HFBoards

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

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-21-2012, 02:59 PM
  #651
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Well, at least eight of them anyways.
He doesn't need too many to keep his job (I think there needs to be a two-thirds vote of the league governors to fire him).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 03:00 PM
  #652
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 22,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
damn its tiring reading this ... so many taking one side or the other ... completely. The owners and the players are both groups of greedy *******s.

And some businesses pay there employees 50% of revenues. Depends on the type of business. Salaries are usually the single largest expense a company has.

Both sides are making proposals that are unrealistic. At least they are moving towards a common ground. But every proposal from Fehr has used language that is unclear and obfusticates the issue. This why Betman wanted a proposal in writing. This proposal once again isnt clear. Betman says lets talk about oranges, and Fehr says apples are the real issue.
The problem is that the NHL approaching this from a position where everything has to go their way. In negotiations, both sides have to give up something to reach a middle ground. The NHL's idea of giving something up has been to reset it back to where it was in the last CBA. They took a completely ridiculous and unfair position to start and since then have been moving little steps away from it in order to make it seem like they're the ones being reasonable.

I don't like either side's approach, but it's tough for the NHLPA to negotiate in a good way when the NHLs proposal has basically been: "Lets take every single issue there is, make it more favourable to the NHL and then we have a deal."

Tiranis is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 03:02 PM
  #653
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
The top 1% of employees often earn vastly differently than what the rest of "the real world" working in that industry does.

If a company insisted on retaining 700 or so of the top 1000 lawyers on the planet, you can bet that the vast majority of their expenses would be employee salary and benefits.

Attempts to compare the personnel costs of "real world companies" (that with little exception, hire average workers for average compensation) and a professional sports league are highly misleading.

Comments like this really discredit your contributions to the discussion.
Which was entirely the point of my post. You "team players" guys should make logos.

The point is if this is a normal business where the owners assume all the risk and not a partnership then they should be making more than 50% of HRR.

But to your point...

If a company employed 700 of the 1000 best lawyers in the world, assuming the company was indeed a corporation, they still would not be making 50% of company revenue in wages. That would be a terrible business model. Of course, a company which employed 700 of the 1000 best lawyers in the world, again assuming this is a corporation and not an LLP, would command a superb amount of revenue allowing the corporation to pay its employees what they deserve.

Jay Cee is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 03:04 PM
  #654
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 22,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Cee View Post
The point is if this is a normal business where the owners assume all the risk and not a partnership then they should be making more than 50% of HRR.
Depends on the industry. Plenty of somewhat risky businesses out there where wages take up more than 50% of their revenues.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 03:24 PM
  #655
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,819
vCash: 457
The players proposal is still effectively de-linked. They made a provision if the total HRR decreases they actually get a raise.

Process was made as the PA actually got the NHL to keep ELC's at 3years. In addition, the NHL managed to get a formal proposal from the PA. We now have something to work off with. Great news. However the main hurdle of linkage still hasn't been handled.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 04:55 PM
  #656
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
If he's not actively attempting to broker a deal, then what's he there for? His job is to corrale owners into a deal. Which he does, regularly. It's why he changed the voting structure so that he can his merry band of greedy owners on the eastern seaboard (Boston, Philly, etc.) can run the league how they'd like to.
Bettman should rightly go down in history as the least successful labour negotiatior in professional sports history. His reputation as a good negotiator absolutely confounds me.
Bettman needs a 75% vote of acceptance from the owners for a new CBA to be ratified. Therefore, so long as there are 8 owners willing to hold out for the absolute perfect deal, this is the way it has to be.

Philly, IMO isn't one of those hard line teams. Boston, yes because of Jacobs. But, I would imagine that the weak US teams that are having trouble reaching the floor are the ones who would be in that group of 8. Talking about the Nashville, Florida, Anaheim, Phoenix, Carolina, even the likes of St. Louis/Colorado who are finding it tough financially.

Ultimately, it's the NHL's fault to placing teams in these markets that are having trouble competing with the big boys.

San Jose - new market in northern California. Been a solid franchise for their 20 years. They have to do things right to break even and even make some money.
Anaheim - was there really a need to have a 2nd team in Southern California aside from the fact that Disney wanted a team? Disney has been out for a while now.
Florida - 2nd team in Florida, after TB was awarded an expansion team? Like Anaheim, it was because Blockbuster was the owner. Well, they have been out of the hockey scene for a while and are now bankrupt.
TB - I remember how hard it was for them to put together the expansion fee. Japanese investors I believe.
Ottawa - tough times when the $CAD was low. Still don't like the location of their arena.
Nashville - they had a new building, but did the market research really indicate that they could support an NHL team revenue wise?
Atlanta - big market from a population and tv POV, but again, did the market research really indicate that they could support an NHL team revenue wise, given that the Hawks weren't rolling in cash either?
Columbus - see Nash & ATL. Competiting with everything OSU.
Minny/St. Paul - definately a hockey market.

How many of these teams would be in that group of 8 who need the perfect CBA to function and compete?

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 05:01 PM
  #657
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Bettman needs a 75% vote of acceptance from the owners for a new CBA to be ratified. Therefore, so long as there are 8 owners willing to hold out for the absolute perfect deal, this is the way it has to be.

Philly, IMO isn't one of those hard line teams. Boston, yes because of Jacobs. But, I would imagine that the weak US teams that are having trouble reaching the floor are the ones who would be in that group of 8. Talking about the Nashville, Florida, Anaheim, Phoenix, Carolina, even the likes of St. Louis/Colorado who are finding it tough financially.

Ultimately, it's the NHL's fault to placing teams in these markets that are having trouble competing with the big boys.

San Jose - new market in northern California. Been a solid franchise for their 20 years. They have to do things right to break even and even make some money.
Anaheim - was there really a need to have a 2nd team in Southern California aside from the fact that Disney wanted a team? Disney has been out for a while now.
Florida - 2nd team in Florida, after TB was awarded an expansion team? Like Anaheim, it was because Blockbuster was the owner. Well, they have been out of the hockey scene for a while and are now bankrupt.
TB - I remember how hard it was for them to put together the expansion fee. Japanese investors I believe.
Ottawa - tough times when the $CAD was low. Still don't like the location of their arena.
Nashville - they had a new building, but did the market research really indicate that they could support an NHL team revenue wise?
Atlanta - big market from a population and tv POV, but again, did the market research really indicate that they could support an NHL team revenue wise, given that the Hawks weren't rolling in cash either?
Columbus - see Nash & ATL. Competiting with everything OSU.
Minny/St. Paul - definately a hockey market.

How many of these teams would be in that group of 8 who need the perfect CBA to function and compete?
IMHO, more like see: Doug McLean (their version of the Grizzlies Stu Jackson).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 05:25 PM
  #658
VeteranNetPresence
Disco Super Fly.
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,477
vCash: 500
NHLPA is lucky the NHL is even willing to honuor most of the players' contracts. they signed them in the last CBA so they are subject to modification in the new one ie: ROLLBACK!

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 06:23 PM
  #659
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 23,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Bettman needs a 75% vote of acceptance from the owners for a new CBA to be ratified. Therefore, so long as there are 8 owners willing to hold out for the absolute perfect deal, this is the way it has to be.

Philly, IMO isn't one of those hard line teams. Boston, yes because of Jacobs. But, I would imagine that the weak US teams that are having trouble reaching the floor are the ones who would be in that group of 8. Talking about the Nashville, Florida, Anaheim, Phoenix, Carolina, even the likes of St. Louis/Colorado who are finding it tough financially.

Ultimately, it's the NHL's fault to placing teams in these markets that are having trouble competing with the big boys.

San Jose - new market in northern California. Been a solid franchise for their 20 years. They have to do things right to break even and even make some money.
Anaheim - was there really a need to have a 2nd team in Southern California aside from the fact that Disney wanted a team? Disney has been out for a while now.
Florida - 2nd team in Florida, after TB was awarded an expansion team? Like Anaheim, it was because Blockbuster was the owner. Well, they have been out of the hockey scene for a while and are now bankrupt.
TB - I remember how hard it was for them to put together the expansion fee. Japanese investors I believe.
Ottawa - tough times when the $CAD was low. Still don't like the location of their arena.
Nashville - they had a new building, but did the market research really indicate that they could support an NHL team revenue wise?
Atlanta - big market from a population and tv POV, but again, did the market research really indicate that they could support an NHL team revenue wise, given that the Hawks weren't rolling in cash either?
Columbus - see Nash & ATL. Competiting with everything OSU.
Minny/St. Paul - definately a hockey market.

How many of these teams would be in that group of 8 who need the perfect CBA to function and compete?
Considering Atlanta had already been moved once in their history, it seemed like a bad idea to start.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 06:42 PM
  #660
Blackhawkswincup
Tornado Warning
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 119,555
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Considering Atlanta had already been moved once in their history, it seemed like a bad idea to start.
It was a risk worth taking

Especially seeing Colorado thrive

And by your logic the Wild shouldn't have bene put in Minny or a team put back in Winnipeg (Jets fail economically once already)

Surely your against another team in QC right?

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 06:52 PM
  #661
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,431
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Bettman needs a 75% vote of acceptance from the owners for a new CBA to be ratified. Therefore, so long as there are 8 owners willing to hold out for the absolute perfect deal, this is the way it has to be.

Philly, IMO isn't one of those hard line teams. Boston, yes because of Jacobs. But, I would imagine that the weak US teams that are having trouble reaching the floor are the ones who would be in that group of 8. Talking about the Nashville, Florida, Anaheim, Phoenix, Carolina, even the likes of St. Louis/Colorado who are finding it tough financially.

Ultimately, it's the NHL's fault to placing teams in these markets that are having trouble competing with the big boys.

San Jose - new market in northern California. Been a solid franchise for their 20 years. They have to do things right to break even and even make some money.
Anaheim - was there really a need to have a 2nd team in Southern California aside from the fact that Disney wanted a team? Disney has been out for a while now.
Florida - 2nd team in Florida, after TB was awarded an expansion team? Like Anaheim, it was because Blockbuster was the owner. Well, they have been out of the hockey scene for a while and are now bankrupt.
TB - I remember how hard it was for them to put together the expansion fee. Japanese investors I believe.
Ottawa - tough times when the $CAD was low. Still don't like the location of their arena.
Nashville - they had a new building, but did the market research really indicate that they could support an NHL team revenue wise?
Atlanta - big market from a population and tv POV, but again, did the market research really indicate that they could support an NHL team revenue wise, given that the Hawks weren't rolling in cash either?
Columbus - see Nash & ATL. Competiting with everything OSU.
Minny/St. Paul - definately a hockey market.

How many of these teams would be in that group of 8 who need the perfect CBA to function and compete?
Yeah, I actually meant generally (not just lockout specific). Everyone knows which teams run the league. I think a lot of the richest teams in the league right now are hesitant to increase revenue sharing, but I could certainly be wrong about that.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 06:54 PM
  #662
LiquidSnake*
Agent of Chaos...
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
It was a risk worth taking

Especially seeing Colorado thrive

And by your logic the Wild shouldn't have bene put in Minny or a team put back in Winnipeg (Jets fail economically once already)

Surely your against another team in QC right?
Atlanta I wouldn't have given a shot. Minny made sense given their college support of hockey etc.

Columbus and Phoenix are massive mistakes.

LiquidSnake* is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 06:56 PM
  #663
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,193
vCash: 500
The Thrashers move to Winnipeg had a lot to do with the ownership in Atlanta. They wanted out, and were going to charge unreasonable rent to whoever wanted to operate the team in Atlanta. Bettman wouldn't have greenlighted that move unless he was out of options in Atlanta.

Quote:
San Jose - new market in northern California. Been a solid franchise for their 20 years. They have to do things right to break even and even make some money.
Anaheim - was there really a need to have a 2nd team in Southern California aside from the fact that Disney wanted a team? Disney has been out for a while now.
Florida - 2nd team in Florida, after TB was awarded an expansion team? Like Anaheim, it was because Blockbuster was the owner. Well, they have been out of the hockey scene for a while and are now bankrupt.
TB - I remember how hard it was for them to put together the expansion fee. Japanese investors I believe.
Ottawa - tough times when the $CAD was low. Still don't like the location of their arena.
Nashville - they had a new building, but did the market research really indicate that they could support an NHL team revenue wise?
Atlanta - big market from a population and tv POV, but again, did the market research really indicate that they could support an NHL team revenue wise, given that the Hawks weren't rolling in cash either?
Columbus - see Nash & ATL. Competiting with everything OSU.
Minny/St. Paul - definately a hockey market.
No mention of Phoenix/Glendale or Dallas? Those markets are in trouble too. Nashville sells out, the problem is the price point. A lot of the southern markets were about getting a nation-wide league to make the league more attractive to TV networks. Without meaningful revenue sharing though, who eats the losses, the players or the southern owners?

Hammer79 is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 07:07 PM
  #664
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 23,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
It was a risk worth taking

Especially seeing Colorado thrive

And by your logic the Wild shouldn't have bene put in Minny or a team put back in Winnipeg (Jets fail economically once already)

Surely your against another team in QC right?
Colorado thrived (past tense) only because they got a Stanley Cup caliber team to start with.

Jets failed economically due to a Canadian dollar.

People in Quebec like hockey, Atlanta they didn't...

arsmaster is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 07:15 PM
  #665
Blackhawkswincup
Tornado Warning
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 119,555
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
Atlanta I wouldn't have given a shot. Minny made sense given their college support of hockey etc.

Columbus and Phoenix are massive mistakes.
Columbus is not a mistake ,, Good fans who tried to support the Jackets but gave up after so much ####

Bad management/ownership is killing what is potentially a very good market

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
No mention of Phoenix/Glendale or Dallas? Those markets are in trouble too. Nashville sells out, the problem is the price point. A lot of the southern markets were about getting a nation-wide league to make the league more attractive to TV networks. Without meaningful revenue sharing though, who eats the losses, the players or the southern owners?
Dallas was ravaged by Tom Hicks financial destruction

They are just starting to attempt to recover.. Dallas was great for NHL thru 90's and until Hicks went belly up

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 07:18 PM
  #666
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 22,084
vCash: 500
Columbus is a good market for hockey, they just have horrible management. And honestly, that's where the responsibility falls on the owners for not making money. Why should the players bail out an ownership group that has proven not to care about how its team is run?

Tiranis is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 08:51 PM
  #667
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Columbus is a good market for hockey, they just have horrible management. And honestly, that's where the responsibility falls on the owners for not making money. Why should the players bail out an ownership group that has proven not to care about how its team is run?
Exactly. People keep pointing to these franchises as making the players money by just being there but the players would make a lot more if they were well run.

Scurr is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 08:56 PM
  #668
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Columbus is a good market for hockey, they just have horrible management. And honestly, that's where the responsibility falls on the owners for not making money. Why should the players bail out an ownership group that has proven not to care about how its team is run?
To be fair some of those players made boat loads of cash in CBJ a-la mr Huselius and these days mr Wizniewski...

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:06 PM
  #669
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
To be fair some of those players made boat loads of cash in CBJ a-la mr Huselius and these days mr Wizniewski...
Those guys made out well but the other 700 players all pay the penalty in escrow because that team is throwing revenue away by not being competitive in its existence.

Scurr is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:20 PM
  #670
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,055
vCash: 500
According to Kames Mirtle, the union could always de-certify. The implications of that are quite interesting

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...+Article+Links

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:37 PM
  #671
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
According to Kames Mirtle, the union could always de-certify. The implications of that are quite interesting

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...+Article+Links
The NHL's salary cap would be challenged under anti-trust laws, because there would be no bargaining unit to agree to a CBA. This might be a way to call Bettman's bluff.

Hammer79 is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:41 PM
  #672
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,722
vCash: 500
Despite the drama and sabre rattling, I'm pretty happy that some significant progress was made today.

The owners were intent to burn the next two weeks off the clock anyways.

Wisp is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:08 PM
  #673
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,626
vCash: 500
Expansion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
The Thrashers move to Winnipeg had a lot to do with the ownership in Atlanta. They wanted out, and were going to charge unreasonable rent to whoever wanted to operate the team in Atlanta. Bettman wouldn't have greenlighted that move unless he was out of options in Atlanta.



No mention of Phoenix/Glendale or Dallas? Those markets are in trouble too. Nashville sells out, the problem is the price point. A lot of the southern markets were about getting a nation-wide league to make the league more attractive to TV networks. Without meaningful revenue sharing though, who eats the losses, the players or the southern owners?
I was only looking at expansion franchises. I could have written about Colorado, Phoenix, Dallas, Carolina too.

Dallas was solid before Hicks ran into money issues. Gross roots hockey in the state of Texas has taken off due to the involvement of the Stars. I think things will pick up again for them once the new management team settles in.

Colorado, odd that this top 5 spending team from the 90's can now struggle to hit the cap floor?

Phoenix, this is an example of the fact that the NHL head office needs to step in when it comes to franchises moving to new arenas in new areas.

NJ going from the Meadowlands to Newark, Phoenix going from Scottsdale/Phoenix (where ever their arena was) to Glendale, and even now with the Isles going from Nassau to Brooklyn. Moves like these are crucial to the NHL going forward, not just to the current owner at the time. Glendale has been horrible for the NHL as the Coyotes fan base is located in Phoenix/Scottsdale, which is a 45-60 minute commute from the Glendale Arena. Now that Moyes is out, the NHL is left trying to find a new owner in a poor location.

Like if the Canucks were to build a new rink in White Rock or something. Bad move for the long term viability of the team, not to mention the marketabilty when it comes to finding a new owner.

Carolina, for the past several years, this team spends based on the prior season's performance. If they miss the playoffs they cut payroll, if they do well, they spend. No commitment to a long term financial plan. Could be changing with the deal for J. Staal.

I look at the NHL this way: If they were to restart the league from scratch and put their teams into the best hockey markets, would there really be 30 markets that could support the NHL from a revenue POV? If there are, are they the current 30 markets? How many of the current markets would you not put a team in again?

As for the Southern teams like Nashville, I did write in my previous post if the market research revealed that they could support an NHL team from a revenue POV. If they could sell out, but couldn't charge enough, then is that a market they should go into? Was the NHL and the other owners at the time willing to support/help Nashville and other teams out, if having them would land them the national US tv deal they had long searched for?

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:39 PM
  #674
EpochLink
Canucks and Jets fan
 
EpochLink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,651
vCash: 500
Union seems divided, players want a deal and not another lockout

EpochLink is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:43 PM
  #675
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 23,571
vCash: 500
I feel bad for Hamrlik if he comes back to the NHL. There's a couple tough guys that have long memories.

arsmaster is online now  
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 10:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.