HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Mark Recchi's advice to players is to sign CBA now

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-13-2012, 10:13 PM
  #151
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The NHLPA had decided they didn't mind the terms and conditions of the old CBA, for the most part, although one might say they could be convinced that some things (like the cap massaging) hurts the players equally as it does the teams.

Thus only one party wanted to change the CBA, and usually the guys who want to change the status quo are the ones who either strike or proceed with a lockout.
Can't argue with that.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:13 PM
  #152
jacketsinDC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 387
vCash: 500
I'm not sure if the people here are hard-headed or NHL stooges, but the whole idea that the players are LOSING money by not signing a deal is obviously wrong even from the most superficial look at the situation. Yes, the players may come out of this season only with less total pay that if they had made a deal earlier, but the fight is about the next 10-15, 30 seasons. it is about 3-7% or whatever in lost player pay over 30+ seasons, not this season. giving up ground has a long term impact on pay beyond the contract... honestly isn't that ALMOST immediately obvious...? why do people keep vomiting up this same limp argument?

jacketsinDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:17 PM
  #153
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
Because the baseball owners have completely surrendered to the union. They raised the white flag in 2002 and haven't been willing to improve the league since.
It took the MLB several years to recover from the players strike. It seems plausible that that the MLB owners don't want to risk any sort of work stoppage and risk having to set the clock back yet again. In fact, such an assumption would seem to border on common sense with the way the MLB strike and subsequent repercussions played out, no? If the MLB owners ever felt that they'd gain more by a lockout in order to get a more favourable deal, then they'd probably take the risk again even if it meant going through another rebuild with the fanbase. However, as long as baseball can rake in those TV contracts and have teams like the Yankees bring in the kind of revenues they do consistently, owners in general have less incentive to stop work.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:18 PM
  #154
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacketsinDC View Post
I'm not sure if the people here are hard-headed or NHL stooges, but the whole idea that the players are LOSING money by not signing a deal is obviously wrong even from the most superficial look at the situation. Yes, the players may come out of this season only with less total pay that if they had made a deal earlier, but the fight is about the next 10-15, 30 seasons. it is about 3-7% or whatever in lost player pay over 30+ seasons, not this season. giving up ground has a long term impact on pay beyond the contract... honestly isn't that ALMOST immediately obvious...? why do people keep vomiting up this same limp argument?
10-15, 30 years? They managed to have labor "peace" for 7 years, and there's no way that whatever comes up after this will have a term much longer than that.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that most of the people involved actually CARE about the future. This is about THEIR money. The PA office? Agents? Sure I could buy that. But for the individuals? LOL.

Quick question: If the future was a big deal, how come the current offers need to be made whole when the overage given for that could apply towards future years?

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:20 PM
  #155
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 27,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
So then how do you argue with the players and pro-PA stance that the union needs to fight otherwise these lockouts will continue to happen and the owners continue to ask for more each time? This point has been huge for the PA camp yet their premise is based on the potential of something happening and not any known reality of it happening. Kind of reminds me of a story of a kid in Cincinnati who reached into his pocket to get his ID, but someone thought he was going for a gun - and shot him. Hey, it could have been a gun.

If, as everyone has claimed, they're in this for the money, then 57% share for the owners is better than 50%, and 64% is better 57%... and so on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
I bet he knows exactly how much salary he lost in the last lockout.

And he knows that he NEVER got that money back, and like he said, the money is always there, the players are going to get it. (but only if the play ya see...)

I researched his career NHL earnings: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=147


I believe he was the victim of age and that the money was going to start flowing to the most deserving players with the lowering of the UFA age (to those in their prime or entering their prime).

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:21 PM
  #156
Oshie97
Registered User
 
Oshie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,318
vCash: 500
How many former players have to come out and tell the players to take a deal now before it gets worse? Keep screwing around, a yr later they woo be wishing the offer on the table now was still there. People keep saying Fehr has nothing to lose, but as soon as the players start running out of money the pressure will be on him to get a deal done.

Oshie97 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:22 PM
  #157
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacketsinDC View Post
I'm not sure if the people here are hard-headed or NHL stooges, but the whole idea that the players are LOSING money by not signing a deal is obviously wrong even from the most superficial look at the situation. Yes, the players may come out of this season only with less total pay that if they had made a deal earlier, but the fight is about the next 10-15, 30 seasons. it is about 3-7% or whatever in lost player pay over 30+ seasons, not this season. giving up ground has a long term impact on pay beyond the contract... honestly isn't that ALMOST immediately obvious...? why do people keep vomiting up this same limp argument?
If this is about the future, why did they suggest a proposal where as long as current contracts are honoured, new contracts could immediately go to 50/50? How is that about the future when their proposal literally puts the future in front of the bus sto take the hit in order to save the money that's currently on the table?

HockeyCrazed101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:23 PM
  #158
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,942
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacketsinDC View Post
I'm not sure if the people here are hard-headed or NHL stooges, but the whole idea that the players are LOSING money by not signing a deal is obviously wrong even from the most superficial look at the situation. Yes, the players may come out of this season only with less total pay that if they had made a deal earlier, but the fight is about the next 10-15, 30 seasons. it is about 3-7% or whatever in lost player pay over 30+ seasons, not this season. giving up ground has a long term impact on pay beyond the contract... honestly isn't that ALMOST immediately obvious...? why do people keep vomiting up this same limp argument?
Vomiting up a limp argument does sound painful.

Do you think there is going to be a 15-30 year CBA next time around?

Do you think it is the long term interest of the players that some teams may fold because the amounts they are paying out now are not sustainable?

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:26 PM
  #159
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 27,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
If this is about the future, why did they suggest a proposal where as long as current contracts are honoured, new contracts could immediately go to 50/50? How is that about the future when their proposal literally puts the future in front of the bus sto take the hit in order to save the money that's currently on the table?

To avoid another salary rollback. They gave to that charity last time.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:27 PM
  #160
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacketsinDC View Post
I'm not sure if the people here are hard-headed or NHL stooges, but the whole idea that the players are LOSING money by not signing a deal is obviously wrong even from the most superficial look at the situation. Yes, the players may come out of this season only with less total pay that if they had made a deal earlier, but the fight is about the next 10-15, 30 seasons. it is about 3-7% or whatever in lost player pay over 30+ seasons, not this season. giving up ground has a long term impact on pay beyond the contract... honestly isn't that ALMOST immediately obvious...? why do people keep vomiting up this same limp argument?
Players are going to take 50-50 or they're not going to be playing again.

They can huff and puff all they want about that, they've played their last game at 57% of the pie, period.

If they want to lose a full year now of salary so that 8 years from now they have 1% more, then that's well within their power to do so.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:30 PM
  #161
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Players are going to take 50-50 or they're not going to be playing again.

They can huff and puff all they want about that, they've played their last game at 57% of the pie, period.

If they want to lose a full year of salary so that 8 years from now they have 1% more, then that's well within their power to do so.
Well, the catch is that they ARE going to be paid at 57% if this current negotiation doesn't implode. Which makes this all the more weirder. Both sides have found the perfect storm of gimmicks to try and "win" simultaneously. And yet, here we are...

It's the schmucks that come in afterwards that are subject to the cap reductions and lack of space. Everyone else will get "made whole" and have their cap figure be 88% or something of their actual salary.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:31 PM
  #162
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
Heh, when one of the players posts something the pro-owner people agree with it gets it's own thread.
Go find a quote from a former locked out player where he said "the last lockout we went thru was the BEST thing that ever happened to my career" (or simlar statement) and start the thread.

I for one, would be totally interested to read that.

I'll wait.

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:31 PM
  #163
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacketsinDC View Post
I'm not sure if the people here are hard-headed or NHL stooges, but the whole idea that the players are LOSING money by not signing a deal is obviously wrong even from the most superficial look at the situation. Yes, the players may come out of this season only with less total pay that if they had made a deal earlier, but the fight is about the next 10-15, 30 seasons. it is about 3-7% or whatever in lost player pay over 30+ seasons, not this season. giving up ground has a long term impact on pay beyond the contract... honestly isn't that ALMOST immediately obvious...? why do people keep vomiting up this same limp argument?
They don't have leverage. When they sign, they'll sign a deal that they could have certainly negotiated much earlier in the process. They'll sign a deal that gets HRR down to 50/50 sooner or later. They'll still have an escrow system in place, HRR will be linked. They'll probably give up some contractual issues (I'm thinking the 5% from year to year). If they hold out and get a what they wanted, then sure your argument holds water. But that has zero chance of happening. It didn't happen in 04-05, and its not gonna happen now. If owners were making more money then the players would have more leverage, but that is not the case.

Renbarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:35 PM
  #164
Freudian
luck paper scissors
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 26,846
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacketsinDC View Post
I'm not sure if the people here are hard-headed or NHL stooges, but the whole idea that the players are LOSING money by not signing a deal is obviously wrong even from the most superficial look at the situation. Yes, the players may come out of this season only with less total pay that if they had made a deal earlier, but the fight is about the next 10-15, 30 seasons. it is about 3-7% or whatever in lost player pay over 30+ seasons, not this season. giving up ground has a long term impact on pay beyond the contract... honestly isn't that ALMOST immediately obvious...? why do people keep vomiting up this same limp argument?
What will determine the financial health of the player collective in the future is revenue growth. Not labor strife every 6-7 years to show the league that players won't be pushed around, only to waste lots of time and money and then being forced to accept the owners proposal because the players doesn't have the ability to survive without NHL in the way owners can.

I'm sure the windmills are very impressed, but it's time to stop fighting them every chance you get.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:37 PM
  #165
jacketsinDC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Vomiting up a limp argument does sound painful.

Do you think there is going to be a 15-30 year CBA next time around?

Do you think it is the long term interest of the players that some teams may fold because the amounts they are paying out now are not sustainable?
i agree the dispute can be framed as whether players long term monetary interests should be advanced or whether, because it may cause teams to fold, whether lower pay is actually in their best interests.

But the CBA doesn't have to be for 15 years for the impact of the final agreement to be felt for that long, or for longer. where the parties end up will impact the resolution of the cba that follows, and the one after that, and so on. giving up ground in a labor dispute has a much longer term impact than the life of the cba. in the long view, every inch matters.

employers make the same arguments about the impact of higher wages on employment in all labor disputes, but whether those arguments are in good faith and whether team will fold without player concessions is debatable. Either way, it is not clear at all that players bargaining for higher wages will hurt them financially. And looking at a single season's pay makes no sense (and is a limp argument) in a context like this.

jacketsinDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:43 PM
  #166
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Vomiting up a limp argument does sound painful.

Do you think there is going to be a 15-30 year CBA next time around?

Do you think it is the long term interest of the players that some teams may fold because the amounts they are paying out now are not sustainable?
This party line is why I turned on the players awfully quickly even though I was neutral when this all started.

Gary and the owners are indeed full of ****, but by and large, they openly come out and tell us how they should be making more money because after all, it is THEIR business. I can deal with that. It may not be fun to hear for many, but for the most part, it's honest.

The players right now are really no worse than any politician who's willing to say anything to gain public favor, even through they know that WE know they're full of it.

Fighting for the future? Please, even the biggest pro player shill isn't buying that. It's about "me" and "now".

MtlPenFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:57 PM
  #167
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,942
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacketsinDC View Post
te this.
I understand the point you are making but I think the players better be careful because they have brought a camel into their tent that has taken over and has aims of his own.

if the players pay is tied to revenue and the league revenues can grow in a sustainable way , that is best for the players in the short and long term.

The real damage and perhaps why Mackenzie is so discouraged,is that this may no longer be a battle about money but that the union has been hijacked by an ideologue who wants another go round and has no interest in reaching an agreement but who may inflict lasting damage on the league that will cost the players dearly down the line.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:21 PM
  #168
Whydidijoin*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The NHLPA had decided they didn't mind the terms and conditions of the old CBA, for the most part, although one might say they could be convinced that some things (like the cap massaging) hurts the players equally as it does the teams.

Thus only one party wanted to change the CBA, and usually the guys who want to change the status quo are the ones who either strike or proceed with a lockout.
Too bad it means diddly squat in this situation.

Yes, the ones who want to change the status quo initiate the work stoppage form of choice, but the ones who don't want to change the status quo only hold that stance because the status quo favours them greatly.

That means that primary "fault" is not automatically on the side that initiated the work stoppage, since it is merely a formality based on the previous CBA.

It is up to each individual to come up with their own judgements on whether the CBA was "fair" previously, and whether a work stoppage of any kind was thus necessary. If the last CBA should have stayed the same and represented "fair" in this industry, then blame the owners. If any part of that should have been changed, then you simply cannot put the blame on the owners.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:21 PM
  #169
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 27,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
What will determine the financial health of the player collective in the future is revenue growth. Not labor strife every 6-7 years to show the league that players won't be pushed around, only to waste lots of time and money and then being forced to accept the owners proposal because the players doesn't have the ability to survive without NHL in the way owners can.

I'm sure the windmills are very impressed, but it's time to stop fighting them every chance you get.

Didn't the league just have substantial revenue growth?

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:26 PM
  #170
Freudian
luck paper scissors
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 26,846
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Didn't the league just have substantial revenue growth?
Yes. Even a smaller share of a much larger pie has made the player collective earn more than they ever have.

So why are they back to bickering about percentages and hurting the pie? Lesson unlearned, I guess.

This goes for both the NHL and NHLPA. The stupidity isn't one sided here.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:30 PM
  #171
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 27,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Yes. Even a smaller share of a much larger pie has made the player collective earn more than they ever have.

So why are they back to bickering about percentages and hurting the pie? Lesson unlearned, I guess.

This goes for both the NHL and NHLPA. The stupidity isn't one sided here.

Round and round we go. NHL also wants contracting issues changed, but.... putting that aside, is this an eternal maxim? Players are always better off earning X% than zero, while owners are always better offer ratcheting their share upwards since X% for the players is still greater than zero?

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:44 PM
  #172
RandR
Registered User
 
RandR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Fehr did what he did in 1994 to MLB and there was no World Series...do you honestly think he wouldn't have done it in 2012 to a sport he doesn't even care for, just to get his clients leverage??

Owners in pro sports will never ever again give a PA a chance to play and earn money, while no CBA, thanks to the Don...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
So if you've done something once, it's guaranteed you'll do it every time?

I'm not saying there would have been no strike, I'm saying we will never know.
True, however Fehr's reputation before becoming the head of the NHLPA was marked first and foremost by doing such a thing in 1994 with MLB. And, after becoming the head of the NHLPA, Bettman would have seen from first hand experience that Fehr would treat everything, including realignment, as a potential bargaining chip "needing" to be balanced out by some other concession. Fehr even refused for almost a full year to even start negotiating until the owners were in a position to start to suffer repercussions of a lockout.

Bottom line... Fehr couldn't be trusted NOT to call a strike (again).

You know the saying...

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

RandR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:48 PM
  #173
Freudian
luck paper scissors
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 26,846
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Round and round we go. NHL also wants contracting issues changed, but.... putting that aside, is this an eternal maxim? Players are always better off earning X% than zero, while owners are always better offer ratcheting their share upwards since X% for the players is still greater than zero?
The bigger the pie, the more work stoppage stings for both parties.

I don't think 50/50 is unreasonable or that the owners will demand players giving up salary every CBA. The players have come from 74% to 54-57% so obviously they feel they are giving up every time but it's because of where they started from.

This year the players knew it would be 50/50, knew that 50/50 is very reasonable and they still weren't willing to work with the league to get there but had to take a fight for the sake of taking a fight.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:48 PM
  #174
Whydidijoin*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Round and round we go. NHL also wants contracting issues changed, but.... putting that aside, is this an eternal maxim? Players are always better off earning X% than zero, while owners are always better offer ratcheting their share upwards since X% for the players is still greater than zero?
There is a difference between owners wanting money when they already have it, and owners wanting money for financial stability within the league and to make their substantial investments financially viable.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:59 PM
  #175
Slads
Can't-stand-ya
 
Slads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 180
vCash: 500
I don't really get it. The longer the lockout goes on, the more damage the league's revenue takes due to alienating fans and sponsors. How is it benefitting future players to hurt the overall revenue?

Slads is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:04 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.