HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout thread #2: mediation done - no progress

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-18-2012, 04:56 AM
  #226
Lay Z Boy GM
Registered User
 
Lay Z Boy GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: West coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,301
vCash: 500
I thought everyone agreed that limits to contract lengths were a good idea. At least they did when Luongo and Kovalchuk got signed.

Lay Z Boy GM is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 07:44 AM
  #227
Blue And Orange
#KevinLoweMustGo
 
Blue And Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nailor Hopberle View Post
I think there's already been substantial damage to the game. Last lockout, I think most fans were more understanding of the reasons. This lockout seems to be a lockout doesn't seem to have the same rationale.
I agree that the there's considerable damage done to the NHL currently. After making record revenues and gaining traction in the US markets, this pointless lockout has stopped and destroyed all the positive momentum.

The last lockout, fans foresaw a lockout coming as early as 2001-02 because the league was bleeding money from its throat. The league needed a complete economic overhaul and desparately needed a salary cap and fans understood it. Especially small market teams like Edmonton could not function without cost certainty.

Nobody saw this lockout coming. If you were to tell me that a lockout was going to happen back in June, I would've called you crazy. This is just a pure pissing match between the owners and players.

Part of the reason why I'm optimistic that a deal will get done is because I don't believe the owners and players are going to leave 3.3 billion dollars of revenue on the table. This is a similar lockout to the NBA and NFL. They knew a deal will get done to save the season.

But as of right now, my optimism has been replaced with frustration to, currently, just complete apathy. I'm so disgusted with this whole process.

Blue And Orange is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 11:07 AM
  #228
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
I guess young guys get screwed then. Those changes are clearly somewhat significant since the NHL wants them in.

The bigger point is that they are giving up without getting back, which we agree on
Of course they arnt getting anything back .Its a 1 sided agreement and has been that way for 20+ years. A whole bunch of teams have lost a whole bunch of money cause its so tilted in favor of the players.
Asking what is the nhlpa getting out of it is akin to asking what the owners were getting out of it in the formative days of the nhlpa (ie Ted Lindsay).

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 12:26 PM
  #229
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
I fail to see what the players are getting.
Uhmmm, let's see, how about multiple millions of dollars to play hockey?

The reason the league's revenues have gone up so much since the last CBA is in part due to a better product on the ice, but the big thing is parity in the league - a lot more people a lot more interested for a lot longer.

As a player "working" for the NHL, it should be in your best interest that the league remain as healthy as possible for as many teams as possible, because the more teams that do well, the more money eventually in the pot.

People like to say the players "lost" the last round. Well sure they accepted a cap, but their average salary went from about $1.4M to around $2.4M in 7 years.

It's not like the owners are suggesting the players accept $50K/year to play. They're all still going to be millionaires, but what these concessions might do is keep the few franchises teetering on the brink in the black (or at least not so much in the red), which means more jobs for the PA, and likely better and more lucrative TV deals in the future.

Kinda like that whole Hostess thing - company said if you go on strike we might go out of business. Union said we're not taking less than we make now. OK - then you're all out of a job, we're closing. Now instead of making 10% less you'll all make 100% less. Well done.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 01:59 PM
  #230
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,444
vCash: 500
Lot of the "damage to the game" talk is over-dramatization.

Casual fans in areas where it's a niche sport(90% of the US) barely notice the lockout is going on with the football season running and basketball starting up. Hard for the lockout to have lasting damage when it barely registers.

Fans in areas the sport is popular(like canada) will be back due to long term emotional and historical attachments. That goes doubly so for all the drama queens that pop up during the lockout and declare they are done with the NHL after a sour day in negotiations that makes them feel like jumping off a cliff. The very fact they are so wrapped up in the minutia of the negotiations virtually guarantees they'll be lining up at the doors the second the lockout wraps up, albiet with more bitterness directed at Bettman or whoever else they blame for depriving them of their favorite distraction for a few months.

Tarus is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 04:52 PM
  #231
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,070
vCash: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
Lot of the "damage to the game" talk is over-dramatization.

Casual fans in areas where it's a niche sport(90% of the US) barely notice the lockout is going on with the football season running and basketball starting up. Hard for the lockout to have lasting damage when it barely registers.

Fans in areas the sport is popular(like canada) will be back due to long term emotional and historical attachments. That goes doubly so for all the drama queens that pop up during the lockout and declare they are done with the NHL after a sour day in negotiations that makes them feel like jumping off a cliff. The very fact they are so wrapped up in the minutia of the negotiations virtually guarantees they'll be lining up at the doors the second the lockout wraps up, albiet with more bitterness directed at Bettman or whoever else they blame for depriving them of their favorite distraction for a few months.
You might be right. if they settle it and eek out a 50 game season, they will probably come out unscathed. but if they cancel another season, (for what? 200 million, 5 year contracts and arbritration rights????) then i think the league will be seen in a different light for a long time by fans everywhere; as a joke of a league.

And, worse, they could lose a generation of teens. Is hockey that big with the under 25 crowd? Not my nefews. there are other choices; choices we didn't have 30 years ago. Lose the youth and you are done.

Up the Irons is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 06:24 PM
  #232
OilerNut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustE View Post
You might be right. if they settle it and eek out a 50 game season, they will probably come out unscathed. but if they cancel another season, (for what? 200 million, 5 year contracts and arbritration rights????) then i think the league will be seen in a different light for a long time by fans everywhere; as a joke of a league.

And, worse, they could lose a generation of teens. Is hockey that big with the under 25 crowd? Not my nefews. there are other choices; choices we didn't have 30 years ago. Lose the youth and you are done.
It's more than 200 million, it's close to 1 billion that they are apart. If the owners just accepted what the players wanted the NHL would probably lose 10 teams.

OilerNut* is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:42 PM
  #233
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
So here is where we were:

Players get 57%
Contracts are as we knew them

New offer:
Players get 50%
Contract rules make it much more difficult for players to make money, more time to reach free agency, second contract will be significantly less valuable


I fail to see what the players are getting.

Someone explain to me how this works? Because if I'm Fehr, I do not sign this. There need to be at least some concessions. He can't take this back to the PA and say this was a victory.....which is negotiating 101. Bettman put Fehr in a corner, and now we're wondering why no deal is made. Both sides need to later say they won, otherwise, nothing gets done.

Bettman needs to make concessions. This loser lawyer is a terrible human being and I hate him with all my heart. How I feel about him is not relevant though. What is relevant is that he has lead to 3 lockouts, and that he is single-handedly ruining the sport for everyone. The amount of frustration he has caused was already immense, and if he erases another year of hockey, this guy needs to be fired.

I actually want the PA to stay locked out for the year, and if that happens, stay locked out for a second year. The owners won't be strapping on skates, and let's be honest, if Crosby is not on NHL ice, they will not be able to charge the outrageous prices they already do.

If I'm a rich guy, I call a bunch of other rich guys, and I start a league. I know it sounds crazy, but I think there's money to be made here. Ok, maybe not yet, and a league is a stupid idea because it takes a lot of invested capital, but at some point you'd think you can hire these guys for some exhibition games or something? I know I'd pay to watch an All-Star game in Edmonton...

Ok vent over. I hate this entire situation.
Players are getting a job where they make million fr playing a game.

AM is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 10:27 PM
  #234
ales83fan
Registered User
 
ales83fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
Players are getting a job where they make million fr playing a game.

Good point.


they should have offered 25%.

why pay them more?

The reason is because there is money to be made and tickets are expensive. These guys are playing a game, and some actually have died, and others will be hurt for life. All the risk is on the players. But hey, they're cattle.

I understand that owners are risking capital, but you know what, it's easier to risk capital that being Savard right now.

I didn't realize so many people are pro-owners. I wonder how many of you would side with your bosses and companies where you work. I hope all.

ales83fan is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 10:54 PM
  #235
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
Good point.


they should have offered 25%.

why pay them more?

The reason is because there is money to be made and tickets are expensive. These guys are playing a game, and some actually have died, and others will be hurt for life. All the risk is on the players. But hey, they're cattle.

I understand that owners are risking capital, but you know what, it's easier to risk capital that being Savard right now.

I didn't realize so many people are pro-owners. I wonder how many of you would side with your bosses and companies where you work. I hope all.
Oh my. Your not seriously trying to suggest the risk is anywhere comensurate with the reward, are you.
Thats about the WORST argument one could raise.
The worst.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 10:59 PM
  #236
jadeddog
Registered User
 
jadeddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 11,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
Good point.


they should have offered 25%.

why pay them more?

The reason is because there is money to be made and tickets are expensive. These guys are playing a game, and some actually have died, and others will be hurt for life. All the risk is on the players. But hey, they're cattle.

I understand that owners are risking capital, but you know what, it's easier to risk capital that being Savard right now.

I didn't realize so many people are pro-owners. I wonder how many of you would side with your bosses and companies where you work. I hope all.
if i was making 2.5 million, and all my co-workers were making 2.5 million as an average salary, but my company was losing money left right and center, yeah, i'd agree to a pay cut... i think 99% of people would

if your company isn't making money, and is about to go bankrupt, then you don't have a job anymore... it's pretty simple... you see unions taking less money *all the time* when the employer is facing rough economic times, and these union employees make 3% of what the average NHL player makes

ridiculous argument

jadeddog is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 08:50 AM
  #237
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
if i was making 2.5 million, and all my co-workers were making 2.5 million as an average salary, but my company was losing money left right and center, yeah, i'd agree to a pay cut... i think 99% of people would

if your company isn't making money, and is about to go bankrupt, then you don't have a job anymore... it's pretty simple... you see unions taking less money *all the time* when the employer is facing rough economic times, and these union employees make 3% of what the average NHL player makes

ridiculous argument
Was just going to post something like this. Of course if I'm asked to take less just for the sake of it, then I probably would fight it as much as I could, but if the option is to take 10-20% less and still have my incredibly good paying job or not take a cut and lose my job, or even lose a year's worth of salary - then yeah, I would take a cut.

But again - people like to try to compare athletes to regular jobs. The fact is, in a single year they can pay off their car, house, kids education, all the toys they want, and still have some left over. A 10-20% paycut from $2.5M is very very different than a 10-20% paycut from $50K.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:49 AM
  #238
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
Good point.


they should have offered 25%.

why pay them more?

The reason is because there is money to be made and tickets are expensive. These guys are playing a game, and some actually have died, and others will be hurt for life. All the risk is on the players. But hey, they're cattle.

I understand that owners are risking capital, but you know what, it's easier to risk capital that being Savard right now.

I didn't realize so many people are pro-owners. I wonder how many of you would side with your bosses and companies where you work. I hope all.
Wow are you BizNasty or someone related to him or any other PA members? These sound the like the same ridiculous comments the goof was posting on twitter at the beginning of the lockout.

So an owner who puts up $180M to own a team in a poor market isn't taking any risks because he's not on the ice having wear and tear on their body?

The fact that that is a reality for the players is exactly why the owners have all the leverage. NHL players are pissing away a year of money they could be making in what is otherwise a short career.

Hell sticking with your crazy argument, not many regular jobs will still pay you your wage should you sustain an injury outside of your workplace. Hell even sustaining an injury at work is a mess of paperwork and it's likely gonna be at least 3 months until you see some kind of money.


Last edited by Reimer: 11-19-2012 at 10:21 AM.
Reimer is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:50 AM
  #239
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoogaar23 View Post
But again - people like to try to compare athletes to regular jobs. The fact is, in a single year they can pay off their car, house, kids education, all the toys they want, and still have some left over. A 10-20% paycut from $2.5M is very very different than a 10-20% paycut from $50K.
Too bad most of them aren't smart enough to do this as they'd rather spend the money on regular nights out of sweet partying.

Reimer is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:06 AM
  #240
MeestaDeteta
Registered User
 
MeestaDeteta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Saskazoo
Posts: 7,488
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
So here is where we were:

Players get 57%
Contracts are as we knew them

New offer:
Players get 50%
Contract rules make it much more difficult for players to make money, more time to reach free agency, second contract will be significantly less valuable


I fail to see what the players are getting.

Someone explain to me how this works? Because if I'm Fehr, I do not sign this. There need to be at least some concessions. He can't take this back to the PA and say this was a victory.....which is negotiating 101. Bettman put Fehr in a corner, and now we're wondering why no deal is made. Both sides need to later say they won, otherwise, nothing gets done.

Bettman needs to make concessions. This loser lawyer is a terrible human being and I hate him with all my heart. How I feel about him is not relevant though. What is relevant is that he has lead to 3 lockouts, and that he is single-handedly ruining the sport for everyone. The amount of frustration he has caused was already immense, and if he erases another year of hockey, this guy needs to be fired.

I actually want the PA to stay locked out for the year, and if that happens, stay locked out for a second year. The owners won't be strapping on skates, and let's be honest, if Crosby is not on NHL ice, they will not be able to charge the outrageous prices they already do.

If I'm a rich guy, I call a bunch of other rich guys, and I start a league. I know it sounds crazy, but I think there's money to be made here. Ok, maybe not yet, and a league is a stupid idea because it takes a lot of invested capital, but at some point you'd think you can hire these guys for some exhibition games or something? I know I'd pay to watch an All-Star game in Edmonton...

Ok vent over. I hate this entire situation.
The whole idea of "winning" this negotiation is the systemic issue that's at play here. Both sides need to find a way to ensure the game is healthy/viable and the players get their fair share of compensation.

Also, I think the biggest thing that needs to be mentioned is that all other pro sports leagues ensure that their players are getting 50% or less of revenues, whether that's through a cap system or luxury tax system. The player's share of HRR is dropping to at least 50%, which shouldn't be viewed as a give/take in the process, but rather the reality that's being faced.

I'm sure if the other league's were all paying 60%+ in revenues, the players would be making the argument that they're only asking to be competitive with other pro-sports players. The owners are doing the same thing here.

MeestaDeteta is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:24 AM
  #241
ales83fan
Registered User
 
ales83fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
if i was making 2.5 million, and all my co-workers were making 2.5 million as an average salary, but my company was losing money left right and center, yeah, i'd agree to a pay cut... i think 99% of people would

if your company isn't making money, and is about to go bankrupt, then you don't have a job anymore... it's pretty simple... you see unions taking less money *all the time* when the employer is facing rough economic times, and these union employees make 3% of what the average NHL player makes

ridiculous argument
But what if my company is posting record growth and record profits?

I feel like your entire post is negated by the fact that a core assumption you made is incorrect.

If there are record profits, I bet you anything that you are not taking a paycut.

ales83fan is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:26 AM
  #242
ales83fan
Registered User
 
ales83fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Oh my. Your not seriously trying to suggest the risk is anywhere comensurate with the reward, are you.
Thats about the WORST argument one could raise.
The worst.
I could have made a worse argument.

Players should make more money than the owners because they are younger, and have more life ahead of them.

Owners are old, and they just sit around the couch all day, they don't need the money anyway.

I feel like the above is a much worse argument than my previous one, so I'd appreciate it if you apologized.

ales83fan is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:31 AM
  #243
ales83fan
Registered User
 
ales83fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoogaar23 View Post
Was just going to post something like this. Of course if I'm asked to take less just for the sake of it, then I probably would fight it as much as I could, but if the option is to take 10-20% less and still have my incredibly good paying job or not take a cut and lose my job, or even lose a year's worth of salary - then yeah, I would take a cut.

But again - people like to try to compare athletes to regular jobs. The fact is, in a single year they can pay off their car, house, kids education, all the toys they want, and still have some left over. A 10-20% paycut from $2.5M is very very different than a 10-20% paycut from $50K.
On the flip side, if you are about to make 3 Billion in profits, and the option is not to take more than 7% back, (so from 57% to 50%) or not have a season at all and lose all of the profits, even the profits for the year - then yeah, I would take that deal as an owner.

But again - people assume owners to be a regular investment opportunity. It's not because of the size of the capital. The fact is, the millions they are fighting for don't even represent 1% of their income.....it's like me and you cancelling our jobs over 100 dollars.

Like I said, the same arguments can be brought up for both sides.

And I agree with you, the players don't have a "normal" job. They are the best at what they do. If any of us can perform at that level, the doors are more than open. The reality is we cannot. This is why lawyers make more than other professions, it's why doctors make more, and it's why NHL players make what they make. Side note, they make what they make because of the owners offering them those contracts.

ales83fan is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:37 AM
  #244
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,284
vCash: 7000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
But what if my company is posting record growth and record profits?

I feel like your entire post is negated by the fact that a core assumption you made is incorrect.

If there are record profits, I bet you anything that you are not taking a paycut.
I think you may be confusing profits with revenue.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:38 AM
  #245
ales83fan
Registered User
 
ales83fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimer View Post
Wow are you BizNasty or someone related to him or any other PA members? These sound the like the same ridiculous comments the goof was posting on twitter at the beginning of the lockout.

So an owner who puts up $180M to own a team in a poor market isn't taking any risks because he's not on the ice having wear and tear on their body?

The fact that that is a reality for the players is exactly why the owners have all the leverage. NHL players are pissing away a year of money they could be making in what is otherwise a short career.

Hell sticking with your crazy argument, not many regular jobs will still pay you your wage should you sustain an injury outside of your workplace. Hell even sustaining an injury at work is a mess of paperwork and it's likely gonna be at least 3 months until you see some kind of money.
I'm assuming you don't work at a place where you face the same risks as an NHL player.

You brought up the fact that there are teams in a poor market.

Here's a solution:

Revenue sharing with the top dogs and shutting down teams that cannot make money even with extra help.

By cutting player share, you are widening the profit margin for all of the teams: that means the top teams would significantly increase their share. Heck, if we need to make Phoenix profitable by cutting down player salaries, we are looking at a 15-85 split here boys.

You brought up the problems, I agree, but let's not act like the players are responsible for this mess. You sign Suter and Parise to the contracts you did, and now you're saying you're bankrupt and you can't honor that contract.

I mean, I understand deals made years ago, but are you telling me behaviour like this is acceptable?

I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I have my ideas, and I will discuss them with anyone on this forum. I only responded to all the replies out of respect, and because I think I have an answer for the challenges brought up.

ales83fan is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:43 AM
  #246
ales83fan
Registered User
 
ales83fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
I think you may be confusing profits with revenue.
Good point.

I do not have the numbers in front of me for which teams are profitable and which are not.

I would assume most teams are. If they are not, I would like to ask them why they are spending the money they are as a collective group of owners?

No one forced anyone to make the Gomez, Redden, Horcoff, Drury deals. All were terrible deals, but they had free reign of their own decisions.

I am a strong believer in being responsible for your actions. I fail to see what the players did wrong to get us where we are today. I also see massive increases in revenue. Someone should be fired if those increases in revenue do not translate in increases in profits for these owners.

I also think we should move Phoenix to Canada. Not sure where, but I'm pretty sure you put a team here in Edmonton and their profits would easily triple if not more. And I don't even consider Edmonton an actual alternative.

ales83fan is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:56 AM
  #247
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
On the flip side, if you are about to make 3 Billion in profits, and the option is not to take more than 7% back, (so from 57% to 50%) or not have a season at all and lose all of the profits, even the profits for the year - then yeah, I would take that deal as an owner.

But again - people assume owners to be a regular investment opportunity. It's not because of the size of the capital. The fact is, the millions they are fighting for don't even represent 1% of their income.....it's like me and you cancelling our jobs over 100 dollars.

Like I said, the same arguments can be brought up for both sides.
Like IATL mentioned, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that revenues = profits. Yes, the NHL saw record REVENUES last year, but they also saw record EXPENSES. More than half of the teams in the league are not losing money, and more than half of the entire league's profits come from just 3 teams: The Leafs, Habs, and Rangers. Add in the Oilers, Canucks and Red Wings and you have almost 90% of NHL profits from just those 6 teams.

You like to talk about the owners getting $3.3B. Well, take off about $1.9B right off the top for player salaries, and then add in all the other expenses like flights, hotels, staff salaries, etc....

There are half of the teams in the league that are literally losing less money not having a season. That needs to be corrected. Part of it needs to be a reduced share for players, and the other like you mentioned (and I think most agree) is increased revenue sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
Side note, they make what they make because of the owners offering them those contracts.
You are wrong on this as well. The players would have got 57% of HRR last year, regardless of what contracts were signed. That is the function of the escrow.

To simplify it - let's say it's a 1 team league with one player and the CBA is for 50% of HRR. If the league has $10M in revenue, the players salary for the year would be $5M. Whether his contract was for $1M, or $10M. The only thing that signing big money deals does is give the player a bigger stake in the HRR. The contracts from the last CBA were never absolute dollar amounts.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:58 AM
  #248
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
I also think we should move Phoenix to Canada. Not sure where, but I'm pretty sure you put a team here in Edmonton and their profits would easily triple if not more. And I don't even consider Edmonton an actual alternative.
Yeah because Canada is a hot market right now. 10 years ago not so much. The tricky part of doing what Betman does is making good decisions for both the short and long-term. That's a tough task with an ever changing economy.

Reimer is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 11:01 AM
  #249
ales83fan
Registered User
 
ales83fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimer View Post
Yeah because Canada is a hot market right now. 10 years ago not so much. The tricky part of doing what Betman does is making good decisions for both the short and long-term. That's a tough task with an ever changing economy.
I'm sure Phoenix is a good idea in the long-term.

ales83fan is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 11:01 AM
  #250
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ales83fan View Post
Good point.

I do not have the numbers in front of me for which teams are profitable and which are not.

I would assume most teams are. If they are not, I would like to ask them why they are spending the money they are as a collective group of owners?

No one forced anyone to make the Gomez, Redden, Horcoff, Drury deals. All were terrible deals, but they had free reign of their own decisions.

I am a strong believer in being responsible for your actions. I fail to see what the players did wrong to get us where we are today. I also see massive increases in revenue. Someone should be fired if those increases in revenue do not translate in increases in profits for these owners.

I also think we should move Phoenix to Canada. Not sure where, but I'm pretty sure you put a team here in Edmonton and their profits would easily triple if not more. And I don't even consider Edmonton an actual alternative.
Again - even if the owners DON'T sign players to big deals, $1.9B needed to be paid out. And those teams losing money needed to reach the cap floor.

Coming out of the last lockout the floor was $23M. In just 7 years that has exploded to over $54M!!! Almost 50% more than the CAP was coming out of the last lockout.

Hoogaar23 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 03:21 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.