Man, I just dont get it. The playera hace said that the owners wont budge. The owners have been firthcoming in saying guey wont budge. So why the staredown? The newer fans dont care anymore and the old fans are cold. Marketers dont Sant to endorse an industry that is allienating their core market. That 50 percent is turning info 40 percent by the hour.
I understand why the playera are mad. The entry level, total year contracts as well as the other issues are unheard of yo this extent in other sports. The owners are making it fool proof because they are proven fools. They are demanding the playera save them from themselves and there is no give. Thats frustrating but the players still need to call in plan b and sabe the Sport. Mame no mistKe, its in the players hands to sabe the Sport over the next couple years until trust is built back up with fans and Marketers.
Man, I just dont get it. The playera hace said that the owners wont budge. The owners have been firthcoming in saying guey wont budge. So why the staredown? The newer fans dont care anymore and the old fans are cold. Marketers dont Sant to endorse an industry that is allienating their core market. That 50 percent is turning info 40 percent by the hour.
I understand why the playera are mad. The entry level, total year contracts as well as the other issues are unheard of yo this extent in other sports. The owners are making it fool proof because they are proven fools. They are demanding the playera save them from themselves and there is no give. Thats frustrating but the players still need to call in plan b and sabe the Sport. Mame no mistKe, its in the players hands to sabe the Sport over the next couple years until trust is built back up with fans and Marketers.
Since this whole thing started I have been saying; nether side is in a hurry till January.
By then both sides will have lost a significant amount of REAL CASH.
We should see movement by mid December. If there is nothing, then the owners/players are really in for the long haul.
Regardless of what happens, both sides look like complete failures.
Man, I just dont get it. The playera hace said that the owners wont budge. The owners have been firthcoming in saying guey wont budge. So why the staredown? The newer fans dont care anymore and the old fans are cold. Marketers dont Sant to endorse an industry that is allienating their core market. That 50 percent is turning info 40 percent by the hour.
I understand why the playera are mad. The entry level, total year contracts as well as the other issues are unheard of yo this extent in other sports. The owners are making it fool proof because they are proven fools. They are demanding the playera save them from themselves and there is no give. Thats frustrating but the players still need to call in plan b and sabe the Sport. Mame no mistKe, its in the players hands to sabe the Sport over the next couple years until trust is built back up with fans and Marketers.
I get why the players are mad too, but at this point they're just cutting off the nose to spite the face. Even if they somehow get to retain the 57% deal (never going to happen) at some point real soon that will be less total cash then they would have gotten if they had just signed the ******* 50/50 deal when an 82 game schedule was still on the table.
Then you have guys like Cidiot Crosby saying it takes two to tango when the only serious counter proposal to the NHL's original proposal came from the effing NHL. You'd get a better chance of getting a deal ratified if you took Chef Boyardee ABC & 123 and splattered it on the wall then you would with the nonesene the NHLPA is offering up.
Seriously at this point I'm not entirely sure what's stopping the owners from saying '**** it", flushing the NHL and starting up the North American Hockey League.
Martinez coming back to LA to have a face surgery.
yikes - his face is going to swell up like a beach ball.
Did you see 24/7 when that Caps player got hit with the puck just below the visor? When the team flew to the next city, his face swelled up like volleyball.
Bad news. Martinez got hit to face with the puck, probably has concussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Avalanche
Martinez coming back to LA to have a face surgery.
So; 1. No concussion? 2. Totally inept doctors? 3. He's heading to LA by boat?
Cause yeah putting someone with a concussion (or really any severe head injury) on a plane is about as stupid of an idea as having them drink a few beers with you...
So; 1. No concussion? 2. Totally inept doctors? 3. He's heading to LA by boat?
Cause yeah putting someone with a concussion (or really any severe head injury) on a plane is about as stupid of an idea as having them drink a few beers with you...
So; 1. No concussion? 2. Totally inept doctors? 3. He's heading to LA by boat?
Cause yeah putting someone with a concussion (or really any severe head injury) on a plane is about as stupid of an idea as having them drink a few beers with you...
At some point this is not an issue. It all depends on the level of brain swelling.
Not sure what this accomplishes. Maybe Bettman is hoping the players revolt against the NHLPA is they add two weeks to the already one week of inactivity.
Could someone clarify this part for me because I have not seen anything from the NHLPA's side.
NHLPA's special counsel Steve Fehr countered Daly's statement.
"Of course everyone on the players' side wants to reach an agreement," he said. "The players have offered the owners concessions worth about a billion dollars.
Could someone clarify this part for me because I have not seen anything from the NHLPA's side.
NHLPA's special counsel Steve Fehr countered Daly's statement.
"Of course everyone on the players' side wants to reach an agreement," he said. "The players have offered the owners concessions worth about a billion dollars.
The last part of the bolded of course
I believe that is theoretical money that the players are offering as concessions by asking for a lower salary increase than they expect the overall league revenue to grow. Under the assumption that the salary the players would have been paid had the CBA stayed the same – and the league would continue to grow at either 5 or 7 per cent per year. I forget.
So, based on the assumption on the NHLPA getting 57% of the leagues revenue (including the 5-7 per cent growth per year) over the timespan of the proposed new CBA the players have according to Fehr offered to reduce that theoretical number by ”about a billion dollars” over the timespan of that new CBA.
Since the last CBA, which actually turned out extremely well for the players, players and league has worked together to make the league grow financially. Now, they are working together to destroy a lot of what was gained. The two sides are battling over who gets the most of the fans money. Both sides, players and owners, are going to lose this battle. The players will be hurting the most. A lot of the teams would be losing money by having a season. So, there should be a greater incentive for the players to find a solution. But they're not going to find it whining to the press.
In a way – the fans are the (financial) winners in this CBA.
It stuns me that they can’t see the damage they’re doing. The deal was right there in front of their face had they sought a solution. The owners clearly were looking for a 50-50 split with that original proposal. That is not unreasonable. How did they not do a deal already.
Both sides have killed off the casual fan, hockey will be a die hard fan only sport for the next few years. Attendance down, TV ratings down, merchandise sales down-nice job guys. The fans need to pull back their season ticket money, amazing to me that people still have money invested in these teams the way they've acted to the fans.
Both sides have killed off the casual fan, hockey will be a die hard fan only sport for the next few years. Attendance down, TV ratings down, merchandise sales down-nice job guys. The fans need to pull back their season ticket money, amazing to me that people still have money invested in these teams the way they've acted to the fans.
This is so very true. Both sides have frankly since the last lockout treated the fans like garbage and this whole situation is no different. You have teams selling icing a competitive team by signing players to huge contracts and then jacking up ticket prices on the fans. Players complain on social media (cough Dan Ellis, cough) about losing money (despite average salaries increasing dramatically) while the common fan struggles to pay the increasing ticket prices.
At this point, there's a part of me that hopes the league dies a slow death over the course of whatever CBA is put in place. Niether side seems at all interested in what would help actually help the league and just wants to "win" in the eyes of both parties which is not the way you conduct a negotiation. Whatever outcome happens seems more and more like it'll simply be a band-aid on a gunshot wound and the only true fix is to burn it all down and start from scratch.
Both sides have killed off the casual fan, hockey will be a die hard fan only sport for the next few years. Attendance down, TV ratings down, merchandise sales down-nice job guys. The fans need to pull back their season ticket money, amazing to me that people still have money invested in these teams the way they've acted to the fans.
We fans cheer for strangers, get emotional about a corporate logo, and give them our money for the privilege to do both. It's kind of ridiculous when you think about it.
But, it's the owners league, and the players careers, so they each gotta do what they gotta do. If they're both willing to go this far(half a season at best), potentially further(another full year), and possibly to some insane level of stubbornness(maybe January 2014, or later), then they'll certainly have worked hard for, and deserve, everything they don't get.
I believe that is theoretical money that the players are offering as concessions by asking for a lower salary increase than they expect the overall league revenue to grow. Under the assumption that the salary the players would have been paid had the CBA stayed the same – and the league would continue to grow at either 5 or 7 per cent per year. I forget.
So, based on the assumption on the NHLPA getting 57% of the leagues revenue (including the 5-7 per cent growth per year) over the timespan of the proposed new CBA the players have according to Fehr offered to reduce that theoretical number by ”about a billion dollars” over the timespan of that new CBA.
Since the last CBA, which actually turned out extremely well for the players, players and league has worked together to make the league grow financially. Now, they are working together to destroy a lot of what was gained. The two sides are battling over who gets the most of the fans money. Both sides, players and owners, are going to lose this battle. The players will be hurting the most. A lot of the teams would be losing money by having a season. So, there should be a greater incentive for the players to find a solution. But they're not going to find it whining to the press.
In a way – the fans are the (financial) winners in this CBA.
It stuns me that they can’t see the damage they’re doing. The deal was right there in front of their face had they sought a solution. The owners clearly were looking for a 50-50 split with that original proposal. That is not unreasonable. How did they not do a deal already.
Well I had to plow through some of the earlier pages to get a grip of this mess. Now thanks to you I see where the "smoke and mirrors" came from.
I'm starting to worry about the future for this sport... and I blame mostly the NHLPA they were digging in for this war and they started it with getting rid of the Goodknow...Goodlove Goodwhatever his name was guy.
A last question because I believe I've got that one wrong somewhere along the road. The make whole proposal was from the NHL to the players to pay back some of their revenue loss all based on future revenue??? Yes? ( that Sounds just weird and can't be right)
A last question because I believe I've got that one wrong somewhere along the road. The make whole proposal was from the NHL to the players to pay back some of their revenue loss all based on future revenue??? Yes? ( that Sounds just weird and can't be right)
...and thanks for the clarifying so far.
I think (not positive on the current status of it) that the make whole proposal money on the table now is a portion of the HRR that the players would give up. The players drop from 57% to 50% and a portion of that lost revenue is paid back to players under current NHL contracts as part of the moke whole proposal. I don't think it's based on a % of future revenue like you are thinking but rather the difference in what the players were making then versus now.
I think (not positive on the current status of it) that the make whole proposal money on the table now is a portion of the HRR that the players would give up. The players drop from 57% to 50% and a portion of that lost revenue is paid back to players under current NHL contracts as part of the moke whole proposal. I don't think it's based on a % of future revenue like you are thinking but rather the difference in what the players were making then versus now.
So what you are saying is they would get the same total amount of dollars they got recently or a year back and give up their eventual raise they would have been getting?
So this would in theory mean that the only money the players would be giving up would be the raise based on the increased revenue from the former revenue?
If this .%&=/pFFftt Then we can say I'm pissed. WTF?
Until a few months ago, I worked for a community bank for six years that fell on hard times due to the economic crisis. In the Summer of 2009, they rolled back salaries on everyone making over $50M, starting at 5% for those at $50M and then increasing at tiers unknown to me. Now, we don't have a union and don't have contracts outside of some members of executive management, but nobody packed their bags and left because we were all in it together and you know, 5% off of $50M is better than nothing. Common sense is crazy, I know.
Now, my bank did not reduce these salaries because they just had record revenues but rather due to losing money: lots of it. Regardless though, revenues do not equal profits and if there are a large number of teams losing money, irrespective of these record revenues which the players are getting 57% of regardless of profits, then you need to reduce overhead so the ones paying the salaries can make money. If they aren't making money, what's the point?
To want the owners to subsidize the teams losing money is ridiculous. Folding them would make more sense but that would hurt the players due to job losses so that's off the table. Revenue sharing will hurt the profitable teams just so the players have more jobs by keeping these troubled markets in play, so you ask them to revenue share and maintain an unbalanced share of revenues? Some people still wonder why most are on the owners side if they had to pick a side?
If the players truly think revenues will continue to grow, they wouldn't hold to delinkage. If you truly think it will grow, then 50% of increased revenues will eventually equal 57% of current revenues, nevermind that 50% of anything is more than 0% of nothing which they are currently getting.
You signed contracts under an old agreement that is no longer valid. Those that pay the salaries say that they can not continue under the current system as it is not profitable. Players don't seem to care that those paying them are not making money. Owners are willing to split revenues with them 50/50, which is still pretty sweet when all is said and done. Everyone wins if they treat this as a partnership and both sides are guilty of missing that point, although the players seem to be missing this point more.
Go down to 50/50, realize that you KNEW these contracts signed over the summer were not going to be honored (all of a sudden, signing bonuses were the rage this summer when they haven't been previously...why is that? BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULDNT GET THAT CONTRACT HONORED!!!) so work out some sort of make whole that gets back some of it and move forward. Tell the owners you will not put any cap on contract length and adjust the +/- $500M per year thing a bit more in your favor. With that latter clause, no owner is going to give a contract of 10 years anyways because the cap hit will be crazy for that long. Hell, they should just drop "make whole" but tell them we are keeping UFA and other contract matters, outside of closing the circumvention loophole, and move forward.
I haven't chipped in much on this, but it is maddening that we are where we are right now. If I was justa rank and file member of the NHLPA, I'd be unbelievably pissed right now. I'm not good enough to get paid nice dollars overseas and maybe I'm going to risk my career to make $70M in the AHL. Ridiculous.
I'd love for the owners to go Hostess on them and tell them to have fun flying the russian skies for the next ten years. I loathe Bettman but lets be real here: owners put up the money and risk losing it while the players get guaranteed contracts and the perks that go with being a professional athlete. The owners are not acting like a warehouse owner from the 1820s but are asking their employees to make some sacrifices so they can keep EVERYONE employed, including those in troubled markets. That should be more important to the players and the numerous jobs it brings than to the 4-5 owners folding teams would impact.
Until a few months ago, I worked for a community bank for six years that fell on hard times due to the economic crisis. In the Summer of 2009, they rolled back salaries on everyone making over $50M, starting at 5% for those at $50M and then increasing at tiers unknown to me. Now, we don't have a union and don't have contracts outside of some members of executive management, but nobody packed their bags and left because we were all in it together and you know, 5% off of $50M is better than nothing. Common sense is crazy, I know.
Now, my bank did not reduce these salaries because they just had record revenues but rather due to losing money: lots of it. Regardless though, revenues do not equal profits and if there are a large number of teams losing money, irrespective of these record revenues which the players are getting 57% of regardless of profits, then you need to reduce overhead so the ones paying the salaries can make money. If they aren't making money, what's the point?
To want the owners to subsidize the teams losing money is ridiculous. Folding them would make more sense but that would hurt the players due to job losses so that's off the table. Revenue sharing will hurt the profitable teams just so the players have more jobs by keeping these troubled markets in play, so you ask them to revenue share and maintain an unbalanced share of revenues? Some people still wonder why most are on the owners side if they had to pick a side?
If the players truly think revenues will continue to grow, they wouldn't hold to delinkage. If you truly think it will grow, then 50% of increased revenues will eventually equal 57% of current revenues, nevermind that 50% of anything is more than 0% of nothing which they are currently getting.
You signed contracts under an old agreement that is no longer valid. Those that pay the salaries say that they can not continue under the current system as it is not profitable. Players don't seem to care that those paying them are not making money. Owners are willing to split revenues with them 50/50, which is still pretty sweet when all is said and done. Everyone wins if they treat this as a partnership and both sides are guilty of missing that point, although the players seem to be missing this point more.
Go down to 50/50, realize that you KNEW these contracts signed over the summer were not going to be honored (all of a sudden, signing bonuses were the rage this summer when they haven't been previously...why is that? BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULDNT GET THAT CONTRACT HONORED!!!) so work out some sort of make whole that gets back some of it and move forward. Tell the owners you will not put any cap on contract length and adjust the +/- $500M per year thing a bit more in your favor. With that latter clause, no owner is going to give a contract of 10 years anyways because the cap hit will be crazy for that long. Hell, they should just drop "make whole" but tell them we are keeping UFA and other contract matters, outside of closing the circumvention loophole, and move forward.
I haven't chipped in much on this, but it is maddening that we are where we are right now. If I was justa rank and file member of the NHLPA, I'd be unbelievably pissed right now. I'm not good enough to get paid nice dollars overseas and maybe I'm going to risk my career to make $70M in the AHL. Ridiculous.
I'd love for the owners to go Hostess on them and tell them to have fun flying the russian skies for the next ten years. I loathe Bettman but lets be real here: owners put up the money and risk losing it while the players get guaranteed contracts and the perks that go with being a professional athlete. The owners are not acting like a warehouse owner from the 1820s but are asking their employees to make some sacrifices so they can keep EVERYONE employed, including those in troubled markets. That should be more important to the players and the numerous jobs it brings than to the 4-5 owners folding teams would impact.
Ridiculous.
Makes far too much sense for it to ever be taken seriously... Bravo.
Only thing that jumps out is I think you meant "K" instead of "M" regarding salaries.
