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.

Does Anybody Here Remember Vera Lynn? (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XXVIII ‎

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2012, 12:17 PM
  #501
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
I kind've hope they'd just cancel the season so that my hopes can't get up at any point despite the fact that, let's face it, there's not going to be a deal.
Sadly, I have moved to this camp. ^^^^

just get it over with, put us all out of our hockey-misery.

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:17 PM
  #502
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,481
vCash: 14214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuck in Socal View Post
I have been saying already they won't meet until after Thanksgiving.

I was a firm believer that a deal would get done. Now, unless the union decertifies like the NBA you can forget it.

I think there is a 1 percent chance at a season at this point. The NHL is done trying to create some movement forward and Don is telling the players wait till this summer ill kill the cap.

I'm pretty ashamed of this entire process but I love NHL hockey otherwise I wouldn't be posting here.
It is really sad how we have to kill th sport for a season to get a new CBA.
I agree. Just goes to show where NHL players rank in terms of intelligence compared to other pro athletes. I don't blame the players as much as I blame Fehr. Fehr has lead the players down a dead end road and the players are dumb enough to listen and follow like sheep.

MikeK is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:19 PM
  #503
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
How many teams who have signed these deals do we hear complaining? You mean the Wild owner, correct?
This is a common misconception.

Craig Leipold has not complained about the Parise/Suter contracts. The mistake lies in the fact that he happily approved these two contracts and at the same time, was stating that the Wild had lost money the previous two seasons.

I believe the paraphrasing he used to describe the two contracts was; Great for the future, within the rules of the current CBA, and that he can’t wait to see the product on the ice.

Once the gag order comes off, I can about guarantee you that we will find out that Leipold was one of the louder voices in trying to get the season going. He is, if you ever have a chance to watch him at a Wild game/road game, a FAN first and foremost. It killed him to watch the team that he purchased go from winning the NW to a cellar dweller.

While it seems hypocritical to sign two 98 million/13 year contracts at the same time he is “crying poor” (to use a certain agent’s term), The fact of the matter is that the Wild’s fan base had to live through games like this, and momentum was LOST. He regained it with these two contracts.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:25 PM
  #504
Do Make Say Think
Registered User
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,496
vCash: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
But pro-PA guys on here would have them lose a whole year of earning and possibly their careers for...well, nothing.
I feel that is a misrepresentation of a lot of clearly intelligent posters that are very vocal about being on the PA's side of things (and are also on my ever growing ignore list).
To them this is clearly about class warfare. They feel the owners, who only care about how much money they make, will always try to make their employees unhappy if it makes them richer. Clearly they feel they are fighting the good fight: it's about the little guy standing up to the big bad robot which only desires to make money and the time has come for the last stand.
Some think the players are entitled to everything the owners make because they fudge the books, others think that if the PA doesn't make this as hard as possible on the owners it means total surrender and will indicate that the owners can go ahead and bulldoze the players in accepting whatever they want (I mean look at the thread about the owner of the MLB team in Miami: clearly his actions mean that pro-sports teams owners are never to be trusted, in the same way that Matt Cooke proved that all hockey players are despicable and have no concern for other's health)

All in all it all comes down to responsibility: the players have a responsibility in participating in these talks and a responsibility towards the health of the League. They have failed, miserably at that, to live up to those (not so lofty) expectations on the ground that the playing field is not even and that they need to make this as hard as possible to establish their foothold.

They don't feel this is nothing because they've decided that to get what they want they'll screw over everybody; they've become what they claim to be fighting against. Just like the atheist who tells people that don't share his views that they are wrong and should conform to their view, the PA has now become what it vilifies in the name of principle. It's rather discouraging.

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:28 PM
  #505
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
This is a common misconception.

Craig Leipold has not complained about the Parise/Suter contracts. The mistake lies in the fact that he happily approved these two contracts and at the same time, was stating that the Wild had lost money the previous two seasons.

I believe the paraphrasing he used to describe the two contracts was; Great for the future, within the rules of the current CBA, and that he can’t wait to see the product on the ice.

Once the gag order comes off, I can about guarantee you that we will find out that Leipold was one of the louder voices in trying to get the season going. He is, if you ever have a chance to watch him at a Wild game/road game, a FAN first and foremost. It killed him to watch the team that he purchased go from winning the NW to a cellar dweller.

While it seems hypocritical to sign two 98 million/13 year contracts at the same time he is “crying poor” (to use a certain agent’s term), The fact of the matter is that the Wild’s fan base had to live through games like this, and momentum was LOST. He regained it with these two contracts.
The optics look bad when he's at the bargaining table while the league needing to cap contract lengths, however, the reality of the situation, I don't disagree with you. I don't know the guy or how he operates but I'm not holding any party to blame for using the means available to do what they felt needed to be done. Whether it's an owner's desire to be competitive or a player's desire for financial security, I'm not going to wag my finger at you. I'm assuming that they person was referring to Leipold as many other people on here have mentioned him and even players have mentioned which is why I brought up the point that people can't overlook the context of his presence at the bargaining table. He's there as a representative of the owners and whether he likes the leagues terms, hates them or was the mastermind behind them, it doesn't matter, you don't look at him sitting across the table from you and stupidly assume that he's only representing himself.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:33 PM
  #506
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,186
vCash: 50
As a fan, how can you not like 2-year ELC's and 5-year contract limits? To me, it means more player movement, young guys getting into real money earlier, and less dead-weight contracts. Come on, every fan here probably has someone on the roster of their favorite team that they wish was a couple of years further along in his contract because he simply didn't pan out, and isn't producing.

It would create more of a competitive environment amongst the players. If you're a rookie who is good enough to stay in the bigs, you get out of your ELC a year earlier. If not, too bad. And old vets should be looking over their shoulder at the young ones coming up. They better keep their skills and conditioning up because they'll need to sign a new contract every 5 years.

I mean isn't this the way it should be? Pay and position based more on performance, and less on potential or prospect?

Turbofan is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:35 PM
  #507
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,481
vCash: 14214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post
As a fan, how can you not like 2-year ELC's and 5-year contract limits? To me, it means more player movement, young guys getting into real money earlier, and less dead-weight contracts. Come on, every fan here probably has someone on the roster of their favorite team that they wish was a couple of years further along in his contract because he simply didn't pan out, and isn't producing.

It would create more of a competitive environment amongst the players. If you're a rookie who is good enough to stay in the bigs, you get out of your ELC a year earlier. If not, too bad. And old vets should be looking over their shoulder at the young ones coming up. They better keep their skills and conditioning up because they'll need to sign a new contract every 5 years.

I mean isn't this the way it should be? Pay and position based more on performance, and less on potential or prospect?
I agree. It's the older players who have a problem with this because they can no longer sign ridiculous length deals and coast into retirement.

MikeK is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:36 PM
  #508
Shwag33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
I feel that is a misrepresentation of a lot of clearly intelligent posters that are very vocal about being on the PA's side of things (and are also on my ever growing ignore list).
To them this is clearly about class warfare. They feel the owners, who only care about how much money they make, will always try to make their employees unhappy if it makes them richer. Clearly they feel they are fighting the good fight: it's about the little guy standing up to the big bad robot which only desires to make money and the time has come for the last stand.
Some think the players are entitled to everything the owners make because they fudge the books, others think that if the PA doesn't make this as hard as possible on the owners it means total surrender and will indicate that the owners can go ahead and bulldoze the players in accepting whatever they want (I mean look at the thread about the owner of the MLB team in Miami: clearly his actions mean that pro-sports teams owners are never to be trusted, in the same way that Matt Cooke proved that all hockey players are despicable and have no concern for other's health)

All in all it all comes down to responsibility: the players have a responsibility in participating in these talks and a responsibility towards the health of the League. They have failed, miserably at that, to live up to those (not so lofty) expectations on the ground that the playing field is not even and that they need to make this as hard as possible to establish their foothold.

They don't feel this is nothing because they've decided that to get what they want they'll screw over everybody; they've become what they claim to be fighting against. Just like the atheist who tells people that don't share his views that they are wrong and should conform to their view, the PA has now become what it vilifies in the name of principle. It's rather discouraging.



What's humorous about this is. If you put all the NHL players and owners salaries (from nhl ownership) in a list from largest to smallest, only about 3 or 4 owners would be in the top 25.

Shwag33 is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:37 PM
  #509
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
He's there as a representative of the owners and whether he likes the leagues terms, hates them or was the mastermind behind them, it doesn't matter, you don't look at him sitting across the table from you and stupidly assume that he's only representing himself.
Fully agree…

If emotion is removed from people’s perception, logic will prevail. There are definitely owners out there that despise the long and back diving contracts allowed in the 05CBA. I would put money on it that even Ed Snider doesn’t like them, even though he was the one that approved more of them than anyone else. At that point, however, precedence had already been set.

Precedence, and the inertia of realizing that in order to be competitive, these long and back diving contracts had to be embraced was further emphasized in the UFA signings the summer of 2011. When 2nd tier defensemen like Erhoff and Wyz were getting signed to these “cap circumvention” deals…

/facepalm

bozak911 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:39 PM
  #510
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK View Post
I agree. It's the older players who have a problem with this because they can no longer sign ridiculous length deals and coast into retirement.
It's a very small group of players who would be affected by the change. Even older players are largely unaffected. This mostly affects players in the mid-late 20's whom are hitting their prime and are among the top 30ish in points. Everyone else gets a max of 5 years already anyway (usually less).

Rinzler is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:45 PM
  #511
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
so players can be UFA at 21-22?

you can kiss the small market teams good bye.
Why? The big market teams are still limited to how much they can spend due to the cap. I am not talking about a baseball-type system. Let's say Hall was a UFA this year and Montreal decides to offer him the max. They can't offer every 21-year old UFA max money.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:47 PM
  #512
tbcwpg
Registered User
 
tbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Why? The big market teams are still limited to how much they can spend due to the cap. I am not talking about a baseball-type system. Let's say Hall was a UFA this year and Montreal decides to offer him the max. They can't offer every 21-year old UFA max money.
Makes the draft fairly redundant as well. Edmonton gets 2 years out of Hall and RNH and Eberle and has no real "first offer" clause or anything like that. Edmonton could come back and offer Carey Price and Subban max money, with the money they would have had to spend on their guys.

tbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:49 PM
  #513
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,481
vCash: 14214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinzler View Post
It's a very small group of players who would be affected by the change. Even older players are largely unaffected. This mostly affects players in the mid-late 20's whom are hitting their prime and are among the top 30ish in points. Everyone else gets a max of 5 years already anyway (usually less).
Yeah, good point. So why is it really worth worrying about from a players standpoint. It will have very little effect on the majority of the players. Just another narrow minded direction from Fehr.

MikeK is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:50 PM
  #514
SidTheKid8787
Registered User
 
SidTheKid8787's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
Please explain, with numbers, how the players "got fleeced" by playing under the last CBA.

The same CBA that the NHLPA and money players have stated publicly that they want to continue to play under.
When i say history i mean before the last CBA was even signed.
I'm talking about the level of mistrust that remains between player and commissioner/owner. It's the whole reason the NHLPA went out and got their own bully.

SidTheKid8787 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:50 PM
  #515
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalBuckeyeRob View Post
The lower salary structure for players with less experience is a throwback to the pre-cap days in sports that has likely remained behind because the veterans control more voting power in any players association. In the case of the NFL, the rookies hurt by the change weren't even drafted yet so they didn't even get to vote.
I agree. I could understand the veteran players wanting the higher UFA age, higher arbitration age. However, it shouldn't matter to the OWNERS. They are going to pay a total of $60million (or whatever is eventually agreed upon). Whether the biggest individual check goes to the 23 year old or the 33 year old is not going to impact the owners bottom line.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:51 PM
  #516
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
This is a common misconception.

Craig Leipold has not complained about the Parise/Suter contracts. The mistake lies in the fact that he happily approved these two contracts and at the same time, was stating that the Wild had lost money the previous two seasons.

I believe the paraphrasing he used to describe the two contracts was; Great for the future, within the rules of the current CBA, and that he can’t wait to see the product on the ice.

Once the gag order comes off, I can about guarantee you that we will find out that Leipold was one of the louder voices in trying to get the season going. He is, if you ever have a chance to watch him at a Wild game/road game, a FAN first and foremost. It killed him to watch the team that he purchased go from winning the NW to a cellar dweller.

While it seems hypocritical to sign two 98 million/13 year contracts at the same time he is “crying poor” (to use a certain agent’s term), The fact of the matter is that the Wild’s fan base had to live through games like this, and momentum was LOST. He regained it with these two contracts.
Leipold is one of the 4 owners part of the negotiation committee from the NHL side. So he's pretty close into negotiations. Philly, Boston and Nashville owners are completing the group. You've got there 3 out of 4 owners giving good exemples how NHL owners screw eachother.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:05 PM
  #517
Cashville
RIP Lindback
 
Cashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,644
vCash: 1225
Quote:
Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
Bill Daly says "I'm more discouraged now than I have been at any point in the process." ... ... http://m.tmi.me/ze1Fj
The good news keeps coming! Probably 75% posturing. I hate Twitter; makes this like 40x more unbearable. At least in 2004 you could read the news after a press conference / negotiation then unplug for a few days / couple of weeks in the lulls. These days the flood of tweets and articles even when nothing is happening just keeps me plugged in the entire time and more frustrated.

Cashville is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:06 PM
  #518
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
Actually, it kinda does fix it. Biggest problem is costs are too high. Solution is lower costs.
The biggest problem is poor markets and poor capitalization of assets.

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:06 PM
  #519
IceDaddy
Bound for Glory
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Why? The big market teams are still limited to how much they can spend due to the cap. I am not talking about a baseball-type system. Let's say Hall was a UFA this year and Montreal decides to offer him the max. They can't offer every 21-year old UFA max money.

no, they cant but you are guaranteeing that all the best players end up on the top 10 richest teams and teams like Columbus and Phoenix are relegated to being farm teams for The Habs, Leafs, Bruins, Flyers, Rangers, Red Wings etc...

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:08 PM
  #520
IceDaddy
Bound for Glory
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidTheKid8787 View Post
When i say history i mean before the last CBA was even signed.
I'm talking about the level of mistrust that remains between player and commissioner/owner. It's the whole reason the NHLPA went out and got their own bully.
Great!! congratulations to the players for getting their own bully. Now they get 100% of nothing. I hope they are real pleased with their choice....

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:14 PM
  #521
Shrimper
WinItFor#58
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 62,321
vCash: 50
Who would the next potential leaders of the NHL and NHLPA be?

I'm guessing Daly and S.Fehr.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:15 PM
  #522
IceDaddy
Bound for Glory
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
Who would the next potential leaders of the NHL and NHLPA be?

I'm guessing Daly and S.Fehr.
yea Daly would be my guess.....Also I think the Fehr brothers are both done with the players after this.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:16 PM
  #523
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,481
vCash: 14214
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
Great!! congratulations to the players for getting their own bully. Now they get 100% of nothing. I hope they are real pleased with their choice....
I think they are pleased because Fehr told them they should be.

MikeK is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:18 PM
  #524
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
Who would the next potential leaders of the NHL and NHLPA be?

I'm guessing Daly and S.Fehr.
The only name I want to hear on the players side is Kelly .......

ottawah is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:19 PM
  #525
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
You don't get the point of the contract restrictions.

They're there not to protect the owners from the players but to protect owners from other owners.

Only a few teams can afford to hand out these huge cap circumvention deals, which hurts the parity of the league and forced other GMs to hand out bigger deals to just stay competitive.
So this group of people can't wait to circumvent their own rules (rules that were made to make their businesses stronger) and the other group is supposed to watch them run their businesses into the ground?

DyerMaker66 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 08:58 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.