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.

ESPN's MacGregor on the lockout, the NHL and Bettman

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2012, 12:16 PM
  #76
Mant*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topdog View Post
OK The owners agree to all the players demands but inturn want one two things.
50-50 and the shut down of the 5 -6 biggest money losing teams.
Have the players vote on it .How do you think the players will vote.
Bettman is there to help the weaker teams and the league as a whole.
There's only two options .Help the weaker teams with the offer the NHL has proposed or Shut down 5-6 teams which inturn will make a more healthy league.
You pick one.
I think it would be kind of awesome if 115 to 138 nhl players lost their jobs.

Mant* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 12:16 PM
  #77
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
There are no morals in business. It's not a question of doing what's right or wrong, but it's always a question of what can or can't I do.

If there is a loop hole, some GM or owner is going to find it and exploit it, if it's to their benefit.
But are they exploiting it or is it the PA that expects them to exploit it or otherwise it cries "collusion"? That's really my question here. Has it gotten to the point where businesses are expected to do whatever there isn't a rule against doing, or else, in the case of a League, it will be considered to be collusion if teams choose not to do it, regardless of the rationality that doing it could be considered bad for them in the end?

Are some of these very specific rules meant to protect the owners from themselves or to protect them from accusations of collusion? In either case, if teams/owners decide not to want to do something because they don't believe it to be good for the League or good for them as owners, then it seems all messed up that they should need protection from themselves or collusion accusations simply because they're choosing what's the best thing to do. Do they really need established rules in order to be able to do the "best or right thing"?

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 12:19 PM
  #78
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
All due respect to the relevant parties, but any one of us could pick a fan at random out of the stands at an OHL game in Guelph or Kitchener or the 'Soo and find a better head and a better heart to serve the game of hockey.
No, MacGregor they can't. Good intentions aren't enough.

Quote:
And in the whole, long history of disasters and capitalism, has there ever been a bigger disaster than the National Hockey League or its mortician, Gary Bettman? The decommissioner has managed in just 20 years to make the league invisible. An afterthought. An unfunny punch line to a joke no one recalls. By his own accounting, the league is poised on the brink of insolvency. Again. Still. A constant invalid.
His opinions shouldn't be taken seriously after this paragraph.

Ahhh, at least it was a nice reminder to minimize my exposure to TSN and ESPN.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 12:19 PM
  #79
c4fn8d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
Sorry McSorely threatened Bettman after Bettman called players "labor". Apparently hockey players arent labor.
LOL.

Reality will hit home when the NHL files the same papers, pre-approved, they were about to file when saskin broke.
League re-organizes to central command and central contracting.
Contracts evaporate. (they dont exist anyways without a CBA and the players should have been made aware that their contracts dont mean squat after sept. 15 2012 nor are they entitled to anything other than what their contract is worth under the successor agreement.) how dumb are these players. even my nephew knows this.
Everyone becomes a UFA. But the league centrally controls, so any player looking at coming back will be put on the same team they were on before .
No more guaranteed contracts.
No revenue based Cap... but there WILL be a cap that pays out about 35% (average businesses labor costs)
Cap will not change unless owners view it as self-serving.
I would love to see this, Katz would throw the world to get Crosby on our team. Max contract, Max term, Max everything. DO IT!!! But do you honestly think owners would go for this?

Do you not think that the minute this happens it opens the door for a competing league to establish itself on this continent?

Do you think players would willingly do this when there can be viable solution elsewhere? I believe they would not jump at the chance to have a centralized contract structure. Do you not think that there aren't any other billionaires that got stiffed by the NHL that wouldn't jump on the chance to own a competitive franchise in a different league?

You speak about commie red vs capitalism but isn't a centralized contracting structure more in line with Communism than Capitalism? Wouldn't the KHL be more capitalistic if the NHL followed through with what you are suggesting?

c4fn8d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 12:52 PM
  #80
CJV123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 471
vCash: 500
This article is worse than Bleacher Report spam. I thought ESPN had some editorial standards This needs to be sent into their Ombudsman.

CJV123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 01:10 PM
  #81
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 31,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
But are they exploiting it or is it the PA that expects them to exploit it or otherwise it cries "collusion"? That's really my question here. Has it gotten to the point where businesses are expected to do whatever there isn't a rule against doing, or else, in the case of a League, it will be considered to be collusion if teams choose not to do it, regardless of the rationality that doing it could be considered bad for them in the end?

Are some of these very specific rules meant to protect the owners from themselves or to protect them from accusations of collusion? In either case, if teams/owners decide not to want to do something because they don't believe it to be good for the League or good for them as owners, then it seems all messed up that they should need protection from themselves or collusion accusations simply because they're choosing what's the best thing to do. Do they really need established rules in order to be able to do the "best or right thing"?
Collusion cannot be the case if businesses have standards and practices in place. It would be easy for any team to show, if there was such an accusation, that spending more money than they get in revenues is a bad idea. They can probably pick a point to which they want to spend based on their income.

One problem is that many teams budget under the assumption that they'll reach the second round of the playoffs. Obviously, making the playoffs means a lot more revenue. Well, if you consider the odds of getting that far, most teams will lose that bet.

Collusion can only be proven if the teams, as a group, conspire to set pricing or adopt practices which end restraining player salaries. Sticking to a budget is not collusive behavior.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 01:20 PM
  #82
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Collusion cannot be the case if businesses have standards and practices in place. It would be easy for any team to show, if there was such an accusation, that spending more money than they get in revenues is a bad idea. They can probably pick a point to which they want to spend based on their income.

One problem is that many teams budget under the assumption that they'll reach the second round of the playoffs. Obviously, making the playoffs means a lot more revenue. Well, if you consider the odds of getting that far, most teams will lose that bet.

Collusion can only be proven if the teams, as a group, conspire to set pricing or adopt practices which end restraining player salaries. Sticking to a budget is not collusive behavior.
So putting into place a rule against "back-diving" contracts would be necessary for the League to protect itself from itself, not from collusions accusations if all teams simply chose not to do such a thing?

I'm just really curious about which of these new rules that the League wants to put into place are truly necessary to be approved by the PA. If it's just the owners protecting themselves from themselves in some cases, then those rules can be done in-house.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 04:46 PM
  #83
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,192
vCash: 500
So MacGregor is saying Bettman should hold out until he can cut the player share to 40%. Can't see the players agreeing.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 06:13 PM
  #84
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 31,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
So putting into place a rule against "back-diving" contracts would be necessary for the League to protect itself from itself, not from collusions accusations if all teams simply chose not to do such a thing?

I'm just really curious about which of these new rules that the League wants to put into place are truly necessary to be approved by the PA. If it's just the owners protecting themselves from themselves in some cases, then those rules can be done in-house.
The problem is that the league created the loophole in the last CBA. They introduced an overall cap, an individual cap, and the 100% rule. This became a mathematical puzzle for capologists. Anti-trust comes into play when teams introduce measures regarding contracting without the PA's agreement (as you know). They agreed to the cap, the individual cap and that contract terms fit the 100% rule allowable variance. Teams still found ways to circumvent the intent of the cap, if not the letter of the law. Technically, the back-diving contracts are CBA compliant.

A team does NOT have to create back-diving contracts, and the majority seem to have avoided it. They may have cash flow issues that would keep them from considering that option, or maybe it's the inherent risk and insurance premiums associated with the term + total value. You cannot force teams to use these methods.

The NHL knows if they leave the loophole alone, richer teams will continue to use it, so they have to get everyone to agree to a different variance (which they partially did after the Kovalchuk contract was nullified).

Introducing a contract term to which everyone MUST subscribe would require collective agreement. Individual teams don't have to hand out 10 or 15 yr contracts, they basically are free to negotiate with each player. If they NHL met secretly with teams and no one ever handed out a contract longer than 5 yrs.... that would be collusive behavior. Two CBA's ago, there were no individual caps or contract limits, yet most teams still fell within some normal distribution for contract length, so it is possible for teams to govern themselves.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 09:53 AM
  #85
therealkoho
Gary says it's A-OK
 
therealkoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the Prior
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
I didn't know middle schoolers were capable of making comparisons between Naomi Klein and the league.

Seriously, let's all just jump on the guy for his writing style and completely ignore the point he's trying to make!
and right after he makes that comparison(however tenuous the string connecting them is) he reverts to schoolyard taunting. So clearly his stance is not of objective journalist but just another opinionist with a somewhat jaundiced view of ownership

therealkoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:02 PM
  #86
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 6,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
I enjoyed the article, big Naomi Klein fan and loved the reference.

It's not poorly written, it's conversational. I actually think it flows just fine.



I don't know how to disagree with any of this.


Really? From my recollection, disaster capitalism is about taking advantage of real or perceived disaster in order to put public properties and responsibilities into the hands of private enterprise. Both sides are private enterprise here. Both sides are disgustingly wealthy as well.

Further, how can you be a fan of Klein and not be able to disagree that a few months of NHL delay is among the greatest disasters capitalism has produced? That's some insane hyperbole. Also, Klein aside, revenues are at an all time high, as the players keep reminding us. They're so high that the players think they deserve a higher percentage of them than the other sports leagues. How can it be that Bettman is driving the league into irrelevancy while the players argue that the economics are so good that they don't need to take a cut?


Last edited by haveandare: 11-16-2012 at 03:13 PM. Reason: spelling
haveandare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:09 PM
  #87
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 31,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
I didn't know middle schoolers were capable of making comparisons between Naomi Klein and the league.

Seriously, let's all just jump on the guy for his writing style and completely ignore the point he's trying to make!

If you shoot the messengers, you don't have to build any arguments about why they're right or wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by therealkoho View Post
and right after he makes that comparison(however tenuous the string connecting them is) he reverts to schoolyard taunting. So clearly his stance is not of objective journalist but just another opinionist with a somewhat jaundiced view of ownership

This article actually is an OPINION piece. I find that refreshing after some of the recent examples of journalists editorializing the "news" they get from their puppetmasters sources.

Fugu 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 07:18 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.