HFBoards

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

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-14-2012, 11:56 PM
  #926
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Am I just really exhausted or did someone earlier say that Crosby was underpaid because baseball players make 2 & 3 times more than he does?

My cranky mind is thinking that baseball players are way overpaid and that comparison is outlandish.

I need sleep.
more like bb players are paid 1.5x more. The parsing of quotes may or may not have left out his adjustment for the 162 game season.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:07 AM
  #927
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Yeah, thats a bit disingenuous. One season of "delinked" salaries is a far cry from the stance you are projecting onto the players. And the league essentially agreed to fund the "make whole", so your position that the delinkage is holding up a deal is off.

One issue is players are looking for two seasons of guaranteed money. The league is kn board for one... hence the $200m and $600m discrepency. One season vs two with interest and I believe 5% growth.

The other issue, according to just about everyone including Daly and Fehr, is contractual. The honest to god sticking point is unclear, but PA stance is the league wants controls beyond 5% variance. League says they have conceded enough... "no more give and take."

At this point, the only way to salvage would be moderates on both side circumventing leadership and working out a cooperative deal. There is no way games should have been lost. Bettman crapped on the NBA CBA. That should have been our template: 50% split, two season escrow cap, contract limit (5% variance), revenue sharing increase. League gets the two big issues, players win on rev sharing and keep inked deals. Players lose overall... significantly. How are they getting squeezed beyond that?
The players are getting two years guaranteed under the NHL's make whole. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head but $140-150 million was to cover year one with another $60-70 million to cover year two. That plus two percent interest. The proposal was made with the belief that revenues would rise enough to cover the rest of the deals at 50/50 year three and beyond.

I really have no clue where the PA is getting the $600 million number from. The only thing I can guess is they want every single contract covered in its entire duration.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:12 AM
  #928
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaromir Jagr View Post
This is a load of **** though. Those fans will be back as soon as the lockout is over, they're just frustrated at the way its going now. It is frustrating, however, anyone that walks away because of it (a real fan beforehand not a casual one), isn't a real fan.

I'm sick of the lockout but I'll be back when it starts again because I love hockey. A real fan wouldn't not watch the sport ever again because of this.
It's not a question of watching, it's about spending money on the sport. I am a season ticket holder--if I decide to drop my season tickets because the price keeps going up when owners have lower costs (assuming they are successful in reducing their cost in the next CBA), but keep watching on TV do you consider me someone who has walked away from the sport?

Most hockey revenue is collected from fans who pay for the tickets. It seems to me that you suggesting that anyone who chooses not to spend their money on a sport that has had 3 lockouts in order to "control costs" is not "real" fan. Was that your intention?

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:30 AM
  #929
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
Where is there an overreaction? Where? It's simply reality. You can't have a lockout every 8 years. And you can't lose whole seasons over it. What kind of "league" is that? The answer you're looking for is, there isn't a "league." When you don't have games you are not a league. Yes this is a business but their is no business without the games and the players. You lose another whole season, and the owners that did not support this lockout or at least to the degree that others are, will collect themselves and start a new league. You want to know why? Because those owners lost millions when they didn't want to. The big ticket teams will form their own league and they will get people to show up because they are in "hockey towns."

Like allkurtz was saying above the EPL has only been around since 1992 and it one of, if not, the most popular leagues in the world. You don't think that could happen to hockey in the US? Based on what? You don't think sponsors and tv contracts would surface for a new league? I sure as hell know they would; because it's simple, they would actually make money off of a league that is up and running and not shutdown at a stalemate. At a stalemate because smaller market teams are not as profitable, other than Jeremy Jacobs who is a real jerk off. And those smaller market teams are poorly located and were expanded to by a commissioner who does not have a clue. And no one can fire him because of previous rules that have been put in place which protect him from getting taken off the throne. Bettman's answer for revenue problems is always to lockout the players. This time it is even worse because it was a cba, HE CREATED, that HE has deemed is not working. This is HIS fault. NOT the players. Don't go after the players for wanting their contracts guaranteed because these owners, who have no self control, want an out clause.

It is time for change. The sport is a laughing stock. Players are underpaid for their value as it is compared to other sports. Crosby makes around $8 million a year for an 82 game season. The highest paid players in baseball make around 25-30 million a year over a 162 game season. Cut the MLB number in half and you're at 12-15 million. Now of course hockey isn't as popular as baseball but you don't think guys like crosby shouldn't be making at least $10 million? I do, I really do believe that is fair value. But he doesn't get that playing professional hockey in the NHL. And he's probably not crying over it, but now his salary has to be reduced even further because the owners want more back? It is ridiculous. I don't blame the players. I can't. The single idea that the players can't have their contracts guaranteed is unfathomable. The fact that they have to give back more because the NHL out kicked it's coverage by expanding to warm climate areas that aren't hockey hotbeds is not the players fault. And you could say well the players are giving back for the good of the game to help make smaller market teams more profitable as well as help fellow players keep their jobs. Well those teams shouldn't exist. They shouldn't. And it's all grand that 200 more players have work (thats about 4 teams and their AHL teams) but it thins out the talent pool in the NHL. More 4th line players that shouldn't be in the NHL. Less talent depth on 3rd and 4th lines. I'd rather have had less teams and more talent to watch. More excitement. But because Bettman has dug himself this deep there is no going back now. He is going to protect his babies/pet projects. And unfortunately he has to because how could you shutdown those organizations now? You can't do that to the fans and players of those teams at this point. You lose another season, this league won't be around anymore. And I hope Dolan is first on board to take the New York Rangers into a new league.
Actually there is a financial reason why the NHL will not consider reducing the number of teams in the league: the league would have to refund the entry fee of the team being removed. I don't remember the going rate in the latest round of expansion but it's a significant amount of money. The best one can hope for is moving failing franchises to cities where they have a better chance of thriving. Either way (contraction or relocation) the "real" fan loses.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 08:24 AM
  #930
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,700
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
We need teams to self-contract.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
EvilCorporateLawyer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 08:38 AM
  #931
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
The players are getting two years guaranteed under the NHL's make whole. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head but $140-150 million was to cover year one with another $60-70 million to cover year two. That plus two percent interest. The proposal was made with the belief that revenues would rise enough to cover the rest of the deals at 50/50 year three and beyond.

I really have no clue where the PA is getting the $600 million number from. The only thing I can guess is they want every single contract covered in its entire duration.
You summed up the owners Make Whole proposal nicely.

With regards to the 600M, I think it's a negotiating tactic. Just like the owners asking for 5 year max length and 28/8 UFA status. Both sides are planting goalposts in the ground and asking for concessions in order to move closer to the other side.

Crease is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 08:39 AM
  #932
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Silent treatment time
Negotiations seemed to be getting some traction. And then Jacobs decided to show up. And then this.

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:05 AM
  #933
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,499
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Negotiations seemed to be getting some traction. And then Jacobs decided to show up. And then this.
agreed. he needs to stay out of the room for the duration of this process

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:06 AM
  #934
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,499
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
You're confused. Its not 2004 anymore.
im not confused at all. what do you think the guaranteed money the PA seeks means? a de-linked salary cap.

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:14 AM
  #935
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
im not confused at all. what do you think the guaranteed money the PA seeks means? a de-linked salary cap.
But only for the portion that the current contracts were signed for. And only until those contracts get paid. Everything else is linked. And your "de-linkage" is temporary. The fully linked cap is attained within a few years.

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:30 AM
  #936
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,499
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
But only for the portion that the current contracts were signed for. And only until those contracts get paid. Everything else is linked. And your "de-linkage" is temporary. The fully linked cap is attained within a few years.
technically speaking (and which is why the "make-whole" is so far apart) current contracts extend for the next at least 10 seasons. so all of those contracts would remain separate is what the PA is saying?

linked cap for the duration of the CBA with more money kicked into the make whole, plus a sliding scale down to 50/50 AND a cap on escrow would be a reasonable solution in my eyes

the deal-breaker for the owners is the players want the guaranteed money. compromise is the conditions i posted above and i think would address players concerns

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:37 AM
  #937
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
technically speaking (and which is why the "make-whole" is so far apart) current contracts extend for the next at least 10 seasons. so all of those contracts would remain separate is what the PA is saying?

linked cap for the duration of the CBA with more money kicked into the make whole, plus a sliding scale down to 50/50 AND a cap on escrow would be a reasonable solution in my eyes

the deal-breaker for the owners is the players want the guaranteed money. compromise is the conditions i posted above and i think would address players concerns
Isn't it true that over the next two seasons (including the one that's being discarded day by day) that 60% or so of contracts expire?

That means that the 10 yr circumventing deals could be easily absorbed into the 50/50 AS LONG AS REVENUE STAYS OR INCREASES. We all know the longer this goes on the less likelyhood there is of a rev increase (at least in the first season back, be it 60, 42 or a full season after a lost one), but eventually those salaries fit fine minus the normal escrow that would be held back like every other year.

The players are in this, it's partially their fault and as such should be held accountable to the rev decrease that this lockout (& eventual lost season) has produced. They both made their bed... Time to sleep in it.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:46 AM
  #938
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
im not confused at all. what do you think the guaranteed money the PA seeks means? a de-linked salary cap.
That is what many believes, but Brooks is quoting a source denying it, but, and without having followed this so closely, I under stand Daly is also reporting.

Think of it like this. With 50/50 the players will get X when everything is said and done.

To be paid in full, under the condition 82 games is played, you will need Y amount more money than X. To put any numbers on the table -- the PA needs to assume a Y. Brooks is referring to a source who says that the PA has not demanded a set amount for Y for next season.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...fgPLGAnT5fPrJN
Quote:
* Allow me to apologize for passing along misinformation on my @NYP_Brooksie Twitter account on Friday that the NHLPA had proposed the players be paid their full salaries for this season. Not so.

There was much confusion into the night on this one, but the true story is the union was basing its revenue projections off a hypothetical full 2012-13 and not a hard-dollars share for this year. Indeed, the PA expects pay to be prorated for this season.

I choose to believe that my original sources made a mistake and were not intentionally attempting to deceive, but the mistake was mine in forwarding the reports absent confirmation.
If Brooks source is credible, its extremely obvious that the PA wants the following. Lets say that 50% of HRR gives the PA 1.5b and that all contracts amounts to 1.7b if a full season is played. The players would want 1.5b and 200m in make whole. If 50% of revenues is lost this season due to half the season being lost, the PA would want 0,75b and 100m in make whole. Its i) ridiculous to believe that the PA even would try to get 1.5b + 200m even if half of revenues was lost (I recon it could bankrupt half the league) and ii) Brooks is also citing a source saying that not to be true.

Still, there is a ton of reports and people who seem to believe that the players want to get paid in full because -- as I understand it -- Daly twisted something to almost sound like it. It just shows the media climate the PA is working on. Imagine if Fehr would step out of a meeting and say hey the owners are offering us 25%, and it turned out not the be true. He would be eaten alive...

Ola is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:47 AM
  #939
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,499
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
That is what many believes, but Brooks is quoting a source denying it, but, and without having followed this so closely, I under stand Daly is also reporting.

Think of it like this. With 50/50 the players will get X when everything is said and done.

To be paid in full, under the condition 82 games is played, you will need Y amount more money than X. To put any numbers on the table -- the PA needs to assume a Y. Brooks is referring to a source who says that the PA has not demanded a set amount for Y for next season.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...fgPLGAnT5fPrJN


If Brooks source is credible, its extremely obvious that the PA wants the following. Lets say that 50% of HRR gives the PA 1.5b and that all contracts amounts to 1.7b if a full season is played. The players would want 1.5b and 200m in make whole. If 50% of revenues is lost this season due to half the season being lost, the PA would want 0,75b and 100m in make whole. Its i) ridiculous to believe that the PA even would try to get 1.5b + 200m even if half of revenues was lost (I recon it could bankrupt half the league) and ii) Brooks is also citing a source saying that not to be true.

Still, there is a ton of reports and people who seem to believe that the players want to get paid in full because -- as I understand it -- Daly twisted something to almost sound like it. It just shows the media climate the PA is working on. Imagine if Fehr would step out of a meeting and say hey the owners are offering us 25%, and it turned out not the be true. He would be eaten alive...
never once did i mention the guaranteed money for a full season. i understand that they will accept the money being pro-rated and i wasn't disputing that at all

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:28 AM
  #940
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
The NHL needs two transition years just like the NBA which gave their teams two years to prepare for the rules and gave them an amnesty. Flat cap of $58M for two years. Tough luxury taxes begin in year three of the CBA. NHL proposed one transition year with the thought of playing 82 games this season. Basing 13-14 cap on 12-13 revenue which was projected at $3.468B including 5% growth. Can't base 13-14 cap on less than 82 games played.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:39 AM
  #941
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
There have been no tweets today about the status of the talks. You know the media has emailed Daly and Fehr. Might be time to meet again in Chicago.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:39 AM
  #942
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,499
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The NHL needs two transition years just like the NBA which gave their teams two years to prepare for the rules and gave them an amnesty. Flat cap of $58M for two years. Tough luxury taxes begin in year three of the CBA. NHL proposed one transition year with the thought of playing 82 games this season. Basing 13-14 cap on 12-13 revenue which was projected at $3.468B including 5% growth. Can't base 13-14 cap on less than 82 games played.
2 transition years with the players share linked directly to league revenues. makes no fiscal sense to do so otherwise for the owners

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:40 AM
  #943
Thirty One
portnor, pls
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,550
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
im not confused at all. what do you think the guaranteed money the PA seeks means? a de-linked salary cap.
Yeah, but only one of the three PA proposals had their share guaranteed. The others were fully linked to revenue, but had similarly outlandish requests.

Thirty One is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:49 AM
  #944
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,199
vCash: 500
@reporterchris: All kinds of pessimism in hockey circles. It's not inconceivable U.S. Thanksgiving comes and goes before NHL and NHLPA negotiate again.

NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:02 PM
  #945
Thordic
StraightOuttaConklin
 
Thordic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kearny, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,916
vCash: 500
Anyone else preparing for the bath of tears if Kovalchuk ends up staying in Russia?

I doubt it will happen, but I already have my rubber duckie lined up just in case.

It would be absolutely terrible for the Devils, after everything they went through landing Kovy, if he just decides to stay in Russia. He would be rightfully hated in NJ as much as Potvin is hated at MSG, even moreso.

That being said, my laughter may drown out their wailing cries.

Thordic is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:09 PM
  #946
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thordic View Post
Anyone else preparing for the bath of tears if Kovalchuk ends up staying in Russia?

I doubt it will happen, but I already have my rubber duckie lined up just in case.

It would be absolutely terrible for the Devils, after everything they went through landing Kovy, if he just decides to stay in Russia. He would be rightfully hated in NJ as much as Potvin is hated at MSG, even moreso.

That being said, my laughter may drown out their wailing cries.
I doubt that would happen. A lot of those guys are big on playing in the Olympics and if they stay over there and don't honor their NHL deals, can't be IIHF ban them from international competition?

Would be hilarious though.

NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:11 PM
  #947
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,985
vCash: 500
I'm going to laugh and laugh and laugh if the NHL cancels another season, because this time it's just ridiculous. They really need to re-evaluate the leadership in the league.

Levitate is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:21 PM
  #948
KreiMeARiver*
Have Confidence
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
I'm going to laugh and laugh and laugh if the NHL cancels another season, because this time it's just ridiculous. They really need to re-evaluate the leadership in the league.
Not unlike our government. Too many greedy children, not enough real leaders.

KreiMeARiver* is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:32 PM
  #949
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,199
vCash: 500
December 10th, another home date for the Rangers, is off the schedule now. They moved the show they had on the 11th to the 10th that way they could prepare for the Sandy concert on the 12th (which also eliminated another home date). If they do start in early December (which I doubt anyway), the Rangers are down two possible dates for home games.

NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:57 PM
  #950
Thordic
StraightOuttaConklin
 
Thordic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kearny, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
I doubt that would happen. A lot of those guys are big on playing in the Olympics and if they stay over there and don't honor their NHL deals, can't be IIHF ban them from international competition?

Would be hilarious though.
Agreed, I doubt it would happen as well.

The IIHF could ban them, but aren't guaranteed to. There'd be a lot of pressure from Russia, especially since the Olympics are there, to let them play. I don't believe Radulov is banned, and he did the same thing. Granted, he wasn't as big a star.

Thordic is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 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.