HFBoards

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

Lockout discussion thread 2.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-13-2012, 12:51 AM
  #476
vokiel
Registered Settler
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 6,301
vCash: 500
The owners who cheat the system aren't necessarily the same asking for a roll back, even though they are unanimously behind the league's efforts right now. Some folks like to group organizations & owners in order to better argue against them, but so far this petty tactic has led them nowhere.

vokiel is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 07:35 AM
  #477
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
The owners who cheat the system aren't necessarily the same asking for a roll back, even though they are unanimously behind the league's efforts right now. Some folks like to group organizations & owners in order to better argue against them, but so far this petty tactic has led them nowhere.
You mean like Craig Leipold?

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:32 AM
  #478
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,008
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.
Good post. Yes I was aware of the **** every single day world encompassing corporate lying behavior I was defending by default in my rant. I don't like it either. However, I needed to keep the rant specific.

bsl is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:56 AM
  #479
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
It's not me not understanding, it's me not agreeing with your take.
I don't think MaxPac got paid less than he deserved. He was having an interesting season but got his head destroyed. 1.5M was more than enough for a guy that played 37 games. Based on his previous seasons, he hadn't earned that much.
He did great work and got rewarded for it. That's how it works every where. You get paid for your past experience and your future potential. It's not just about your potential.
No company will give out huge salaries to employees without them having earned experience elsewhere and proven themselves to be a valuable addition to the companies after being interviewed (on more than one occasion).
I'm not whining about Gomez making more than he deserved. You're the one that said players end up losing money because of rollbacks and a possible future other lockout. I said there's plenty of players in the NHL that don't deserve their salaries, and there's a much higher number of players undeserving of their contracts than some that are underpaid. The only underpaid players are the young stars coming in that are unproven, and that's arguable because it's either their first or second deals, no need for them to be making huge amount of cash right off the bat.
You prove your worth and potential, then get paid for it. That's how it works.
A lot more players making more than they should than players making less than they should. No question about that. If you think otherwise, we can stop talking about it as we'll never agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
Right, and performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
I really don't get what's so hard to understand here. You're too busy trying to sound smart that you forget the most simple things.
No, this does not guarantee a lockout. This only means that negotiations will need to happen again. A lockout means no agreement will be reached before the start of the season and they start cancelling camp+games. The only thing you have to base yourself on is that Bettman went through some before, but in no way does that guarantee a work stoppage.
You assume that the renegotiation of a future CBA six years from now automatically means work stoppage. It doesn't. Simple as that.

You can fire Bettman next year for all I care. Who knows what happens within 6 years. Time will tell.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 10:24 AM
  #480
vokiel
Registered Settler
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 6,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
You mean like Craig Leipold?
How about Geoffrey Molson? Have you ever seen a contract that attempted circumventing the cap coming from the Habs?

Edit: or Murray Edwards.. There's plenty of examples. 1 wrong doesn't make it right or a valid argument for that matters.

vokiel is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 10:27 AM
  #481
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,619
vCash: 500
oops wrong thread.

Andy is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 10:41 AM
  #482
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
How about Geoffrey Molson? Have you ever seen a contract that attempted circumventing the cap coming from the Habs?

Edit: or Murray Edwards.. There's plenty of examples. 1 wrong doesn't make it right or a valid argument for that matters.
Are Geoff Molson and Murray Edwards on the NHL's CBA negotiating committee, like Craig Leipold is?

Let me just re-quote what you said, for context:

Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
The owners who cheat the system aren't necessarily the same asking for a roll back, ...

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 11:00 AM
  #483
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Just to follow up, from what I can tell the most "active" owners when it comes these negotiations are:

Jeremy Jacobs:
Signed Lucic, Seguin, Marchand and Krejci this summer, despite the fact that only Krejci was a free agent, either UFA or RFA - he signed these guys a year early in other words, knowing that a new CBA was going to be negotiated and he was going to ask them for a rollback

Craig Leipold:
Signed Zach Parise and Ryan Suter to the exact type of deals they now want to eliminate

Ted Leonis:
Signed Alex Ovechkin and Niklas Backstrom to the exact type of deals they now want to eliminate

Murray Edwards:
Seems to have his hands "clean", though the Dennis Wideman deal certainly doesn't look good

So of the four owners who seem to attend the most meetings (it's hard to find exact information on this) three of them are, in fact "the owners who cheat the system" and who are now "asking for a roll back".

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 11:29 AM
  #484
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,611
vCash: 500
For what it's worth, according to Stubbs, Gorges thinks Molson is against the lockout.

Et le But is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 11:36 AM
  #485
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
“The longer they’re out, the revenues are going to go down and down,’’ said Recchi, explaining why he believes the NHL’s offer is only going to get worse. “Corporate sponsors aren’t going to be lining up . . . so there goes that money. The schedule isn’t going to be 82 games, I don’t think, at this point. That’s more money lost. So, how are you going to get a better deal? Personally, I think the best time is now.’’
.................................................. ..........................................


Recchi was stunned three years ago when the players abruptly fired Paul Kelly as the union’s executive director, and was among the very few in the Bruins’ dressing room to let his feelings known, especially to teammate Andrew Ference, who helped lead the mutiny against Kelly. He felt Kelly was the right man for the job, someone who could protect the players’ best interests while also working to build on a true partnership with the league.

“A dark time,’’ said Recchi, reflecting on Kelly’s ouster. “And it has been frustrating to see how it’s played out, obviously. If Paul had stayed on the job, I don’t think you would have seen this happen. The two sides would have started talking long before, maybe a year sooner [in 2011], and not with two or three months to go before [the CBA] expired
http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/1...HvO/story.html


Recchi's views.

Andy is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 11:42 AM
  #486
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,611
vCash: 500
Dr. Recchi might want to switch fields, he seems to know this much more than he does concussions.

Et le But is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:26 PM
  #487
Le Tricolore
Boo! Booooo!
 
Le Tricolore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 27,107
vCash: 137
Send a message via Skype™ to Le Tricolore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
For what it's worth, according to Stubbs, Gorges thinks Molson is against the lockout.
Obviously. He's one of the owners who would be making money with games being played.

Le Tricolore is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:39 PM
  #488
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
For what it's worth, according to Stubbs, Gorges thinks Molson is against the lockout.
I hope he's right, and we see that reflected in another vote soon. Last vote, Molson and the rest of the BOG unanimously rejected the PA offer.

Roulin is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:59 PM
  #489
bcv
My french sucks.
 
bcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
I hope he's right, and we see that reflected in another vote soon. Last vote, Molson and the rest of the BOG unanimously rejected the PA offer.
Does unanimously means that 8 owners or that all 30 rejected the offer?

bcv is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:06 PM
  #490
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
Does unanimously means that 8 owners or that all 30 rejected the offer?
It probably means that everybody in the room knew at least 8 would reject it, so they might as well all do so.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:11 PM
  #491
Tim Wallach
Registered User
 
Tim Wallach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
Does unanimously means that 8 owners or that all 30 rejected the offer?

It means Gary made it very clear to his constituents that everything they do has to be seen as unanimous for optics.

Tim Wallach is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:18 PM
  #492
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
Dr. Recchi might want to switch fields, he seems to know this much more than he does concussions.
Golden!!

Recchi is a part owner of a junior team so he also knows what it takes to run a business like Jagr.

Today even Lebrun is somehow suggesting that Fehr wants the NHL to pay for the lost revenues because it's the league who locked the players out.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:21 PM
  #493
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
Does unanimously means that 8 owners or that all 30 rejected the offer?
If Fehr wants the NHL to pay for the lost games, do you think any owner will actually agree to anything based on that proposal?


CN_paladin is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:57 PM
  #494
Tim Wallach
Registered User
 
Tim Wallach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Golden!!

Recchi is a part owner of a junior team so he also knows what it takes to run a business like Jagr.

Today even Lebrun is somehow suggesting that Fehr wants the NHL to pay for the lost revenues because it's the league who locked the players out.
I said from Day 1 that when I heard the name Donald Fehr involved, I knew it would be armaggedon for our sport. He is the worst possible thing for the fans of a sport wanting balance and an even playing field.

And as a negotiator he is the pinnacle of frustration for his counterparts as he's a moving target. You think you're arguing one thing and all of a sudden, he's arguing a completely different point. You think you've satisfied his main bellyache and he suddenly has several others.

I'm sure the players were wooed by his tough reputation and take-no-crap background, but I strongly believe he is going to see to it that everyone loses in this debacle. And if by some miracle he gets what he wants from the NHL, the fans lose as every point he is arguing leads to a less fair system. "Player contracting rights" refers exclusively to players picking and choosing who they play for. Goodbye viability of most teams.

Tim Wallach is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:59 PM
  #495
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
How about Geoffrey Molson? Have you ever seen a contract that attempted circumventing the cap coming from the Habs?

Edit: or Murray Edwards.. There's plenty of examples. 1 wrong doesn't make it right or a valid argument for that matters.
Geoff Molson isn't on the executive committee, he doesn't get much of a say.

I'm sure if Geoff Molson was in charge the league would have simply renewed the CBA.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:08 PM
  #496
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
It's not me not understanding, it's me not agreeing with your take.
I don't think MaxPac got paid less than he deserved. He was having an interesting season but got his head destroyed. 1.5M was more than enough for a guy that played 37 games. Based on his previous seasons, he hadn't earned that much.
He did great work and got rewarded for it. That's how it works every where. You get paid for your past experience and your future potential. It's not just about your potential.
No company will give out huge salaries to employees without them having earned experience elsewhere and proven themselves to be a valuable addition to the companies after being interviewed (on more than one occasion).
I'm not whining about Gomez making more than he deserved. You're the one that said players end up losing money because of rollbacks and a possible future other lockout. I said there's plenty of players in the NHL that don't deserve their salaries, and there's a much higher number of players undeserving of their contracts than some that are underpaid. The only underpaid players are the young stars coming in that are unproven, and that's arguable because it's either their first or second deals, no need for them to be making huge amount of cash right off the bat.
Wrong.

The players get exactly 57% of revenue. That means every time a player is overpaid by an amount, other players are underpaid by exactly that amount. For example, if New Jersey overpays for Kovalchuk, that means they're not spending money on other players they could have, which lowers the demand for other players, which lowers their eventual salary. At the end of the day the players get exactly 57%. If one player is overpaid, then others have to be underpaid, it's that simple.

The reason you don't see this is that you're approaching the subject from the point of view of moral ethics, which are always imperfect (not just yours personally), rather than from a math standpoint. The latter is appropriate, as numbers is what everything involves comes down to. Numbers. That's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
You prove your worth and potential, then get paid for it. That's how it works.
A lot more players making more than they should than players making less than they should. No question about that. If you think otherwise, we can stop talking about it as we'll never agree.
You can't disagree with math, you can only be wrong.

And on this note, I suspect that if a player is overpaid by 2 million dollars, you have two players being underpaid by 1 million dollars each, but I'm not sure how the distribution works in terms of number of players. I just know that in terms of total dollars, overpayments equal underpyaments. That is guaranteed by the CBA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I really don't get what's so hard to understand here. You're too busy trying to sound smart that you forget the most simple things.
I'm not trying to sound smart. The principle I brought up was commonly known in the 19th century, it is not some advanced thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
No, this does not guarantee a lockout. This only means that negotiations will need to happen again. A lockout means no agreement will be reached before the start of the season and they start cancelling camp+games. The only thing you have to base yourself on is that Bettman went through some before, but in no way does that guarantee a work stoppage.
You assume that the renegotiation of a future CBA six years from now automatically means work stoppage. It doesn't. Simple as that.

You can fire Bettman next year for all I care. Who knows what happens within 6 years. Time will tell.
As long as the league doesn't fix its economic problems, there will be more lockouts.

You are right that the players could just capitulate to anything the owners demand before the season starts, but I don't see this happening. Note that the players learned a lesson this time. If they had capitulated early they would have lost 25%. Instead they are losing 12% at the most and getting some concessions (deferral payments), they now know that it is worthwhile to delay.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:15 PM
  #497
WhiskeySeven
Enlarged Member
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Note that the players learned a lesson this time. If they had capitulated early they would have lost 25%. Instead they are losing 12% at the most and getting some concessions (deferral payments), they now know that it is worthwhile to delay.
So much credit to DAChampion for really getting it. Too many of us are approaching this from a fan point of view - of course we're getting shafted, that's a given. But the players are actually winning right now and that's why they trust Fehr.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:48 PM
  #498
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
So much credit to DAChampion for really getting it. Too many of us are approaching this from a fan point of view - of course we're getting shafted, that's a given. But the players are actually winning right now and that's why they trust Fehr.
Maybe, right now, but for their sakes it better not become a season loosing lockout like last time. If that's what will happen they will bend the knees and get completely destroyed, if I would be the owners I would even ask the abolition of guaranteed contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post

You can't disagree with math, you can only be wrong.

And on this note, I suspect that if a player is overpaid by 2 million dollars, you have two players being underpaid by 1 million dollars each, but I'm not sure how the distribution works in terms of number of players. I just know that in terms of total dollars, overpayments equal underpyaments. That is guaranteed by the CBA.
The problem with your reasoning is the fact that you omit that there is already a difference in contracts in the CBA. A rookie, is almost always a bargain and same thing about alot of the RFA's, because of the nature of their contracts. That's not really what Kriss E is referring. I think he is talking about the UFA's, where in my mind it's clear there is more overpaid players that underpaid ones.

Then again to abolish guaranteed contracts would resolve that.


Last edited by Forsead: 11-13-2012 at 04:57 PM.
Forsead is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:53 PM
  #499
Oshawa General
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Wallach View Post
I said from Day 1 that when I heard the name Donald Fehr involved, I knew it would be armaggedon for our sport. He is the worst possible thing for the fans of a sport wanting balance and an even playing field.

And as a negotiator he is the pinnacle of frustration for his counterparts as he's a moving target. You think you're arguing one thing and all of a sudden, he's arguing a completely different point. You think you've satisfied his main bellyache and he suddenly has several others.

I'm sure the players were wooed by his tough reputation and take-no-crap background, but I strongly believe he is going to see to it that everyone loses in this debacle. And if by some miracle he gets what he wants from the NHL, the fans lose as every point he is arguing leads to a less fair system. "Player contracting rights" refers exclusively to players picking and choosing who they play for. Goodbye viability of most teams.
Have to agree with you, Donald Fehr set Major League Baseball back 5/6 years, it took a steroid scandal to get fans back, you would think the players would have learned with Goodenow, they're going down the exact same path, they're drinking the same coolaid again, wake-up, no one gains when you're not collecting salary.
In business, whether the players like it or not, it's the people with the Money that have the power, no matter what Donald Fehr says. This stalemate will drag on until someone in the PA, with any leadership skills, stands up and says, enough is enough, what are we fighting for here???? Jerome Iginla lost $7 million the last lock out, he may lose another $ 7 Mil, this time around, ($14 Mil, total) how is he gaining listening to Fehr??

Oshawa General is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 05:06 PM
  #500
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oshawa General View Post
Have to agree with you, Donald Fehr set Major League Baseball back 5/6 years, it took a steroid scandal to get fans back, you would think the players would have learned with Goodenow, they're going down the exact same path, they're drinking the same coolaid again, wake-up, no one gains when you're not collecting salary.
In business, whether the players like it or not, it's the people with the Money that have the power, no matter what Donald Fehr says. This stalemate will drag on until someone in the PA, with any leadership skills, stands up and says, enough is enough, what are we fighting for here???? Jerome Iginla lost $7 million the last lock out, he may lose another $ 7 Mil, this time around, ($14 Mil, total) how is he gaining listening to Fehr??
in some fields, nope.

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 12:25 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.