HFBoards

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

What Do You Think About Toews' Lockout Comments?

View Poll Results: What Do You Think About Toews' Lockout Comments?
I Agree With What He Says 6 25.00%
I Don't Agree With What He Says 13 54.17%
Other (Please Specify) 5 20.83%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2012, 05:42 AM
  #76
ModryJazyk
Registered User
 
ModryJazyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bratislava
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
a team he prefers or a country he wants to play?
I don't have any info but expect Switzerland or Germany.

ModryJazyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 01:46 PM
  #77
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,327
vCash: 500
If he comes to Germany I will be one lucky Mother****er

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 12:58 PM
  #78
AmericanDream
Puck You
 
AmericanDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: I Return to Serenity
Country: United States
Posts: 9,570
vCash: 500
some real good posts in here, I was glad to read that some people do still have common sense on this issue.

I really cant see how anyone could side with the players on this at all. This is why millionaire athletes simply do not belong unionized. There is no reason for these guys to be a part of a union in 2012. The days of the 1940's and 50's are long gone, and players contracts are at an all-time high.

With unions going by the wayside left and right, you would think that this union mentality would be disbanded and moved on from from the sports world. All these unions do is employ fat cat do nothings that get paid whether there is an actual season or not. I have worked in a union environment for years at a distribution center for Jewel-Osco, and my father is a union forklift driver as well... so I understand at times why the average man believes they need a union to fight for their rights and income....

.....but we are not talking about average men. We are talking about men who have $50-100 million contracts...men who make more in a year then most of us will see in a lifetime...and you know what the saddest part of this is??? none of these players care about who actually employs them. I havent seen any player going out of his way apologizing to us the fans. this misconception as to who the players employers really are is maddening. we are the schmucks that pay our hard earned money to see these guys, which in turn pays their salaries. the fans are the players actual employers because if we dont show up, and they dont have fans to pay their salaries, they dont have a league. Pretty damn simple.

and to end this long post, I guess maybe that is what needs to happen is that we the fans need to step up and tell our employees enough is enough and we arent going to pay for you anymore. if there is a season this year, just dont show up....ever! since these millionaire athletes give so much care to us and understand who actually pays for their lifestyle, let reality hit them right in the face when the puck drops and all the arenas look as empty as US CELL park on a Tuesday.

The owners are a-holes too, so dont get me started. they are their own worst enemies as well as they are the idiots that started handing out these outrageous contracts years ago and now they have to live with this.

It is millionaire vs billionaire, and the only people that get hurt is us the fans. When we the fans realize that we have the ultimate power and control both the owners and players destiny, only then can we put an end to this nonsense. But that will never happen because we could never band together against such atrocities....ya know, like a UNION would??? hmmmm, maybe thats what we need, a union for the fans....local 725 Union for the fans....interesting!!

AmericanDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:48 PM
  #79
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,150
vCash: 50
Agreed, great post. Sports unions give unions a bad name. At the same time, sports players had it extremely rough before unions. I'm not sure that over time it wouldn't revert back to them making peanuts without unification. I agree on the fan union too, it would be a great idea. It would never happen but nonetheless would be great if it did. It does sicken me to see people trash unions in the comments section of these NHL articles though. You have people dying of cancer, losing limbs, tons of people including myself inching toward mesothelioma with the carbon dust and chemicals we breath in. It's NOT the same thing at all.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 02:29 AM
  #80
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Agreed, great post. Sports unions give unions a bad name. At the same time, sports players had it extremely rough before unions. I'm not sure that over time it wouldn't revert back to them making peanuts without unification. I agree on the fan union too, it would be a great idea. It would never happen but nonetheless would be great if it did. It does sicken me to see people trash unions in the comments section of these NHL articles though. You have people dying of cancer, losing limbs, tons of people including myself inching toward mesothelioma with the carbon dust and chemicals we breath in. It's NOT the same thing at all.
There are very few unions out there that give unions a "good name" in the sense you're thinking.

That aside, the biggie pro sports leagues (NHL, MLB, NBA, NFL) would be far more complicated if the players weren't collectively represented by a union. While the NHLPA gives the NHL a headache (to say the least), the NHL would probably be a disaster w/o union representation of the players. Entering into a CBA with unionized players gives the NHL teams the right to do things they couldn't do absent union representation of the players.

The real problem with the NHL is the fact they've got teams with wildly different worth and fortunes (re value, revenue, growth potential, etc.) and have decided they want those teams to have equal potential in the league. If left to their own devices they could never achieve parity on their own...because, for example, people in Toronto will spend their time blowing away cash on exorbitantly priced tickets to see a perennially losing team while people in Anaheim will barely watch and quickly abandon their (recently) Stanley Cup winning team.

The NHL can try to fake it in a short term sense through the lockout (and CBA they want)...but the same problem will pop in a few years from now. Toronto, Montreal, and NYR will continue to drive the revenue in the league while the teams in the "non-traditional" markets will fall behind. The linkage the NHL loves so much will result and the same problem they face now quickly popping up again - it will actually start to get worse, b/c MSG has been renovated and I'm sure the ticket prices will go through the roof.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 02:36 AM
  #81
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanDream View Post
some real good posts in here, I was glad to read that some people do still have common sense on this issue.

I really cant see how anyone could side with the players on this at all. This is why millionaire athletes simply do not belong unionized. There is no reason for these guys to be a part of a union in 2012. The days of the 1940's and 50's are long gone, and players contracts are at an all-time high.

With unions going by the wayside left and right, you would think that this union mentality would be disbanded and moved on from from the sports world. All these unions do is employ fat cat do nothings that get paid whether there is an actual season or not. I have worked in a union environment for years at a distribution center for Jewel-Osco, and my father is a union forklift driver as well... so I understand at times why the average man believes they need a union to fight for their rights and income....

.....but we are not talking about average men. We are talking about men who have $50-100 million contracts...men who make more in a year then most of us will see in a lifetime...and you know what the saddest part of this is??? none of these players care about who actually employs them. I havent seen any player going out of his way apologizing to us the fans. this misconception as to who the players employers really are is maddening. we are the schmucks that pay our hard earned money to see these guys, which in turn pays their salaries. the fans are the players actual employers because if we dont show up, and they dont have fans to pay their salaries, they dont have a league. Pretty damn simple.

and to end this long post, I guess maybe that is what needs to happen is that we the fans need to step up and tell our employees enough is enough and we arent going to pay for you anymore. if there is a season this year, just dont show up....ever! since these millionaire athletes give so much care to us and understand who actually pays for their lifestyle, let reality hit them right in the face when the puck drops and all the arenas look as empty as US CELL park on a Tuesday.

The owners are a-holes too, so dont get me started. they are their own worst enemies as well as they are the idiots that started handing out these outrageous contracts years ago and now they have to live with this.

It is millionaire vs billionaire, and the only people that get hurt is us the fans. When we the fans realize that we have the ultimate power and control both the owners and players destiny, only then can we put an end to this nonsense. But that will never happen because we could never band together against such atrocities....ya know, like a UNION would??? hmmmm, maybe thats what we need, a union for the fans....local 725 Union for the fans....interesting!!
What you're saying is true - but without the union/a cba the NHL would have trouble maintaining business functions in the way it does b/c it would start to run afoul of anti-trust rules (and encounter a bunch of other legal issues).

In large part, the current structure of the NHL is built around the fact there's a union - and if you remove unionization you'd cause a lot of problems.

I'm not saying that the players are equivalent to the guys going down the mine - but understand if you took away the NHLPA you'd be introducing a whole host of problems.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 03:15 AM
  #82
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
There are very few unions out there that give unions a "good name" in the sense you're thinking.

That aside, the biggie pro sports leagues (NHL, MLB, NBA, NFL) would be far more complicated if the players weren't collectively represented by a union. While the NHLPA gives the NHL a headache (to say the least), the NHL would probably be a disaster w/o union representation of the players. Entering into a CBA with unionized players gives the NHL teams the right to do things they couldn't do absent union representation of the players.

The real problem with the NHL is the fact they've got teams with wildly different worth and fortunes (re value, revenue, growth potential, etc.) and have decided they want those teams to have equal potential in the league. If left to their own devices they could never achieve parity on their own...because, for example, people in Toronto will spend their time blowing away cash on exorbitantly priced tickets to see a perennially losing team while people in Anaheim will barely watch and quickly abandon their (recently) Stanley Cup winning team.

The NHL can try to fake it in a short term sense through the lockout (and CBA they want)...but the same problem will pop in a few years from now. Toronto, Montreal, and NYR will continue to drive the revenue in the league while the teams in the "non-traditional" markets will fall behind. The linkage the NHL loves so much will result and the same problem they face now quickly popping up again - it will actually start to get worse, b/c MSG has been renovated and I'm sure the ticket prices will go through the roof.
There are plenty of other sports teams in the world where teams make huge sums of money more then other teams. Hell in professional soccer, there is no cap, there is no revenue sharing and teams like Man City, PSG, Chelsea etc with billionaire tycoon owners can spend $100 of millions more then others.

You think the Jaguars and the Seahawks, generate the same money as the Giants, Cowboys or Bears? Green Bay is the single smallest professionalism sports market in the country yet they get by.

The issue is the league isn't popular enough and generate enough revenue to pay the players these salaries. You can come on here and talk about the Maple Leafs, Canadiens and Rangers needing to share more but the amount they would have to share to fix the smaller teams would mean they don't generate enough profit for themselves.

It also has to do with why revenue sharing in other sports works better and is fairer. MLB, NBA and of course the NFL have huge national TV deals which is where most of the leagues profit comes from, here is an amazing stat, the NFL could close it's stadiums and play games on a field with no stands and generate not ticket sales, concessions or parking and still make a profit from the TV deal alone. MLB and NBA TV deals make up about 50% of the league revenue. Where as in the NHL only about 25% of the leagues revenue is from their TV deal. So in other sports leagues smaller market teams are making a larger % of the leagues pot, where as in the NHL your telling teams to give up their money, not the leagues money but their money to other teams, so the whole higher % of revenue sharing doesn't work as well. You can't just go out and get a better TV deal either if your league isn't popular, the NHL simply isn't popular enough. Drawing out this lockout won't help popularity and $ at all. Which is why I said, a year ago and will continue to say the NHLPA would have been so much smarter to take a slightly worse % deal early on and prevent a lockout and therefore loss in revenue then hold out, create a lockout that hurts HRR for a slightly higher %. 45% of 3.3 billion and growing fast is a hell of a lot more then 50% of 1.7 billion and hardly growing at all.

This is why player salaries have to come down, the league making the least amount of money by far can't be 3rd in payroll, it has to be last to match what the league makes. Giving players 57% of the leagues revenue is ridiculous and the players demanding X sum of money no matter the leagues revenue the next few years is stupid and beyond greedy. The players might not like the contractual restrictions, well then give up your ridiculous demands and maybe the owners will do the same but asking for a raise in your salary no matter the leagues profit is a joke.


As to your comment about leagues needing to be unionized, last year the NBA disbanded their union to negotiate their deal with the NBA. I think the NHL might be smart to do the same thing.


Last edited by Sir Psycho T: 11-17-2012 at 03:24 AM.
Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 03:36 AM
  #83
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
There are plenty of other sports teams in the world where teams make huge sums of money more then other teams. Hell in professional soccer, there is no cap, there is no revenue sharing and teams like Man City, PSG, Chelsea etc with billionaire tycoon owners can spend $100 of millions more then others.

You think the Jaguars and the Seahawks, generate the same money as the Giants, Cowboys or Bears? Green Bay is the single smallest professionalism sports market in the country yet they get by.

The issue is the league isn't popular enough and generate enough revenue to pay the players these salaries. You can come on here and talk about the Maple Leafs, Canadiens and Rangers needing to share more but the amount they would have to share to fix the smaller teams would mean they don't generate enough profit for themselves.

It also has to do with why revenue sharing in other sports works better and is fairer. MLB, NBA and of course the NFL have huge national TV deals which is where most of the leagues profit comes from, here is an amazing stat, the NFL could close it's stadiums and play games on a field with no stands and generate not ticket sales, concessions or parking and still make a profit from the TV deal alone. MLB and NBA TV deals make up about 50% of the league revenue. Where as in the NHL only about 25% of the leagues revenue is from their TV deal. So in other sports leagues smaller market teams are making a larger % of the leagues pot, where as in the NHL your telling teams to give up their money, not the leagues money but their money to other teams, so the whole higher % of revenue sharing doesn't work as well.

This is why player salaries have to come down, the league making the least amount of money by far can't be 3rd in payroll, it has to be last to match what the league makes. Giving players 57% of the leagues revenue is ridiculous and the players demanding X sum of money no matter the leagues revenue the next few years is stupid and beyond greedy. The players might not like the contractual restrictions, well then give up your ridiculous demands and maybe the owners will do the same but asking for a raise in your salary no matter the leagues profit is a joke.
i think you may have misunderstood my post (i probably wasn't clear) - b/c i don't really disagree with most of what you're saying. my comment was re that you can't complain about the presence of a union but expect the NHL to implement the structure that it wishes to.

with a structure like the NHL has, it is difficult to control the finances in the way it wants to w/o having unionized players. if the CBA isn't settled by late June there's not going to be a draft. With no union at all (and above a couple were complaining about the presence of a union - that's what i was responding to), the teams can't just get together and decide to impose a cap/floor on their spending. they also can't get together and come up with ELC, UFA rules all by themselves. so, the presence of a union is what has allowed the NHL to implement its current business form.

also, i don't think the leafs, habs, NYR should share more in a general sense - i don't like the salary cap at all. i'd prefer a luxury tax. my point is that if the NHL wants to implement the capped structure in the way it has, then cutting back salaries right now will only help them for so long...but after not too long the "have" teams will continue to grow (esp. T.O. and NYC) and start to shove the cap (and floor) to a point where the "have nots" have trouble competing. slashing the players' hrr % is only a temporary fix.

bettman says the problem is the teams are "paying too much in salary" - but an additional problem is the teams aren't all growing and increasing revenue at the same rate - and if the rev. generation of the teams at the top continues to significantly outpace the teams at the lower end then in a few years it will force the cap/floor to a point where the poorer teams can't compete.

...and plz find where i've ever said the players should have 57% of the revenue at this point. i've never said that - the closest you might have read me come to saying that is when people whine that the players were "getting too much" before, i've pointed out that they were entitled to it under the previous CBA - it wasn't an ill-begotten % - the owners agreed to it when the players agreed to the cap. I don't think the players should get 57%...however, i think if the NHL wants to continue with the ill-advised structure it was implemented (and refuse to move the worst of the losers to cities that would be commercially viable) then the NHL/owners should have to bear some of the financial burden of the business structure they insist must be in place.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 06:03 AM
  #84
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
i think you may have misunderstood my post (i probably wasn't clear) - b/c i don't really disagree with most of what you're saying. my comment was re that you can't complain about the presence of a union but expect the NHL to implement the structure that it wishes to.

with a structure like the NHL has, it is difficult to control the finances in the way it wants to w/o having unionized players. if the CBA isn't settled by late June there's not going to be a draft. With no union at all (and above a couple were complaining about the presence of a union - that's what i was responding to), the teams can't just get together and decide to impose a cap/floor on their spending. they also can't get together and come up with ELC, UFA rules all by themselves. so, the presence of a union is what has allowed the NHL to implement its current business form.

also, i don't think the leafs, habs, NYR should share more in a general sense - i don't like the salary cap at all. i'd prefer a luxury tax. my point is that if the NHL wants to implement the capped structure in the way it has, then cutting back salaries right now will only help them for so long...but after not too long the "have" teams will continue to grow (esp. T.O. and NYC) and start to shove the cap (and floor) to a point where the "have nots" have trouble competing. slashing the players' hrr % is only a temporary fix.

bettman says the problem is the teams are "paying too much in salary" - but an additional problem is the teams aren't all growing and increasing revenue at the same rate - and if the rev. generation of the teams at the top continues to significantly outpace the teams at the lower end then in a few years it will force the cap/floor to a point where the poorer teams can't compete.

...and plz find where i've ever said the players should have 57% of the revenue at this point. i've never said that - the closest you might have read me come to saying that is when people whine that the players were "getting too much" before, i've pointed out that they were entitled to it under the previous CBA - it wasn't an ill-begotten % - the owners agreed to it when the players agreed to the cap. I don't think the players should get 57%...however, i think if the NHL wants to continue with the ill-advised structure it was implemented (and refuse to move the worst of the losers to cities that would be commercially viable) then the NHL/owners should have to bear some of the financial burden of the business structure they insist must be in place.
My last part of the comment wasn't directed at you but in general where some people have said they think the players are right in what they want.

As for the the last CBA it was agreed to at that time and the times have changed the other major point in that CBA that won't happen in this CBA is that the player % rose as the years passed. That last CBA started at 54% and rose to 57%. This CBA won't have the players salaries rise so it won't be the same issue. Also as you point out the NYR, MON, TOR will drive up the HRR but the FLA, PHO, CLB, will drive down the HRR. If you find the right % of revenue sharing and the right % of player salary you can find a balance no matter the HRR that won't put teams in so much jeopardy.

Also the reason for a cap wasn't just to limit players salaries it was also to try to get the league more competitive. Smaller market teams couldn't hope to compete with larger market teams in terms of FA and general success. Look at baseball sure you get the odd A's and Rays winning but more often then not the haves win, the Yankees, Lakers, Red Wings, will dominate the league because they can continue to sign the best players with nothing to stop them. So if I am a smaller market team and want to draw more fans I need to win more games, but how can I win more games if I can't get any talented players to play for me. A cap limits what the big teams can spend and can keep the league more competitive for everyone and it won't be a league of 5 teams and the rest.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 12:26 AM
  #85
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
My last part of the comment wasn't directed at you but in general where some people have said they think the players are right in what they want.

As for the the last CBA it was agreed to at that time and the times have changed the other major point in that CBA that won't happen in this CBA is that the player % rose as the years passed. That last CBA started at 54% and rose to 57%. This CBA won't have the players salaries rise so it won't be the same issue. Also as you point out the NYR, MON, TOR will drive up the HRR but the FLA, PHO, CLB, will drive down the HRR. If you find the right % of revenue sharing and the right % of player salary you can find a balance no matter the HRR that won't put teams in so much jeopardy.

Also the reason for a cap wasn't just to limit players salaries it was also to try to get the league more competitive. Smaller market teams couldn't hope to compete with larger market teams in terms of FA and general success. Look at baseball sure you get the odd A's and Rays winning but more often then not the haves win, the Yankees, Lakers, Red Wings, will dominate the league because they can continue to sign the best players with nothing to stop them. So if I am a smaller market team and want to draw more fans I need to win more games, but how can I win more games if I can't get any talented players to play for me. A cap limits what the big teams can spend and can keep the league more competitive for everyone and it won't be a league of 5 teams and the rest.
re previous CBA - the structure needs to be changed, but even if it didn't work well for the NHL the players' share was what it was under the CBA - that's why i get annoyed at people claiming the players were "greedy" by getting their CBA share.

i agree with you that there shouldn't be an HRR% float - it's better for everyone if the % is fixed.

you're overly optimistic if you think that the "loser teams" will drive down HRR as the "high rollers" drive it up - one of the main NHL objectives is to stop the bleed on the lower end. you're still going to be stuck with TO, MTL, NYR driving the revenue sky high. Toronto's bad b/c there's nothing Leafs Nation won't pay to watch the team...and i think ppl are underestimating the effect the reno on MSG will have at driving up NYR rev.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 12:29 AM
  #86
JSmith81x
Your weapon is guilt
 
JSmith81x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: illinois
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
He has to say something, and since he can't go against the PA, it has to be directed at the other side.

JSmith81x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 03:22 AM
  #87
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,327
vCash: 500
he could also just shut the **** up and don't talk to the media.

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 04:45 AM
  #88
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
re previous CBA - the structure needs to be changed, but even if it didn't work well for the NHL the players' share was what it was under the CBA - that's why i get annoyed at people claiming the players were "greedy" by getting their CBA share.

i agree with you that there shouldn't be an HRR% float - it's better for everyone if the % is fixed.

you're overly optimistic if you think that the "loser teams" will drive down HRR as the "high rollers" drive it up - one of the main NHL objectives is to stop the bleed on the lower end. you're still going to be stuck with TO, MTL, NYR driving the revenue sky high. Toronto's bad b/c there's nothing Leafs Nation won't pay to watch the team...and i think ppl are underestimating the effect the reno on MSG will have at driving up NYR rev.
The players where greedy for asking for what they asked for. It was bad at 54% and then even worse it went up. Now their asking for a fixed share and an increase every year no matter the HRR? but that's besides the point.

1-2 won't drive the HRR so high that other teams can't make a profit. Plus if those teams drive up the HRR then revenue sharing gets increased because revenue sharing is tied to HRR so it would work out in the end.

If there is an issue then more revenue sharing can be worked into the deal without involving the players. The owners had lots to figure out among themselves before even starting to negotiate with the players. Cap issues, what a cap hit would be, back ended contracts and other things so it wasn't just a player v owner issue at first it was an owner v owner issue and they had to work it out there first.

Now that the 50-50 split is agreed I think even the owners know they couldn't go back to the players at that point. For the most part once the 50-50 takes effect most teams with revenue sharing would be fine, most teams who lost money last year only lost a few million and with lower wages and increased sharing then that should take care of it. Yes there might be a team or two left that even with theses changes would still be in trouble and the league would have to figure it out there but most leagues have 1-2 teams with issues. As long as 90% of the league isn't losing money then the league is fine, but when a large part of the league is then it's an issue.

Again most teams are losing much money, 5 million is a ton of cash but in the scheme of things it's not much, but it's still a loss and you can't tell a majority of your ownership to eat the loss and move on. You have to change the structure of the league and that's what there doing.

Again know what little I know I do think there is a # out there of cap and revenue sharing that will work for most of the league. Now it's down to when, how to get to 50-50, I think a immediate drop with a full owner covered "Make whole" is the best and contractual contractions. I think the owners went to harsh on the restrictions but I do think there should be, even as a Hawk fan with a few of them now I never liked the front end loaded 13 year deals to keep cap hits low it was a way to cheat the system. I think both sides need to give a little and a deal can be worked out. Hopefully this NHLPA called meeting monday has the players giving a counter offer to the leagues offer and we can find a middle ground that not only leaves both sides feeling ok with the situation but that works for years and years to come.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 08:32 AM
  #89
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
he could also just shut the **** up and don't talk to the media.
That works for me.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 06:13 PM
  #90
BBSeabs27
#freeseabs
 
BBSeabs27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 2,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
he could also just shut the **** up and don't talk to the media.
Yeah kinda like all the other "leaders" on the hawks are doing. Anyone hear a single word from Sharp, Seabs, Keith, Hossa and co.? No. He needs to stop trying to be cool. Even Sidney Crosby hasn't been *****ing as much as Toews.

BBSeabs27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 08:23 PM
  #91
ModryJazyk
Registered User
 
ModryJazyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bratislava
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBSeabs27 View Post
Yeah kinda like all the other "leaders" on the hawks are doing. Anyone hear a single word from Sharp, Seabs, Keith, Hossa and co.? No. He needs to stop trying to be cool. Even Sidney Crosby hasn't been *****ing as much as Toews.
Hoss should be quiet so long as he get money as oficially injured player.
As for others, I don't think that ALL ~750 NHL players have same opinion as Fehr/Crosby.

ModryJazyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 07:49 PM
  #92
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
Speaking of players making comments I though Michael Grange had a few great points early today.

Quote:
Has one #NHL player said a negative or derogatory thing about their own owner; the guy actually locking them out? No? Thought so.

It's always Mr. Wirtz, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Ilitch, Mr. Snider. But Bettman? He's an idiot or a cancer. Sooooo outspoken! Laughable.

And by the way, guys calling Bettman and Daly names? White, Versteeg, Parise? How many CBA meetings have you been to?

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 10:33 PM
  #93
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Speaking of players making comments I though Michael Grange had a few great points early today.
yeah, i've thought the same thing. let's not be naive...there are obvious reasons the players are inclined to take shots at the guys who own their teams...but with that said, they just sound stupid whining about bettman. the funny thing is, some of the guys who are the biggest whiners are the ones who should be happiest about their contracts.

brandon prust was tweeting nonsense this past week (although he seems to have deleted it) - and i was just thinking that he recently signed a bigger contract than he's worth b/c Molson is a big pocketed guy.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 10:47 PM
  #94
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,591
vCash: 500
Monday was more b.s.

Players didn't hand in a proposal, why did they call the meeting just to spin wheels again? I guess they were just calling out owners and they called PA bluff. I hope both sides stop posturing soon.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 10:48 PM
  #95
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,591
vCash: 500
Whoops, wrong thread.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 10:58 PM
  #96
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,223
vCash: 500
The longer this goes on, the more I hope the NHL utterly flops when it comes back. Would love to see a huge cut in total revenue. Would serve every last one of these selfish ****** right.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2012, 12:01 AM
  #97
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,108
vCash: 500
as i posted elsewhere on the boards, i think the official slogan of the lockout should be "It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap"

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2012, 12:06 AM
  #98
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
Monday was more b.s.

Players didn't hand in a proposal, why did they call the meeting just to spin wheels again? I guess they were just calling out owners and they called PA bluff. I hope both sides stop posturing soon.
this lockout is a disastrous reminder of why relationships matter in a negation even more than numbers. both sides have left aside the economics and will go no where soon b/c of the lack of trust.

the owners aren't going to voluntarily move against themselves in their offers - and the players aren't going to make economic concessions to get movement on contract issues b/c they're (probably justifiably) afraid that if they move on anything the owners might just take that movement and offer nothing back in return.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2012, 12:18 AM
  #99
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
this lockout is a disastrous reminder of why relationships matter in a negation even more than numbers. both sides have left aside the economics and will go no where soon b/c of the lack of trust.

the owners aren't going to voluntarily move against themselves in their offers - and the players aren't going to make economic concessions to get movement on contract issues b/c they're (probably justifiably) afraid that if they move on anything the owners might just take that movement and offer nothing back in return.
SO WHAT!?

So if the players say they'll take the economic cuts the owners are asking for and in return wan't X in contractual rights and the owners say no, then the players say no deal. It's not like they have to sign the CBA before the owners will possibly give in. So the players come out and say we are willing to do this if your willing to do that and let the owners respond.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2012, 12:38 AM
  #100
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
SO WHAT!?

So if the players say they'll take the economic cuts the owners are asking for and in return wan't X in contractual rights and the owners say no, then the players say no deal. It's not like they have to sign the CBA before the owners will possibly give in. So the players come out and say we are willing to do this if your willing to do that and let the owners respond
.
no, not really.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:30 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.