HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Everybody's talking at me; I don't hear a word they're saying (CBA/Lockout XXIX)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 01:17 PM
  #326
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
18 teams were losing money last year: That's more than a few struggling teams. The fact is that the nhl, due to hockey being a foreign sport in much of the USA, is always going to have a wide disparity in revenue from the top earning team to the bottom.

Who benefits the most from these poor hockey markets with nhl teams? The players: They got around 60 million dollars a year from each struggling non-hockey market.

If anything the nhl, due to its disadvantage in the United States, lack of tv deals and higher relative operating costs, should be paying a smaller percentage of revenue to players than the other major leagues. Getting down to 50/50 similar to the NFL and NBA is therefore very reasonable .
I'm just not sure I trust that 18 teams are losing money, or, are losing money in a significant way. For example, I know the Flyers setup their organization in a way to make their profits look smaller than what they are due to being a subsidary of Comcast.

And then on the flip of what a lot of the pro-owner folks like to argue, is that this is a business and you are not necessarily guaranteed to make a profit. It seems like the owners want to move their expenses lower and lower (understandably) to try and get profits to be closer to guaranteed. I think it's fair for the players to push back on that. There's other ways to ensure profitability, such as finding better markets, running your business more efficiently etc.

I sit on the middle of this issue and see both sides, but I just find the owner's position to demand so many give backs compared to the prior CBA to not hold up as much as others do here.

BringBackStevens is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:17 PM
  #327
traparatus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post

Now, we sit and wait as the two sides squabble over what was there (past) instead of helping each other solve their problems at the moment and pushing the league in the right direction, towards growth (future). A part of a bigger pie, not a bigger part of a smaller pie. Undoubtedly, there are many fans that will never return following this lockout and almost more importantly, there are business and sponsorship deals that will never come to fruition. Why would any business want to invest, advertise, associate or sponsor a group of athletes and owners who have shown no stability or accountability?

The NHL and NHLPA had the opportunity to take the game that so many love, to new levels. There was an opportunity over the next 10 to 20 years to greatly increase revenues and popularity of the league. Instead, we are set back in to the dark ages once again. A fringe sport that will struggle to generate equal profitability amongst the 30 teams. Instead of going down the right path as a partnership, we're heading back to the start, each side pulling the other a different direction. This lockout disgraces the integrity of the beautiful sport and the fans that love it. This situation arises because of two groups facing backwards and not having the courage to trust each other, look each other in the eye, and move forward, together.

[/Rant of an angry, disgruntled "fan"]
This is the truly disappointing part. I honestly believed that after the last CBA ended up generally beneficial to both sides a new culture might be established in the NHL. For all intends and purposes, NHLPA could have proposed the last CBA and the players would now be viewed as visionaries. We loose a year of hockey and it is as if not a single lesson was learned from that. If players believe that owners will do everything in their power to make the money pie bigger they should not have a problem taking a smaller share. It just doesn't make sense.

traparatus is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:18 PM
  #328
DaAnimal
Registered User
 
DaAnimal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pasadena
Country: United States
Posts: 1,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoalJudge View Post
If "Mr. There is no such thing as fair" was running the NHLPA, they'd already have unguaranteed contracts and no pensions.
agreed. But sometimes you have to realize who is in charge. It all comes down to business. I mean how many businesses do you know of that gives employees a voice? Sure they might hear what you have to say but do they really and truly care? Everyones looking after themselves. Owners are looking after their best interest and players, well they are just pawns to the owners. The owners are not bluffing, Fehr and his PA's are thinking this is some kind of game.

Bettman has a reputation and I am certain that he doesnt want another lockout on his resume.

Just my 2cent. I hate to see this drag any longer. People need to get back to work and I honestly think the PA is the one that is holding back.

At least get a shorten contract signed first


Last edited by DaAnimal: 11-16-2012 at 01:25 PM.
DaAnimal is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:20 PM
  #329
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Really? I don't know why anyone would be rooting for either side to particularly get what they want.
If the owners get what they want; the league has 30 healthy teams.

If the players get what they want; the league will have to move or fold some teams.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:22 PM
  #330
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
If the owners get what they want; the league has 30 healthy teams.

If the players get what they want; the league will have to move or fold some teams.
If this were true, I would be firmly on the owners' side. As it stands, I side with neither the league or the PA.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:23 PM
  #331
MeestaDeteta
Registered User
 
MeestaDeteta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Saskazoo
Posts: 7,625
vCash: 500
Just curious, if anybody knows what the amount of revenue sharing was in the previous CBA?

MeestaDeteta is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:23 PM
  #332
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nailor Hopberle View Post
Just curious, if anybody knows what the amount of revenue sharing was in the previous CBA?
I think it was $150M

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:25 PM
  #333
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nailor Hopberle View Post
Just curious, if anybody knows what the amount of revenue sharing was in the previous CBA?
Someone does but it was very, very small. I have the number 5% in my head regarding the topic, but 5% of I don't know what!

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:26 PM
  #334
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nailor Hopberle View Post
Just curious, if anybody knows what the amount of revenue sharing was in the previous CBA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
Someone does but it was very, very small. I have the number 5% in my head regarding the topic, but 5% of I don't know what!
Again, I've heard $150M floated. That equates to ~5% of total revenues, so 5% may be accurate.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:29 PM
  #335
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
If the owners get what they want; the league has 30 healthy teams.

If the players get what they want; the league will have to move or fold some teams.
What?

Why should the players have to give up anything to assure the league stays healthy?

They should be able to extract every last penny that they possibly can so they can put their very ability to actually earn at all at risk!

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:29 PM
  #336
Tyrolean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Austria
Posts: 6,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
If the owners get what they want; the league has 30 healthy teams.

If the players get what they want; the league will have to move or fold some teams.
NHL will never have 30 healthy teams at the same time no matter what. Only way to accomplish this is the relocate or fold some teams.

Tyrolean is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:30 PM
  #337
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
What?

Why should the players have to give up anything to assure the league stays healthy?

They should be able to extract every last penny that they possibly can so they can put their very ability to actually earn those pennies at risk!
Honest question: do you think the league's latest proposal - if implemented - will put all of the franchises on stable footing? If so, I'd argue that that's more deluded than some of the BS espoused by some of the players right now.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:31 PM
  #338
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
What?

Why should the players have to give up anything to assure the league stays healthy?

They should be able to extract every last penny that they possibly can so they can put their very ability to actually earn at all at risk!
Exactly. Your nose should not have to give in to anything for the rest of the face. Cut that **** off!

Cawz is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:34 PM
  #339
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetangInTheSO View Post
Honest question: do you think the league's latest proposal - if implemented - will put all of the franchises on stable footing? If so, I'd argue that that's more deluded than some of the BS espoused by some of the players right now.
No, but thats the theory. In reality, bad teams for an extended time in most locations will have trouble. The NHL is trying to limit the losses, since the alternative is having a constant revolving door of relocating or folding teams.

The PA just doesnt care, as they see that as someone else's problem.

Cawz is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:35 PM
  #340
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetangInTheSO View Post
Honest question: do you think the league's latest proposal - if implemented - will put all of the franchises on stable footing? If so, I'd argue that that's more deluded than some of the BS espoused by some of the players right now.
It couldn't hurt.

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:38 PM
  #341
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz View Post
No, but thats the theory. In reality, bad teams for an extended time in most locations will have trouble. The NHL is trying to limit the losses, since the alternative is having a constant revolving door of relocating or folding teams.

The PA just doesnt care, as they see that as someone else's problem.
My perspective on this is that the players and the league each have their respective responsibilities. The players are responsible for delivering the product. The owners are responsible for running their franchises. Of course, controlling costs on labor are part of that equation, and they need the players help in doing that. However, the main problem ailing the NHL isn't high labor costs (in fact, player costs are already artificially deflated via a cap system) but rather poor strategic decisions to locate franchises in unsustainable markets. I don't think the most logical solution to that problem is to bang on the players' door and demand that they take less $. I think that the owners need to examine their franchises and determine which are sustainable and which aren't.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:46 PM
  #342
Erik Estrada
Nik Scherbak
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
If the owners get what they want; the league has 30 healthy teams.If the players get what they want; the league will have to move or fold some teams.
If the owners got everything they wanted + a 43-57 linked HRR split you wouldn't have 30 heathy teams.

Erik Estrada is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:48 PM
  #343
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz View Post
In reality, bad teams for an extended time in most locations will have trouble.
So instead of making those owners run their teams well to make money the answer is to limit the earning potential of the players that impact the game the most? A 5 year contract limit and limits on upfront money are directly aimed at limiting the contracts of the biggest stars, the money makers, the guys responsible for the growth we've seen. Those aren't the players being overpaid, yet they're the ones the NHL is looking to limit.

Scurr is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:52 PM
  #344
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetangInTheSO View Post
My perspective on this is that the players and the league each have their respective responsibilities. The players are responsible for delivering the product. The owners are responsible for running their franchises. Of course, controlling costs on labor are part of that equation, and they need the players help in doing that. However, the main problem ailing the NHL isn't high labor costs (in fact, player costs are already artificially deflated via a cap system) but rather poor strategic decisions to locate franchises in unsustainable markets. I don't think the most logical solution to that problem is to bang on the players' door and demand that they take less $. I think that the owners need to examine their franchises and determine which are sustainable and which aren't.
You mean like Pittsburgh, who likely would be an unsustainable market if not for being gifted multiple franshise players?

Cawz is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:52 PM
  #345
Mr V
Registered User
 
Mr V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oka Noggin
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4fn8d View Post
These are hockey related revenues. The moneys for these generous benefits will be deducted and the pie will be split according to the agreed upon percentage after that. In other words, players have to pay for 50% of these 'benefits'. How about TRUE rewards. Like incentives if the league grows higher than estimates???
How about the players throwing their endorsement money into HRR?

Mr V is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:53 PM
  #346
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
So instead of making those owners run their teams well to make money the answer is to limit the earning potential of the players that impact the game the most? A 5 year contract limit and limits on upfront money are directly aimed at limiting the contracts of the biggest stars, the money makers, the guys responsible for the growth we've seen. Those aren't the players being overpaid, yet they're the ones the NHL is looking to limit.
They should be limited to be tied to revenues so that the owners are able to run their teams well.

Cawz is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:55 PM
  #347
jeety mcjeet
Registered User
 
jeety mcjeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
If the owners got everything they wanted + a 43-57 linked HRR split you wouldn't have 30 heathy teams.
So asking for 50/50 is being pretty reasonable, no?

jeety mcjeet is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:56 PM
  #348
Conflicted Habs fan
Registered User
 
Conflicted Habs fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 551
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrolean View Post
NHL will never have 30 healthy teams at the same time no matter what. Only way to accomplish this is the relocate or fold some teams.
Or split the NHL into two, with all the whiny southern expansion teams under Bettman in the south and successful mostly Canadian teams in the north (except the Leafs, Bettman can have them) + 4 new expansion teams in Canada (Quebec, Markham, Hamilton, Regina)

Conflicted Habs fan is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:57 PM
  #349
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz View Post
You mean like Pittsburgh, who likely would be an unsustainable market if not for being gifted multiple franshise players?
No, what I was saying was that the NHL should examine its 30 franchises EXCEPT for the Penguins. Seriously, what kind of a question is that?

Yes, the NHL should examine all of its 30 franchises and attempt to fix the problem franchises with long-term solutions rather than showing up with a gun to a knife fight every time a CBA with the players expire. Look, there are a handful of teams that wouldn't be profitable if the players share of HRR was 40%. When is the NHL going to address its problem franchises rather than just putting a squeeze on the players every so often and ignoring the elephant in the room?

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:59 PM
  #350
Bobby Lou
We Surrender
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
What?

Why should the players have to give up anything to assure the league stays healthy?

They should be able to extract every last penny that they possibly can so they can put their very ability to actually earn at all at risk!
What the...

Because without the league they don't have jobs. They can go work for Hostess...oh wait...no more twinkies.

Bobby Lou 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 03:49 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.