HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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, 11:59 PM
  #176
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
 
TheMoreYouKnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 8,649
vCash: 500
You can see Recchi's point but if the players had signed the NHL's first proposal because "hey the money's always there, no problems" then there never would have been a 50-50 offer either.

TheMoreYouKnow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:05 AM
  #177
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,152
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
You can see Recchi's point but if the players had signed the NHL's first proposal because "hey the money's always there, no problems" then there never would have been a 50-50 offer either.
NHLs first offer was obviously an ambit claim. It was a starting point for negotiations.

It was over the top and ended up alienating the players and since Fehr had no intentions of negotiating it looks a bit awkward when it was left hanging. Had NHLPA been serious about getting a deal, we would have had a 50/50 deal before September.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:07 AM
  #178
RandR
Registered User
 
RandR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,128
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?
Fehr may be viewing this as the current fight in an evolving battle for the NLHPA and professional sports unions, but most of the players are only concerned about their own selves (hence the adamance on their part not to give back anything from contracts currently signed).

After the last lockout, more than 200 players who had played in the previous season never played another game in the NHL. And if the average career of a player in a major professional league is 4 years, then the average career of those currently in the league is another 2 years from now. To throw out one of those years and potentially an average of 1/4 of one's lifetime earnings in the NHL is downright stupid from a personal financial position.

I don't blame the lucky few who have recently signed ridiculous contracts or younger stars with long careers ahead of them from making a stance in order to protect current or increase future earnings potential, but most players will never recoup whatever money they are throwing away by not coming to an agreement sooner than later.

RandR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:21 AM
  #179
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I am a fan of the NHL and hockey. That doesn't mean I am a fan of its commissioner or how it's run. I've been an NHL fan longer than most of these names running it have been around. However, this isn't about me, as the thread title should suggest.

Each and every owner in the NFL and most of the NBA (I think they have a couple problem children) also makes more money than the NHL. Yet--- they had lockouts too. That's incredibly silly!

(And Fehr wasn't the reason the NFL overtook MLB, that was inevitable.)


Do you not see any contradictions in your post? I underlined them.
There are no contradictions in my post. Just because a league is profitable now does not mean it will be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_S...vision_ratings

If you can look at that and concluded that MLB is healthy then it no sense talking.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:22 AM
  #180
KEEROLE Vatanen
Failures Of Fenwick
 
KEEROLE Vatanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 17,615
vCash: 500
there wont be much of a future once we lose another season

KEEROLE Vatanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:39 AM
  #181
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slads View Post
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?
Neither do I. That october 82 games plus negotiable make-whole deal was always going to be the high-water mark in raw dollars. Was obvious then. Still obvious now.

billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:40 AM
  #182
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
You can see Recchi's point but if the players had signed the NHL's first proposal because "hey the money's always there, no problems" then there never would have been a 50-50 offer either.
That first proposal was crazy. I don't think anyone thought the PA should give any thought to signing it.

billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:56 AM
  #183
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No, you participate in something as a member. A strike action is directed at employers.

A lockout is directed at employees by employers.


To paint it as equivalent, which is your implication is what ignores not only context, but the actual meaning of the words.
That's great, but let's take a look at the post that started this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystlyfe View Post
It doesn't take an MBA to look back at the three work stoppages you participated in during your career and say, "Man, I wish we did things differently."
It certainly seems like I used the words "work stoppage," and not "strike" or "lockout." And Recchi certainly has participated in three work stoppages, as he has stopped working in the NHL due to labor disputes at three points in his career.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Sure! Let's!

The NHL hired a man with a history of locking out players, the only man to lose an entire professional league season, who also came from the very firm that seems to have made a name for itself in managing lockouts.
And what part of that clears the players from having any participation in the events leading up to this lockout? I'm not arguing that the owner's aren't at fault, but rather that the players are also at fault. Since the guilt of one party doesn't preclude another party from also being guilty, your statement does nothing to counter my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
This is his third lockout if you're keeping track.
And Don Fehr's sixth work stoppage.

Mystlyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 01:46 AM
  #184
rockinghorse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think so as well. If the you consider the way the contract restrictions/status are set up, the peak years and certainly only years for a majority of players, will be spent under rookie and RFA contracts. Perhaps only two contracts.

Consider that the last CBA also didn't see most players reach UFA status (27 yrs or 7 yrs of service). The average NHL career is what, 5-ish years? The average NHL'er plays fewer than 200 games, or was it 100?

Who is being targeted then? I can only infer that the owners want to restrict what the best and longest serving players can make. The best players, if they make it to UFA status, have to wait to cash in after their best years are behind them. There are two elements of risk here.

1) The player has to make it that far. He's deferring his earnings to some future point in time where there is no guarantee he'll reach that point.

2) If he manages to get that far, he has to assume that a team will pay him for his earlier achievements, not what he's likely to contribute going forward. That's not a bet I'd personally make. They can pull out thousands of man-games and charts that will show the average decline rate by age. In other words--- his lifetime earnings are very repressed as compared to actual contribution.

Why should players accept further individual 'caps' if there's already a maximum individual rate payable (never reached, btw) and a cap on collective pay?
Fugu has very clearly explained in #1 and #2 the risks the players are expected to accept.

They are expected to depend on the good will and accept less in their good years with the hope that in their decline they will be overpaid to make up for being underpaid before. Unfortunately some are not healthy and are eliminated without getting to UFA, 4-5 years average length of service is not getting you to UFA,

Depending on good will is clearly high risk. Would you accept that risk?

rockinghorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 02:14 AM
  #185
Whydidijoin*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockinghorse View Post
Fugu has very clearly explained in #1 and #2 the risks the players are expected to accept.

They are expected to depend on the good will and accept less in their good years with the hope that in their decline they will be overpaid to make up for being underpaid before. Unfortunately some are not healthy and are eliminated without getting to UFA, 4-5 years average length of service is not getting you to UFA,

Depending on good will is clearly high risk. Would you accept that risk?
That so-called "average career length" statistic is greatly flawed. The majority of player money is going towards players where this is not the case.

27 is also the prime for a hockey player, so technically, they reach UFA status when they hit their prime. Not in their old weak years.

You all act like players don't get paid in their RFA years. That is simply not the case. And since owners are buying potential, which is rarely realized, they often end up paying even more than they should.

Reducing ELC length would increase salaries at the beginning of careers, not decrease.

Also, the league is not imposing a lower individual salary cap. They are merely adding restrictions on the contracts to disable circumvention of the cap, and to make sure their contracts are insurable.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 02:29 AM
  #186
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
That so-called "average career length" statistic is greatly flawed. The majority of player money is going towards players where this is not the case.
Please expand.

Quote:
27 is also the prime for a hockey player, so technically, they reach UFA status when they hit their prime. Not in their old weak years.
Incorrect. Forwards hit their primes much earlier. By the time they're 27-28, they are on the decline. Defensemen peak a bit later and the decline isn't as steep. Obviously, of all skaters, they comprise about a third of the roster.

Quote:
You all act like players don't get paid in their RFA years. That is simply not the case. And since owners are buying potential, which is rarely realized, they often end up paying even more than they should.

Reducing ELC length would increase salaries at the beginning of careers, not decrease.
If there were no benefit to teams by virtue of the RFA designation, why would owners care? Heck, Burke rambled on and on about that third contract. Check in with him.

The ELC proposal, last time I checked was a team option after the first two years, but I haven't kept up with that particular detail.

Quote:
Also, the league is not imposing a lower individual salary cap. They are merely adding restrictions on the contracts to disable circumvention of the cap, and to make sure their contracts are insurable.
The individual cap under the last CBA was 20% of the cap. With the share of HRR being reduced, the individual cap will do down commensurately. That's really beside the point to the discussion at hand. The point isn't that the league is changing the rate, but that an individual cap already exists. If you actually read my post carefully, you may discern that I said there are two sets of restrictions on salary in place-- the cap overall and the individual cap. There is no need to further restrict player mobility when one considers the career lengths and how carefully crafted the structure is to exploit that point.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 02:36 AM
  #187
rockinghorse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
That so-called "average career length" statistic is greatly flawed. The majority of player money is going towards players where this is not the case.

27 is also the prime for a hockey player, so technically, they reach UFA status when they hit their prime. Not in their old weak years.

You all act like players don't get paid in their RFA years. That is simply not the case. And since owners are buying potential, which is rarely realized, they often end up paying even more than they should.

Reducing ELC length would increase salaries at the beginning of careers, not decrease.

Also, the league is not imposing a lower individual salary cap. They are merely adding restrictions on the contracts to disable circumvention of the cap, and to make sure their contracts are insurable.
All player's on RFA contracts do not get paid what they are worth. For example I think Stamkos could have been paid more.

While some are overpaid. It goes both ways. The unspoken kibosh on offer sheets is clear that RFA's are being held in check with no recourse.

ELC length reduction is a very minor give from the owners. It's impact on the existing membership is negligible. It will benefit the owners in that the Russian top level players may be more inclined to come over rather than stay in Russia so I view this as a backhanded offer.

I don't personally have an issue with the 5% variance in each year of a contract.

With regards to the arbitration initiated by the team, I'd okay that too with an exception that if the reason that a player's performance has declined is due to a hockey related injury then I'd say that would be beyond the control of the player and not be something the owner should be negotiating down. The player has given his body for the team and should not be penalized for that.

rockinghorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 03:31 AM
  #188
Whydidijoin*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Please expand.
A number of things skew results to less, most notably fringe NHLers, AHL call ups, and prospects who don't make it but are test driven in the NHL. Most of these players would be earning the same, no matter what happens with the negotiations. When these statistics were collected is a major factor as well.

Most players who will share this pie being fought over have a career that lasts double that, or more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Incorrect. Forwards hit their primes much earlier. By the time they're 27-28, they are on the decline. Defensemen peak a bit later and the decline isn't as steep. Obviously, of all skaters, they comprise about a third of the roster.
Scientific research has been done to prove that hockey players hit their prime at the age of 27, and their prime lasts until 32. How that corresponds to points is a side matter, but they don't start declining at 27. Not to mention many players don't take until 27 to hit UFA, and it doesn't matter anyway, because paying on past production is exactly what owners have proven to do and the contracts are guaranteed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If there were no benefit to teams by virtue of the RFA designation, why would owners care? Heck, Burke rambled on and on about that third contract. Check in with him.

The ELC proposal, last time I checked was a team option after the first two years, but I haven't kept up with that particular detail.
Of course the RFA years hold a benefit. It is years that you get your player and your development money pays off.

That doesn't mean the players don't get paid. Right now, the owners get a 3-year ELC for cheap, and then a lot of players ask for bigger longer-term contracts. They are overpaid in the beginning and underpaid in the end. If we push the ELC back to two years, the owners only get two-years cheap, and the players are separated into two groups.

The first group, the stars, that excel in the first two years, get that big contract one year sooner. They end up making more money overall. The second group, good players that the teams want to re-sign, but did not produce as stars, get a bridge contract for a couple years at a price in between the ELC and what would have been their big contract. And then their 3rd contract would likely be bigger than the big contract they would get under the current system. They end up making the same money overall.

The only thing this does is allow owners to more accurately match production with salaries in any given year. It doesn't hurt the players. It can actually help them if they play well.

I don't know anything about owner options. This change has never really been presented as a non-negotiable part anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The individual cap under the last CBA was 20% of the cap. With the share of HRR being reduced, the individual cap will do down commensurately. That's really beside the point to the discussion at hand. The point isn't that the league is changing the rate, but that an individual cap already exists. If you actually read my post carefully, you may discern that I said there are two sets of restrictions on salary in place-- the cap overall and the individual cap. There is no need to further restrict player mobility when one considers the career lengths and how carefully crafted the structure is to exploit that point.
No, it would still be 20% of the cap. It would just change with whatever the cap is, as it always has.

Nevertheless, the max has never been hit, so it is irrelevant.

So we have an irrelevant individual cap, and a collective cap that gives the players more jobs and arguably has increased their salaries too.

Obviously there are reasons to further restrict contracts. There are cap-circumvention issues, insurance issues, and just general flexibility that owners need to have when they are handing out guaranteed contracts.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:13 AM
  #189
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
A number of things skew results to less, most notably fringe NHLers, AHL call ups, and prospects who don't make it but are test driven in the NHL. Most of these players would be earning the same, no matter what happens with the negotiations. When these statistics were collected is a major factor as well.

Most players who will share this pie being fought over have a career that lasts double that, or more.


Scientific research has been done to prove that hockey players hit their prime at the age of 27, and their prime lasts until 32. How that corresponds to points is a side matter, but they don't start declining at 27. Not to mention many players don't take until 27 to hit UFA, and it doesn't matter anyway, because paying on past production is exactly what owners have proven to do and the contracts are guaranteed.


Of course the RFA years hold a benefit. It is years that you get your player and your development money pays off.

That doesn't mean the players don't get paid. Right now, the owners get a 3-year ELC for cheap, and then a lot of players ask for bigger longer-term contracts. They are overpaid in the beginning and underpaid in the end. If we push the ELC back to two years, the owners only get two-years cheap, and the players are separated into two groups.

The first group, the stars, that excel in the first two years, get that big contract one year sooner. They end up making more money overall. The second group, good players that the teams want to re-sign, but did not produce as stars, get a bridge contract for a couple years at a price in between the ELC and what would have been their big contract. And then their 3rd contract would likely be bigger than the big contract they would get under the current system. They end up making the same money overall.

The only thing this does is allow owners to more accurately match production with salaries in any given year. It doesn't hurt the players. It can actually help them if they play well.

I don't know anything about owner options. This change has never really been presented as a non-negotiable part anyway.


No, it would still be 20% of the cap. It would just change with whatever the cap is, as it always has.

Nevertheless, the max has never been hit, so it is irrelevant.

So we have an irrelevant individual cap, and a collective cap that gives the players more jobs and arguably has increased their salaries too.

Obviously there are reasons to further restrict contracts. There are cap-circumvention issues, insurance issues, and just general flexibility that owners need to have when they are handing out guaranteed contracts.
You are overall correct about age 27, but there is a dividing line to which Fugu has directed you. I am aware of the research that you are citing. I have also gone over the numbers personally which supports Fugu's and my position. Defensemen peak later, forwards earlier, goalies later. A team isn't doing itself many favors by grabbing a 27 year old forward as a headliner. He is good for attendance, but performance is very, very rare.

I am also aware of research on males in general that would indicate that reaction times start declining for males after age 18. It isn't extremely noticeable until into the 30s. Males generally don't hit their strength peak until well into their 20s. I was very skeptical of the initial research on hockey players because of this other info. And I also recognize that part of the issue is the learning curve that goes along with the game.

There have been max contracts handed out. Iginla got one, I am not sure about others. Others have received max numbers for some of the years on circumvention type contracts.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:26 AM
  #190
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,714
vCash: 500
If the players are bargaining on principle. I have no problem with that, but if they are bargaining to get the most dollars it doesn't make a whole lot sense to prolong this, not that they are solely to blame. The money lost from missed games will far outweigh any concessions that come their way.

I'm sure if I was a borderline player with what would most likely amount to a short career compared to the star players I would want to get back to work. Most of the concessions would have little or no impact on me. My problem with the PA is that they only seem to protect the interests of the top membership.

If they think they will miss 30-40 games and be paid in full for the season then I think they are out to lunch.

For fugu and the other pro-player advocates. What are the players fighting for and what do they expect to achieve? Isn't this battle about dollars in their pocket? If not, it would seem pretty emotional based to continue to kick the tires down the road. The best way for them to get more money is to have the puck dropped. I understand the owners position, although, I don't agree with it entirely, but I have trouble understanding the players.

The money is always there like Recchi says. The more days that pass the less that's likely to be.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:54 AM
  #191
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,714
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?
This kind of logic is crap. If you think the membership is concerned about the state of affairs 30 years from now, you are out of touch. None of this membership will be around in 30 years. The players are fighting for their own interests.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 06:05 AM
  #192
Whydidijoin*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
You are overall correct about age 27, but there is a dividing line to which Fugu has directed you. I am aware of the research that you are citing. I have also gone over the numbers personally which supports Fugu's and my position. Defensemen peak later, forwards earlier, goalies later. A team isn't doing itself many favors by grabbing a 27 year old forward as a headliner. He is good for attendance, but performance is very, very rare.
The numbers do not support your position. All players on average hit their prime around 27 and have it last around 5 years. It's a physical thing. It just takes longer for some positions to translate that to the NHL.

As for this "lack of performance" after 27, it is just flat out not true anyway and the facts do not support you. 11 of the players in the top-20 in scoring last season were 27 or older. 3 more of those remaining 9 would be UFA eligible July 1st (one other was a defenseman). The average age of the top-20 is over 28.4, even after the youth movement after the lockout.

In fact, just took a quick glance at 21-30 in scoring. 9 of those 10 were over UFA age, with multiple in their 30s..

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I am also aware of research on males in general that would indicate that reaction times start declining for males after age 18. It isn't extremely noticeable until into the 30s. Males generally don't hit their strength peak until well into their 20s. I was very skeptical of the initial research on hockey players because of this other info. And I also recognize that part of the issue is the learning curve that goes along with the game.
I have never seen anything on reaction time decline being that young. Would like some sources.

Even though if it's not noticeable until well into the 30s, it doesn't really matter, does it.

Strength peaking at the start of your prime makes perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
There have been max contracts handed out. Iginla got one, I am not sure about others. Others have received max numbers for some of the years on circumvention type contracts.
Is this true? Individual year salaries don't count.

Well, at any rate, the max contract wouldn't drop lower than any possible contract that will be signed, so it is still irrelevant.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 07:00 AM
  #193
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,474
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.
That's way too easy. The players also need to take a stance that they need to creatively find a way to help the owners get the win they need while the PA also achieves it's goals.

Most of this thread is about win-lose negotiating. Why not win-win?

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 07:15 AM
  #194
Fire Sather
Play Like a Pug
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 19,673
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
That's way too easy. The players also need to take a stance that they need to creatively find a way to help the owners get the win they need while the PA also achieves it's goals.

Most of this thread is about win-lose negotiating. Why not win-win?
Win-Win is impossible at this point, both have already lost. Its about losing as less as possible now (or digging in and fighting even more ruining our sport!!!!!!!!)

Fire Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 07:23 AM
  #195
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,127
vCash: 492
Check out the Damien Cox /Alan Walsh twitter exchange from last night.

pepty is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 07:44 AM
  #196
sina220*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 711
vCash: 500
Well considering the league has made every concession they pretty much can on the way to 50/50, covering make whole, lowering elc years, establishing moderation for discipline, increasing revenue sharing, etc and Fehr hasn't backed off a delinked cap with guaranteed increases built in...were not gonna have hockey this year.

It comes down to this. The current system doesn't allow enough teams to break even. Even teams like minny and Pitt in great markets with new arenas and great leases need several rounds of playoff revenue or to spend several mil below the cap to break even. The league NEEDS a system that allows more teams to cover costs during the regular season, especially if they intend on increasing revenue sharing past 150 mil. Reducing what is by far the largest and fastest increasing cost is the easiest and most logical thing, employee/player salaries. Chances are teams utilities, taxes, and leases didnt increase 80% like player costs did the past 7 years.

The system fehr is proposing, however, aims to change the entire structure of money division. It plans to use fuzzy things like projections and estimated growth to establish guaranteed figures each year for the players before total revenue is even known. It also includes automatic % increases in the players share that have no basis in real numbers, but instead use projections for the upcoming years before the fact. It also only approaches a true 50/50 split in years where the projections for revenue are much higher than they should be. It will always be harder, if not impossible, for owners to get 50% in this system than the players. And it plans to increase revenue sharing towards the 200 mil mark which is essentially the entire operating income of the top 8-10 teams. Think mtl, nyr, tor, etc are willing to fork, basically, their WHOLE profit to revenue sharing, in a system that sees players still get a majority of revenue and guaranteed raises? Ya, thats how dumb the nhlpa thinks you are.

Getting the owners more money is BY FAR the most important thing in all of this. A league that is widely profitable benefits everyone, including the players in the long run. A profitable league doesn't see teams like Dallas, atl, stl, phx, NJ, Tampa, etc sit on the market or look for investors for over a year. If more teams made money outside investment would climb. The stability of many teams could be solidified with one or two more investors, but smart men dont invest in losers. And losers is what this current system, and the nhlpas, will produce. The average payroll per team last year was 59.2 mil with 12 teams spending at or below that number and 18 over. A hrr % split and cap number that work out to roughly that max cap is about whats sustainable. And wouldn't you know in the leagues latest proposal the cap would be 59.9 mil in 13/14. The league understands its problems and is working within itself. The nhlpa is trying to get the most for itself regardless of consequence or health of the league. They dont care what kinda pie it is as long as they get the biggest piece.

sina220* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 08:39 AM
  #197
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 18,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
I have never seen anything on reaction time decline being that young. Would like some sources.

Even though if it's not noticeable until well into the 30s, it doesn't really matter, does it.

Strength peaking at the start of your prime makes perfect sense.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16594792
Quote:
Psychol Aging. 2006 Mar;21(1):62-73.
Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: results from the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey.
Der G, Deary IJ.

Reaction times (RTs) slow and become more variable with age.

The authors reanalyzed data for 7,130 adult participants in the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey, originally reported by F. A. Huppert (1987).

Simple RT shows little slowing until around 50, whereas choice RT slows throughout the adult age range. The aging of choice RT variability is a function of its mean and the error rate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8014399
Quote:
J Gerontol. 1994 Jul;49(4) : P179-89.
Age differences and changes in reaction time: the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging.
Fozard JL, Vercryssen M, Reynolds SL, Hancock PA, Quilter RE.
Quote:
This study analyzed auditory reaction time (RT) data from 1,265 community-dwelling volunteers (833 males and 432 females) who ranged in age from 17 to 96...

Cross-sectional analyses revealed slowing of simple (SRT) and relatively greater slowing of disjunctive (DRT; aka "go-no-go") reaction time across decades for both males and females..

Beginning at about age 20, RTs increased at a rate of approximately 0.5 msec/yr for SRT and 1.6 msec/yr for DRT. Errors also increased, making unlikely a tradeoff of accuracy for faster responses.

InjuredChoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 08:47 AM
  #198
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,784
vCash: 500
Here's the thing, I disagree with him because I think a lot of owners wants games to be played, they want a season and are willing to concede on some points.

But the real danger, the biggest warning I can give to the players is watch out if the owners cancels the whole season. So far it's fine, the Players PA will get some concession down the line, I trully believe that. But if there's an impass and Bettman and the owners cancel the whole season, that would mean they would be ready to literaly throw money away, hurting themselves in return. And they will want blood. And the players will have to crawl back to get a decent deal.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 09:38 AM
  #199
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 18,079
vCash: 500
Reg. peformance

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19001883
Quote:
Clin J Sport Med. 2008 Nov;18(6):501-7.
The aging of elite male athletes: age-related changes in performance and skeletal muscle structure and function.
Faulkner JA, Davis CS, Mendias CL, Brooks SV.
Quote:
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS:
Strength, power, VO2max, and performance.

RESULTS:
For elite athletes in all sports, as for the general population, age-related muscle atrophy begins at about 50 years of age. Despite the loss of muscle mass, elite athletes who maintain an active lifestyle age gracefully with few health problems. Conversely, those who lapse into inactivity regress toward general population norms for fitness, weight control, and health problems. Elite athletes in the dual and team sports have careers that rarely extend into their 30s.
Arcticicehockey also has pretty good graph on ppg averages in different age



http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/...-game-peak-age

Here is also some interesting stats.

Looking at 30+ goal seasons, here is how many of the top 100 goal scorers broke thirty at each age:

At 21: 45
At 22: 56
At 23: 63
At 24: 61
At 25: 63
At 26: 72
At 27: 66
At 28: 57
At 29: 61
At 30: 46
At 31: 33
At 32: 30
At 33: 19



Also from players who were top20 in scoring last season and were older than 26, some had had better seasons when they were younger.

Spezza was 22. As was Kovy. Thornton was 26, same with Pominville.

Though I didn't adjust with differences in league-wides scoring.

InjuredChoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 09:42 AM
  #200
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccupySheen View Post
there wont be much of a future once we lose another season
This is what i dont get...NHL is the ONLY league to lose an entire season to a labor dispute. Now, 8 years after that, theyre going to just throw it away again...and this time, the league doesnt even seem to CARE about the fans reaction, just chalking it up to frustration. How arrogant and naive can they be? This will destroy the NHL...absolutely crumble the league if they lose another full season. I said it back in June and was mocked, but people are starting to see just how bad this is.

isles31 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 05:49 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.