HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VII: The Last Waltz "Cut the sheet & drop the puck!"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 11:49 AM
  #26
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltrangerfan View Post
When this lockout ends, the billionaire owners might have diminished franchise value (?) but will still be billionaires..
I am not sure how many of them are true "billionaires". And anyone that looses a $200 million investment, while paying fixed costs on it, is not going to be happy.

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:51 AM
  #27
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Its only fishy if you drink the PA's kool-aid and think that revenue is inextricably linked to profits.

Its not when you're running a business - it is, however, if you're a player. Play hockey, go home, collect your guaranteed paycheck. If the PA got out of their bubble and realized that the world of business doesnt work that way, maybe it'd lead to more meaningful discussion.
I get that. However, then how do you spend several years crowing about how healthy the league is?

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:14 PM
  #28
mooskating
flex
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Thats just it.

When nearly 60% of revenues are going to the players, its difficult to turn a profit, especially if you're not in NYC, Toronto, or any other huge markets.
what??

they're still making more money than they were at the time that they decided on 40/60% or w/e the current numbers are. now that the pool is bigger, they want a bigger cut. they don't want the players making more than X amount of money. they're just making less money relative to the players.

the non-HRR profits at the time of the last CBA's negotiations were likely of more relative value when compared to the HRR so the owners did not lose sleep over giving up some HRR. now that HRR is substantially even more than non-HRR, the owners want more of the pie.


Quote:
let's say you have a few friends that you always split pizza with. you split an even share every time, but today your brother-in-law steve is over and your wife is forcing you to play nice. 8 slices split w/ 4 people much easier than 5.

if you have 2 pizzas and 5 people. each pie is cut into 8 slices. each person gets 3 slices and there is one slice left. to be fair and honor the agreement, they'd have to cut that last piece into 5 little equal pieces. you and steve went out for lunch earlier and decide that the 1/5 piece isn't going to make any difference so you give it to the other three to split.

one week later, you have 3 pies cut into 8 pieces and 5 people. 24 slices. now there are 4 extra slices after everybody gets 4 pieces. the final 4 pieces can be split among all 5 of you with some fancy cutting. it's a bigger piece so it's worth a little more time investment to get it since you would love some leftover pizza for breakfast tomorrow. now let's say we're at your house and you're basically the boss of the pizza distribution.

3 of your friends are going home in 30 minutes, but steve is your freeloading brother-in-law and he's staying the week with you. if you stall on cutting the pie, steve and yourself will get 2 slices each. you could care less about 1/5th of a slice when you had lunch. i care a little more about 2 slices regardless of what i ate for lunch.
yes. most confusing probably off-topic explanation ever.

mooskating is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:31 PM
  #29
-31-
portnor, pls
 
-31-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 50
So they NHLPA wants more toppings?

-31- is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:42 PM
  #30
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,051
vCash: 500
Revenues are NOT equal to profits.

There are probably 5-10 teams tops actually making a profit in the NHL today. the rest are breaking even or losing money.

im sure most arent hemorrhaging money, im also sure most owners can lose a ton of money and have it not make a difference to their bottom line..but if im a team owner in a small market, having to pay the players what you have to pay them to be competitive, only to lose a ton of money...that SUCKS

Inferno is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:52 PM
  #31
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooskating View Post
what??

they're still making more money than they were at the time that they decided on 40/60% or w/e the current numbers are. now that the pool is bigger, they want a bigger cut. they don't want the players making more than X amount of money. they're just making less money relative to the players.
.
The NHL is top heavy. Anything you say about revenues, profits, making more money they did before the lockout, etc, can be applied to a small number of teams (Rangers are one of them) - all of them of the big market variety. Middle of the road teams have seen little changes to their profitability. Smaller market teams have likely been hurt by this last CBA because they're forced to reach a cap floor.

Quit lumping the entire NHL into the argument that the revenue pool is larger. Its a lame, simplistic way of viewing the situation, and its simply not true.

Noone has seen the books, but its not difficult to imagine that the top 5 revenue producing teams have produced the vast majority of the extra revenue produced in the last CBA.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:30 PM
  #32
SixGoalieSystem
Playaff poosh
 
SixGoalieSystem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 2,041
vCash: 500
For what it's worth, Skille and Engelland currently playing for Rosenborg in Norway, expect the lockout to end soon. I'm not sure what kind of contacts they have, but they're probably talking to the PA.

SixGoalieSystem is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:51 PM
  #33
Punxrocknyc19*
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,233
vCash: 500
How much will Ian White get fined for being right???
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

Punxrocknyc19* is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:55 PM
  #34
mooskating
flex
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
The NHL is top heavy. Anything you say about revenues, profits, making more money they did before the lockout, etc, can be applied to a small number of teams (Rangers are one of them) - all of them of the big market variety. Middle of the road teams have seen little changes to their profitability. Smaller market teams have likely been hurt by this last CBA because they're forced to reach a cap floor.

Quit lumping the entire NHL into the argument that the revenue pool is larger. Its a lame, simplistic way of viewing the situation, and its simply not true.

Noone has seen the books, but its not difficult to imagine that the top 5 revenue producing teams have produced the vast majority of the extra revenue produced in the last CBA.
i'm not sure exactly what argument you're trying to make.

the owners are grouped together because they choose to be, just as the players choose to be. regardless of what the bottom tier teams may or may not have received in profits, the money is in the league. profits are at an all time high as a whole. the owners may choose not to share it, but it's there. if they want to keep 30 teams, they should be the ones dealing with the issue of their peers... or they should at least be a piece of it. not "well we think you guys are overpaid despite offering you new contracts in july and august!""



the league was the most profitable it has ever been. the money exists. league needs to find a way to get it-- be it a tax, team removal, or advertising or w/e. it's failed. nuff said... now i need a nap... damn these graveyards. hopefully that came out coherently enough

mooskating is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:04 PM
  #35
-31-
portnor, pls
 
-31-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punxrocknyc19 View Post
How much will Ian White get fined for being right???
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
Don't think he can be fined.

I would think players would be less willing to point out non-viable hockey markets. Each one is 20 jobs for players.

White should review his own leader's history of work stoppages.

-31- is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:04 PM
  #36
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooskating View Post
i'm not sure exactly what argument you're trying to make.

the owners are grouped together because they choose to be, just as the players choose to be. regardless of what the bottom tier teams may or may not have received in profits, the money is in the league. profits are at an all time high as a whole. the owners may choose not to share it, but it's there. if they want to keep 30 teams, they should be the ones dealing with the issue of their peers... or they should at least be a piece of it. not "well we think you guys are overpaid despite offering you new contracts in july and august!""



the league was the most profitable it has ever been. the money exists. league needs to find a way to get it-- be it a tax, team removal, or advertising or w/e. it's failed. nuff said... now i need a nap... damn these graveyards. hopefully that came out coherently enough
Find me one source stating the league is the most profitable it has ever been.

Bringing in the most revenue dollars? Yea sure. Adjust that for inflation and the rise of the Canadian dollar relative to the USD. After that the core fundamentals don't look as rosy. Not to mention that COSTS are also at an all time high. Labor, travel, etc.

Look I don't know what the exact numbers are better than anyone else out there (save for the league's auditor). But I can guarantee you that of the majority of teams were raking in money we'd be playing.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:07 PM
  #37
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punxrocknyc19 View Post
How much will Ian White get fined for being right???
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
Personally, I don't think any of the players are in a position to call anyone involved in the negotiation an idiot. They've lost more real dollars than they will ever be able to regain, even if they magically got the owners to approve of their proposal without any tweaks, which will never, ever happen. They're holding out indefinitely as if they somehow have more leverage than the owners when it's clear as day that that isn't the case.

Neither side looks good. Neither side is smart. Neither side cares about anything more than their ability to end this feeling like they won.

Also, i find it idiotic that the players are arguing that the league is doing well enough financially that they don't need to take pay cuts that bring them to the same level of athletes in far more successful leagues while ALSO arguing that Bettman has done nothing good for the game and is pushing the league into irrelevancy. Which is it? Is there so much money that you don't need to take a cut for the good of the league or is there so little money that it's proof that Bettman isn't doing good work?

haveandare is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:12 PM
  #38
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooskating View Post
i'm not sure exactly what argument you're trying to make.

the owners are grouped together because they choose to be, just as the players choose to be. regardless of what the bottom tier teams may or may not have received in profits, the money is in the league. profits are at an all time high as a whole. the owners may choose not to share it, but it's there. if they want to keep 30 teams, they should be the ones dealing with the issue of their peers... or they should at least be a piece of it. not "well we think you guys are overpaid despite offering you new contracts in july and august!""



the league was the most profitable it has ever been. the money exists. league needs to find a way to get it-- be it a tax, team removal, or advertising or w/e. it's failed. nuff said... now i need a nap... damn these graveyards. hopefully that came out coherently enough
How do you know the league is the most profitable its ever been? Again, revenues do not equal profits.

You're right about one thing - the record revenues are in the league, but 57% of it is going to the players.

I dont blame them for wanting to hold onto what has become a real sweetheart deal for them, but they're going to have to. Why? Because the skyrocketing cut the players have received over the years make it difficult for most teams to be profitable.

How do you not understand this point?

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:18 PM
  #39
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,002
vCash: 500
Its been quiet today. Steve Fehr issued a statement after the Bettman offer to Don Fehr was leaked. The PA was supposed to respond. Was the Steve Fehr statement the response? No tweets about any contact or the lack of contact before the two camps.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:19 PM
  #40
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Its funny, the pro owner chant is the same as 8 years ago. They are saving the game from the players. The players make too much, just give us these controls and we will have 30 healthy franchises.

Funny how, after they created HRR standards and strict reporting rules, revenues jumped in 2005-06.

Three lockouts, two announced as victories, one pending outcome. Bettman always gets the deal he wants and blames the players for the state of the game later. 30 successful business men can't praise Gary enough and follow him blindly. Why would you keep handing him the keys? It doesn't add up.

Either 30 successful businessmen are just idiots with hockey, or they are selling fans magic beans every lockout.

If any commissioner made deals as bad as reported, he would be fired. Gary costs stoppages and still doesn't get a decent deal? And keeps his job? And its the players serving kool aid?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:23 PM
  #41
-31-
portnor, pls
 
-31-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Bettman always gets the deal he wants and blames the players for the state of the game later.
link?

-31- is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:24 PM
  #42
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Speaking of kool aid, some of our posters must be NHL accountants. 54% to the players for most ofbthe deal with 57% as a threshold bonus. Now its 60% of revenues to the players. If you need to exaggerate to vilify the players, maybe they aren't the bad guy. They were forced into a 54% cap, accept 50% now. The league dictates the number. How is the blame on them?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:27 PM
  #43
-31-
portnor, pls
 
-31-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Speaking of kool aid, some of our posters must be NHL accountants. 54% to the players for most ofbthe deal with 57% as a threshold bonus. Now its 60% of revenues to the players. If you need to exaggerate to vilify the players, maybe they aren't the bad guy. They were forced into a 54% cap, accept 50% now. The league dictates the number. How is the blame on them?
If the league was solely responsible for the percentage it would be zero.

-31- is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:27 PM
  #44
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
link?
The lockout.

Really, this is your defense? If he blamed owners, he would have spent the last five years finding a working system. The owners need to figure that out first. 50% buys the bottom teams time, not a solution. They'll be losing in two years tops.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:30 PM
  #45
The Perfect Paradox
On hiatus.
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,459
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punxrocknyc19 View Post
How much will Ian White get fined for being right???
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
My respect has increased tenfold for the guy. I'm sure many players and fans share his thoughts and it's great to see his comments in the media.

The Perfect Paradox is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:33 PM
  #46
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
If the league was solely responsible for the percentage it would be zero.
Are you 5? You are debating like a petulant brat.

What leverage did the players have in 2005 to dictate terms? The boss was ousted with a coup. They were publicly splintered. Their new boss was a league hack. They came hat in hand knowing that a cap and rollback were waiting. Bettman wanted 27/7 to flood the ufa market. Every concession was carefully constructed to work in the league's favor.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:34 PM
  #47
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,702
vCash: 500
I can only speak for myself but I certainly am not trying to vilify anyone. The root cause for this lockout lies with ownership for 1. overexpanding and 2. lack of foresight in the 2005 CBA.

However as pissed as I am at Bettman / the Owners, the rhetoric and attitude coming from the PA is an equally huge turn off. The sense of entitlement, lack of basic business understanding (record revenuez!!!), and seeming unwillingness to work within the NHL's framework are not scoring any points with this observer.

HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:44 PM
  #48
-31-
portnor, pls
 
-31-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Are you 5? You are debating like a petulant brat.

What leverage did the players have in 2005 to dictate terms? The boss was ousted with a coup. They were publicly splintered. Their new boss was a league hack. They came hat in hand knowing that a cap and rollback were waiting. Bettman wanted 27/7 to flood the ufa market. Every concession was carefully constructed to work in the league's favor.
So you're really arguing that the players had no part in the % of HRR in the last CBA? The owners decided by themselves, and they chose 54-57%?

If lower UFA age was in favor of the owners why do they want to increase it now, and why are the players fighting it?

Every concession? How did and extra year of arbitration work in the league's favor? How about loosening restricted free agency?

-31- is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:49 PM
  #49
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
I can only speak for myself but I certainly am not trying to vilify anyone. The root cause for this lockout lies with ownership for 1. overexpanding and 2. lack of foresight in the 2005 CBA.

However as pissed as I am at Bettman / the Owners, the rhetoric and attitude coming from the PA is an equally huge turn off. The sense of entitlement, lack of basic business understanding (record revenuez!!!), and seeming unwillingness to work within the NHL's framework are not scoring any points with this observer.
I hear you. Point one is bad business sense. The owners solely expand and relocate. These bad markets are the root of the lockout, the majority of loses. If gary held WPG, QUE, MIN to their cities like PHX, we'd be better off. If he expanded cautiously, salaries are in check. To me, that nullifies the risk/profit issue. The owners/bettman created the problem, why are they entitled to make a profit.

The players are hung up on inked deals, if that is entitlement, so be it. I think the framework argument is outdated. Looks like the issue is over contract structure now.

The players are difficult but between the last two lockouts, when do they concede enough?

The players aren't angels, i just can't get behind the guy that cannot fix anything. We trust him to finally get it right? He blames the system and insists on re-using it. Senseless.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 03:00 PM
  #50
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
So you're really arguing that the players had no part in the % of HRR in the last CBA? The owners decided by themselves, and they chose 54-57%?

If lower UFA age was in favor of the owners why do they want to increase it now, and why are the players fighting it?

Every concession? How did and extra year of arbitration work in the league's favor? How about loosening restricted free agency?
If the cut was any lower, teams would have bought out their stars and drowned in amnesty buyouts just to get under a $33-35m cap. It was the most favorable % for owners considering buyouts. When the lockout started, a $45m cap was the consensus magic number. If the league didn't want 57%, why buckle in Feb/Mar? Still 3-5 months from the draft.

The 27/7 was a disaster. Opposite impact. No one hit UFA, teams held onto players tighter because of the invest vs return. You lose a guy after a few prime years. I'm not saying players didn't win that, or the lockout, ultimately. I'm just saying the league dictated the terms.

It's splitting hairs, but arbitration and rfa rules were established years before. Are we still treating carry over rights as a concession? It certainly wasn't a gain. Maybe a year here and there for the player, but seriously?

DutchShamrock 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 12:26 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.