I don't think you really read my first post on the subject. I said guys like Ovi and Kovalchuk who threaten to stay in the KHL if there's a salary rollback show that they don't really care about the fans, or the league. Even a guy like Cole that threatens to retire, how exactly is that loyalty towards the fans they apparently love?
Oh right, because the well being of their family is at risk if Kovalchuk gets his poor salary rolled back to 7M instead of 11M??

Is the league better? Of course not, but who here loves Bettman? Heck, guys supporting the owners side still want Bettman out. But he's not the sole moron here.
The players are part of the NHLPA, it doesn't mean that all agree with Fehr or whatever. I just don't see why you have to generalize and call all players hypocrite when they say they care about the fans just because the lock-out is still persisting.

You say like its nothing to see your salary drop from 11M$ to 7M$ or losing like 20M$ in the next 4-5 years is perfectly normal.

What exactly did the players do wrong when they signed a contract in the last CBA that now they have to pay for it? Just honour the contract signed and find a solution for the future.

Rosso Scuderia is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:14 PM
  #465
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I don't think Ovie or Kovalchuk care more about fans in the NHL than fans in the KHL. They probably care (a little bit) about whoever happens to be cheering for them in a given point of time, it's like being traded and being accepted/rejected by a new fanbase.
No it's not. They are choosing to leave the most competitive hockey league in the World by their own selves because they can make a little more cash somewhere else. If they made more in the NHL, they wouldn't care about the KHL fans. It has nothing to do with being traded. But if that's what you want to believe, go right ahead man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's the third work stoppage in his brief career.

The man values his dignity, that doesn't mean he doesn't value the fans.
So, I guess we'll have to see if he follows through then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
There's a huge difference between having 10 million in the bank when retiring at 40 and having 40 million.

If they appear the same then you're not thinking of money in terms of how it works. They're not the same. They're totally different.
Right, because that's what will happen at the end of their careers. They will only have made 25% of what they could have. Sure..

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:22 PM
  #466
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
No it's not. They are choosing to leave the most competitive hockey league in the World by their own selves because they can make a little more cash somewhere else. If they made more in the NHL, they wouldn't care about the KHL fans. It has nothing to do with being traded. But if that's what you want to believe, go right ahead man.
There might be less competition in the KHL, but you don't have a lockout every five years, you get to be near home and family. It's a good deal for Russian players, a great deal.

They can get the "highest level of competition" at the Olympics. Besides, the talent level between the NHL and KHL shrinks considerably in lockout years. I'm sure their competitive juices are flowing just fine.

"The fans" are a wash, as both leagues have fans.

There's simply no good reason for them to be in the NHL unless it pays substantially better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
So, I guess we'll have to see if he follows through then.
I expect that many players will retire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Right, because that's what will happen at the end of their careers. They will only have made 25% of what they could have. Sure..
25% last lockout, 13% this lockout, as well as no pay at all every five or six years due to the Bettman lockout cycle, that adds up to a lot.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:41 PM
  #467
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
The players are part of the NHLPA, it doesn't mean that all agree with Fehr or whatever. I just don't see why you have to generalize and call all players hypocrite when they say they care about the fans just because the lock-out is still persisting.

You say like its nothing to see your salary drop from 11M$ to 7M$ or losing like 20M$ in the next 4-5 years is perfectly normal.

What exactly did the players do wrong when they signed a contract in the last CBA that now they have to pay for it? Just honour the contract signed and find a solution for the future.
Yea, I'm sure there are players and owners that really care about the fans, and if they were the ones leading the charge, there probably would have been a settlement a long time ago.

You know what, it is absolutely nothing to see your salary drop from 11M to 7M, you are darn right. When you have people elsewhere that get their countries blown up to pieces for some stupid ideology, or see their country constantly demolished year after year, for the past 40 years, where 90% of the population lives in poverty but despite it still can't help themselves but to be happy and genuinely kind hearted, ya you bet that those players aren't getting an ounce of sympathy from me regarding their salary cuts.
There are people still living in huts in some part of the world, with no electricity, no shower, and still relies on hunting and fishing for food, but over here we have a bunch of millionaires fighting with billionaires over making a little more millions on top of the millions they'd be making. It's freaking stupid beyond belief. The average US income is around 50K. Gimme a break. Those millionaires will be just fine even if they agreed to a 75% rollback.

The players didn't do anything wrong when they signed their last contracts. The agents found loopholes after the last CBA. They studied the CBA and alongside capologist found a way to get a lot more cash to their clients than they were supposed to. A loophole the NHL had not foreseen. It became obvious, to the point where teams actually had to be investigated for it and sometimes even fined where they had to give up future draft picks. Some players benefited from it. Now it's time to close those obvious loopholes, but players refuse to do so. I can't blame a guy like Kovalchuk for not wanting that, he signed his last deal. His contract is good until 2025! If there is a rollback (say 25%), then he will only make 75% of his deal and won't get a chance to break the bank again as his contract sees him go through 40.
I don't think a young player signed for 2-4 years have much of an issue with this. The cap will go back up over time, and they will hit their big pay days after.
Guys that are old and/or signed through retirement are the ones that would be most affected by this.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:50 PM
  #468
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,468
vCash: 500
Getting in the mood lately to have few beers and watch a hard fought Montreal-Boston game.

Born in 1909 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:52 PM
  #469
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
You know what, it is absolutely nothing to see your salary drop from 11M to 7M, you are darn right. When you have people elsewhere that get their countries blown up to pieces for some stupid ideology, or see their country constantly demolished year after year, for the past 40 years, where 90% of the population lives in poverty but despite it still can't help themselves but to be happy and genuinely kind hearted, ya you bet that those players aren't getting an ounce of sympathy from me regarding their salary cuts.
There are people still living in huts in some part of the world, with no electricity, no shower, and still relies on hunting and fishing for food, but over here we have a bunch of millionaires fighting with billionaires over making a little more millions on top of the millions they'd be making. It's freaking stupid beyond belief. The average US income is around 50K. Gimme a break. Those millionaires will be just fine even if they agreed to a 75% rollback.
I share your concerns about the second world and the third world but they are a complete non-sequitur.

It's true that there are people out there who have it worse than Kovalchuk, but there will always be people who have it worse. That doesn't justify transferring money from Kovalchuk to the billionaire owners. Cutting money from the players, and giving it to Jeremy Jacobs, is not going to help with malaria vaccination programs in Uganda.

If you don't like it, take the money you're spending on hockey now, and donate it to Doctors without borders.

By the way, it's a well-known statistic that most lottery winners end up losing everything. NHL players live a necessarily expensive lifestyle and forego an education to pursue a career that often leads to physiological damage and brain damage. They retire at 40 (if they're lucky) with no transferable skills. So yes, every additional dollar is a huge difference. If I'm a player I go for every dollar I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The players didn't do anything wrong when they signed their last contracts. The agents found loopholes after the last CBA. They studied the CBA and alongside capologist found a way to get a lot more cash to their clients than they were supposed to. A loophole the NHL had not foreseen. It became obvious, to the point where teams actually had to be investigated for it and sometimes even fined where they had to give up future draft picks. Some players benefited from it. Now it's time to close those obvious loopholes, but players refuse to do so. I can't blame a guy like Kovalchuk for not wanting that, he signed his last deal. His contract is good until 2025! If there is a rollback (say 25%), then he will only make 75% of his deal and won't get a chance to break the bank again as his contract sees him go through 40.
I don't think a young player signed for 2-4 years have much of an issue with this. The cap will go back up over time, and they will hit their big pay days after.
Guys that are old and/or signed through retirement are the ones that would be most affected by this.
1) Kovalchuk's contract has nothing to do with the lockout. Even if Kovalchuk had signed a 7 year contract paying 49 million total, there would still be a lockout. The contract does not negatively impact the finances of the NHL. The players get 57% of revenue regardless of what how the terms are spread out.
2) The NHL had the option of rejecting the Kovalchuk deal. It chose not to, it merely requested a small modification.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:55 PM
  #470
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
There might be less competition in the KHL, but you don't have a lockout every five years, you get to be near home and family. It's a good deal for Russian players, a great deal.

They can get the "highest level of competition" at the Olympics. Besides, the talent level between the NHL and KHL shrinks considerably in lockout years. I'm sure their competitive juices are flowing just fine.

"The fans" are a wash, as both leagues have fans.

There's simply no good reason for them to be in the NHL unless it pays substantially better.
What in heaven's name are you talking about?
The KHL and NHL are not at all at the same level. Right now there's a lockout, so more NHLers are there, but lockout aside, there is no comparison. A lot of russians are leaving more money from the KHL to play in the NHL.
They come to the NHL because it's the most elite league in the world. Money is the only leverage the KHL has over the NHL. That's how they attract older players there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I expect that many players will retire.
Ya? Wanna put a wager as to how many 34 year old retire?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
25% last lockout, 13% this lockout, as well as no pay at all every five or six years due to the Bettman lockout cycle, that adds up to a lot.
I can tell you it doesn't add up to a 75% loss, or that you have no proof to claim such a thing. I can also ask you how many players do you think actually live up to their salary on a yearly basis. How much of his contract did Gomez really deserve?
Also, say the players agree to the 13% rollback and start from day 1, Kovalchuk loses about 11M over his 13 remaining years. If they hold out all year, he loses 11M.
Same god damn thing.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:05 PM
  #471
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I share your concerns about the second world and the third world but they are a complete non-sequitur.

It's true that there are people out there who have it worse than Kovalchuk, but there will always be people who have it worse. That doesn't justify transferring money from Kovalchuk to the billionaire owners. Cutting money from the players, and giving it to Jeremy Jacobs, is not going to help with malaria vaccination programs in Uganda.

If you don't like it, take the money you're spending on hockey now, and donate it to Doctors without borders.

By the way, it's a well-known statistic that most lottery winners end up losing everything. NHL players live a necessarily expensive lifestyle and forego an education to pursue a career that often leads to physiological damage and brain damage. They retire at 40 (if they're lucky) with no transferable skills. So yes, every additional dollar is a huge difference. If I'm a player I go for every dollar I can.
My brother worked for both Doctors without Borders and Red Cross, I've donated before. Right now I'm doing Movember, and am organizing a fund raiser with a raffle at the end of the month. I do the best I can with my limited resources.
But yes, it's not about that, I was responding to the fact that they're doing this for their well being. Point is, they will be just fine.
It's not my fault players are stupid and go spend every dime, and all the more reason to give them less. If all they're going to do is spend carelessly because of their expensive lifestyle, they get even less sympathy. Poor guy won't be able to make his payments on his Ferrari and Lamborghini..
Let's break out the tissue box..

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
1) Kovalchuk's contract has nothing to do with the lockout. Even if Kovalchuk had signed a 7 year contract paying 49 million total, there would still be a lockout. The contract does not negatively impact the finances of the NHL. The players get 57% of revenue regardless of what how the terms are spread out.
2) The NHL had the option of rejecting the Kovalchuk deal. It chose not to, it merely requested a small modification.
1) Kovalchuk is part of the group that's absolutely against rollbacks, to the point where he would stay in the KHL. A
2)NJ gave up their 1st round pick for that contract.
3) The league wants that type of contract to disappear, hence the 5 year max contracts under the proposed new CBA.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:07 PM
  #472
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
What in heaven's name are you talking about?
The KHL and NHL are not at all at the same level. Right now there's a lockout, so more NHLers are there, but lockout aside, there is no comparison. A lot of russians are leaving more money from the KHL to play in the NHL.
They come to the NHL because it's the most elite league in the world. Money is the only leverage the KHL has over the NHL. That's how they attract older players there.
I'm sure Malkin, Kovalchuk, and Ovechkin are making more in the NHL than they would in the KHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I can tell you it doesn't add up to a 75% loss, or that you have no proof to claim such a thing. I can also ask you how many players do you think actually live up to their salary on a yearly basis. How much of his contract did Gomez really deserve?
Also, say the players agree to the 13% rollback and start from day 1, Kovalchuk loses about 11M over his 13 remaining years. If they hold out all year, he loses 11M.
Same god damn thing.
1) It's not hard to see that if you have 40% more income you might have 100% more savings or something. Your costs might not go up as high as your income.

2) Some players get more than they deserve, some get less. That's what happens when contracts are signed before the work happens, which is the norm in all industries. Yes Gomez got more than he deserved, but Pacioretty and Subban got less.

3) What the NHL asked on day 1 was a 25% roll back, so Kovalchuk would lose 25 million. He would then lose even more in five or six years when the next lockout happens, losing more money due to lost playing time, and whatever the next rollback is that Bettman has in mind. The players should not set a precedent of losing 25% every five or six years.

The players offer includes a demand for more revenue sharing. This reduces the probability of future lockouts, and almost certainly delays them. It's a great investment for the players to hold off.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:19 PM
  #473
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'm sure Malkin, Kovalchuk, and Ovechkin are making more in the NHL than they would in the KHL.
Who knows for sure. It depends on which team they'd sign with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
1) It's not hard to see that if you have 40% more income you might have 100% more savings or something. Your costs might not go up as high as your income.

2) Some players get more than they deserve, some get less. That's what happens when contracts are signed before the work happens, which is the norm in all industries. Yes Gomez got more than he deserved, but Pacioretty and Subban got less.

3) What the NHL asked on day 1 was a 25% roll back, so Kovalchuk would lose 25 million. He would then lose even more in five or six years when the next lockout happens, losing more money due to lost playing time, and whatever the next rollback is that Bettman has in mind. The players should not set a precedent of losing 25% every five or six years.

The players offer includes a demand for more revenue sharing. This reduces the probability of future lockouts, and almost certainly delays them. It's a great investment for the players to hold off.
How did MaxPac get less than he deserved? 4.5M a year for 5 years was it? For scoring 30+Goals once in the NHL? I'd say that's more than fair, and it shows you just ridiculous some deals have become. If MaxPac was entitled to more than that for the little he's proven, then there's a problem.
PK didn't even sign anything.

Yes, that was their first offer, and everyone knows, you don't accept the first offer. You pitch high, bring it down a bit, little by little finding a just middle.
Right now, the numbers I said stand. Agrees to the rollback, he loses 11M over 13years. Loses the year, loses 11M. Lockout in another 5-6 years? Maybe, maybe not.
If there is one and rollbacks are yet again part of it, I'm pretty sure a clause will be in it that states how contracts that were signed prior to the last CBA (this one) would not be affected by a rollback.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:33 PM
  #474
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
How did MaxPac get less than he deserved? 4.5M a year for 5 years was it? For scoring 30+Goals once in the NHL?
You totally missed the point, let's try again:

The reason players often get more/less than they deserved is that contracts are signed before production takes place (like in nearly all other industries), and thus pay is based on a projection of points, which can be wrong and are often wrong. Sometimes people disappoint. Sometimes people exceed all expectations.

Pacioretty will be getting 4.5 million a year (modulo rollback and future lockouts) for the seasons 2013-2014 through to 2018-2019. Who know if he will produce more or less than the value of his contract? What we do know is that this past year he scored 35 goals and made 1.5 million i.e. he made less than he deserved. Same with Desharnais, Subban, a few others. That's the way it works.

Therefore, you should not whine about Gomez getting more than he deserves, as it's due to the exact same system that causes players like Pacioretty, Subban, Desharnais, etc to get less than they deserve. You're basically saying that nobody knows how to predict the future, but we should only assign blame/contempt on one side of the error distribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I'd say that's more than fair, and it shows you just ridiculous some deals have become.
You have not demonstrated that you understand what sets player value.

Here's a hint, back when there was a free market system players got 72% of revenue. The reason for this is that with better players, you get higher attendance, more expensive attendance, and you get to host home playoff games that bring 2 million dollars in profit each. That's why teams play more for better players.

That is why you endorse high salaries every time you spend money on the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Yes, that was their first offer, and everyone knows, you don't accept the first offer. You pitch high, bring it down a bit, little by little finding a just middle.
Right now, the numbers I said stand. Agrees to the rollback, he loses 11M over 13years. Loses the year, loses 11M. Lockout in another 5-6 years? Maybe, maybe not.
If there is one and rollbacks are yet again part of it, I'm pretty sure a clause will be in it that states how contracts that were signed prior to the last CBA (this one) would not be affected by a rollback.
A lockout in five or six years is a near-certainty in the absence of deeper revenue sharing. We're at the third work stoppage under Bettman, think about it.

It's a simple mechanism:
1) Owners get concessions from players. Woohoo millions !!!
2) Owners want to win, they invest the money into better scouting and drafting.
3) Profits go to zero in a competitive economy as is predicted by the economic law of the declining rate of profit.
4) Owners are entitled to profits, and millionaire players have no right to complain, so a new lockout happens.

This is what JUST happened. Aside from being a law of economics, it's an empirical fact. Owners have 176% more (after accounting for player salaries) than they did before the last lockout, yet half of them are losing money? Take a hint.

see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendenc...profit_to_fall

see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition#Profit
In contrast to a monopoly or oligopoly, it is impossible for a firm in perfect competition to earn economic profit in the long run, which is to say that a firm cannot make any more money than is necessary to cover its economic costs.

That means the owners will need new concessions from the players in five or six years (a fourth lockout), if we continue on the administrative style of the Bettman lockout cycle.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-12-2012 at 11:42 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:09 AM
  #475
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
So Fehr cares more about the game than he does?

It's not about siding with the owners over the players, it's about doing what is best for the overall health of the league.
well, if the owners, the ones who wanted a salary cap to begin with, werent spending countless hours to find ways to cheat (so to speak) the imposed cap... most of them would be more than happy to get back to playing hockey.

and they wouldnt ask for rollback on contracts they willingly gave no longer than last summer...

and they probably wouldnt act is if they were in survival mode after a record year revenue-wise.

ECWHSWI 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 02:19 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.