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
11-23-2012, 01:45 PM
  #751
KISSland
Registered User
 
KISSland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,682
vCash: 500
I officially don't give a **** about this season.

KISSland is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:47 PM
  #752
Taelin
Moderator
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,734
vCash: 833
Games cancelled until Dec 15th, and the All-Star games are cancelled.

Now's the time I wish Abby was our farm team...

Taelin is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:00 PM
  #753
EpochLink
Canucks and Jets fan
 
EpochLink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,288
vCash: 500
I'll care when there's hockey again but right now I couldn't give a rats ass..

and besides, screw the All star game..I'd rather watch a Rhino taking a dump on an African dirt road while tourist video tape him and post it on YouTube 100 times than the NHL "All-Star" Game.

Heck, I'd rather watch 100 episodes of Maury Povich with countless "Who's the father of my baby" episodes

EpochLink is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:27 PM
  #754
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EpochLink View Post
Heck, I'd rather watch 100 episodes of Maury Povich with countless "Who's the father of my baby" episodes
Those episodes are more entertaining than a lot of NHL games

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:45 PM
  #755
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,211
vCash: 833
I don't know how many times I have to say this: the league is making money. Lots of money. They might be throwing away profits on front-loaded deals, but the league as a whole is making money. This entire process is about squeezing money from the players (rather than other owners) to help out financially struggling teams in terrible hockey markets. End of story.

If the league just wanted to close loopholes, move slowly to 50% revenue splitting, and offered the players something in return (1 year younger UFA, expanded arbitration rights), this deal is done in September.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:48 PM
  #756
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,211
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Except that's demonstrably untrue. The NHL's offers in September and October of 2004 which Hamrlik is suggesting they should've taken would've had players taking about 15% less in revenue per year than they ended up getting. So they lost nothing in terms of money in the long run. And it's hard to argue that Hamrlik lost much personally. Would he have gotten a $5.5 million deal in 07-08 if the NHLPA accepted the NHL's offer of a $31-33 million cap? Doubtful.

Then you have the contract rights they gained. The NHL's final offer in Feb 2005 (i.e. their absolute best offer) included the following:

-No contracts longer than 3 years
-UFA age of 30 years old
-a drop dead date in early October for unsigned RFAs whereby if they didn't sign a contract that was offered to them they'd be ineligible to play the rest of the season.
-4 year ELCs with a hard cap at $1.1-1.6 million including all bonuses
-$300K minimum salary


I don't see a logical argument that they'd have been better off settling for what the NHL was offering either in terms of money or contract rights.
Yeah, I think there was also an offer of a hard cap at 50 million somewhere around February of 2005.

The fact that the league wanted a hard cap and the players went with a lower one and linkage is telling: the players have known for a long time that the NHL lies through its teeth about revenues. Sort of like how Bettman comes out now and implies the league is losing money when they demonstrably are not.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:01 PM
  #757
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Yeah, I think there was also an offer of a hard cap at 50 million somewhere around February of 2005.

The fact that the league wanted a hard cap and the players went with a lower one and linkage is telling: the players have known for a long time that the NHL lies through its teeth about revenues. Sort of like how Bettman comes out now and implies the league is losing money when they demonstrably are not.
I believe that it was reported that the owners had an option to have a set cap or to have linkage and they took linkage in the end which resulted in the players doing a lot better.

The last days of negotiation during the last lockout really helped the players do a lot better.

DJOpus is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:08 PM
  #758
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,211
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
I believe that it was reported that the owners had an option to have a set cap or to have linkage and they took linkage in the end which resulted in the players doing a lot better.

The last days of negotiation during the last lockout really helped the players do a lot better.
Interesting.

I was thinking of February 2005 though. I think there was a final offer of a hard cap at 49 million or some such thing.

Linkage makes the most sense far and away. It's the NHL's hard-line stance that's infuriating right now. Bettman's is the king of lockouts.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:55 PM
  #759
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Interesting.

I was thinking of February 2005 though. I think there was a final offer of a hard cap at 49 million or some such thing.

Linkage makes the most sense far and away. It's the NHL's hard-line stance that's infuriating right now. Bettman's is the king of lockouts.
Hard line that Bettman is taking now is because of the markets in the US that can't support hockey on their own revenue streams, along with Jacobs and the Bruins.

Remember, for the owners to ratify a new CBA, they need 75% of them to agree to it, so they need 23 owners to say Yes to a new CBA or only 7 to say no.

Given that teams like Anaheim, Phoenix, Florida, Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, etc. would need to have the perfect CBA to compete on a yearly basis, they would be the ones who are holding out for the best deal. Because, if they sign a deal where they can't compete and thus draw fans, they are done as well.

It's the NHL's fault for having teams located in these markets, but unless there are cities to take them, Markham/Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, are there really 6 other markets that can support an NHL team? Those would be 3.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 04:00 PM
  #760
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Hard line that Bettman is taking now is because of the markets in the US that can't support hockey on their own revenue streams, along with Jacobs and the Bruins.

Remember, for the owners to ratify a new CBA, they need 75% of them to agree to it, so they need 23 owners to say Yes to a new CBA or only 7 to say no.

Given that teams like Anaheim, Phoenix, Florida, Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, etc. would need to have the perfect CBA to compete on a yearly basis, they would be the ones who are holding out for the best deal. Because, if they sign a deal where they can't compete and thus draw fans, they are done as well.

It's the NHL's fault for having teams located in these markets, but unless there are cities to take them, Markham/Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, are there really 6 other markets that can support an NHL team? Those would be 3.
I think the point is, the NHL made their beds in those poor markets and instead of laying in them, they want the players to fix their mistakes.

Seems pretty ridiculous....NHL can go on about players' wages being their biggest expense, they are also their biggest bread winner.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 05:35 PM
  #761
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Hard line that Bettman is taking now is because of the markets in the US that can't support hockey on their own revenue streams, along with Jacobs and the Bruins.

Remember, for the owners to ratify a new CBA, they need 75% of them to agree to it, so they need 23 owners to say Yes to a new CBA or only 7 to say no.

Given that teams like Anaheim, Phoenix, Florida, Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, etc. would need to have the perfect CBA to compete on a yearly basis, they would be the ones who are holding out for the best deal. Because, if they sign a deal where they can't compete and thus draw fans, they are done as well.

It's the NHL's fault for having teams located in these markets, but unless there are cities to take them, Markham/Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, are there really 6 other markets that can support an NHL team? Those would be 3.
Neither can Wpeg IMHO. According to Forbes (dubious I know) the team lost $5m and has a revenue of just $71m, that's as bad as Phoenix is bad. And that $71m with a high Canadian dollar, if it drops 10-15% the Peg is dead without massive propping up.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 05:37 PM
  #762
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Yeah, I think there was also an offer of a hard cap at 50 million somewhere around February of 2005.

The fact that the league wanted a hard cap and the players went with a lower one and linkage is telling: the players have known for a long time that the NHL lies through its teeth about revenues. Sort of like how Bettman comes out now and implies the league is losing money when they demonstrably are not.
There were a few offers and counter-offers. The NHL initially was offering a $31 million cap and something like 46-47% of revenues. By January or February they'd bumped it up to 53% of revenues and a cap of $36 or $37 million or so. The NHLPA steadfastly refused a cap until the New Year and then they started bargaining for an unlinked cap of $50+ million. The NHL's final offer was in February and it was $42.5 million unlinked but with no cap floor and with those contract issues I mentioned above.

Eventually the players agreed to linkage in the summer but they gained a bunch of other stuff to get there.

opendoor is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 05:38 PM
  #763
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,703
vCash: 500
I'm guessing that for some of the "questionable hockey hotbed markets", teams were put there in the hopes of Bettman getting that ever elusive "big TV contract". Little point though if the team can't draw flies.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 05:41 PM
  #764
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
I'm guessing that for some of the "questionable hockey hotbed markets", teams were put there in the hopes of Bettman getting that ever elusive "big TV contract". Little point though if the team can't draw flies.
You have to wonder what Gary's 3 lockouts have done to the potential TV deals he could have?

Something we'll never know, even the NBC deal is laughable when you compare it to the "big 3".

arsmaster is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 05:52 PM
  #765
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
You have to wonder what Gary's 3 lockouts have done to the potential TV deals he could have?

Something we'll never know, even the NBC deal is laughable when you compare it to the "big 3".
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/66-s...n-the-first-tw

That'd be why. The general ratings aren't high enough to warrant the cash. Not going to happen any time soon, lockouts or not, the NHL is just a niche sport in the US and is never going to be loved like the big 3. However game has done a great job growing consider it isn't a beloved sport where Americans will tune in to watch a team they don't care about play another team they don't care about.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 05:53 PM
  #766
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Neither can Wpeg IMHO. According to Forbes (dubious I know) the team lost $5m and has a revenue of just $71m, that's as bad as Phoenix is bad. And that $71m with a high Canadian dollar, if it drops 10-15% the Peg is dead without massive propping up.
Those are 10-11 numbers so they're based on Atlanta.

opendoor is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 06:06 PM
  #767
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Hard line that Bettman is taking now is because of the markets in the US that can't support hockey on their own revenue streams, along with Jacobs and the Bruins.

Remember, for the owners to ratify a new CBA, they need 75% of them to agree to it, so they need 23 owners to say Yes to a new CBA or only 7 to say no.

Given that teams like Anaheim, Phoenix, Florida, Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, etc. would need to have the perfect CBA to compete on a yearly basis, they would be the ones who are holding out for the best deal. Because, if they sign a deal where they can't compete and thus draw fans, they are done as well.

It's the NHL's fault for having teams located in these markets, but unless there are cities to take them, Markham/Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, are there really 6 other markets that can support an NHL team? Those would be 3.
I believe the answer for that is better revenue sharing...

It might also make owners think twice before accepting new franchises and the associated fees.

Ultimately a big TV deal will help both the players and the owners. In order to get one non-traditional market need to be competitive in order to increase popularity. Revenue sharing would help that so the players have a real interest in pushing for that.

DJOpus is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 06:09 PM
  #768
kevinsane
Lundqvist clone.
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dawson Creek, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by taelin View Post
games cancelled until dec 15th, and the all-star games are cancelled.

Now's the time i wish abby was our farm team...
exactly!

kevinsane is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 06:53 PM
  #769
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Those are 10-11 numbers so they're based on Atlanta.
Yeah, the Jets were top-15 in revenue last year, so they'd have been around $100m at a minimum. Speaking of which, those Forbes numbers were published last November, I wonder if we'll see an updated version soon.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 07:01 PM
  #770
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I think the point is, the NHL made their beds in those poor markets and instead of laying in them, they want the players to fix their mistakes.

Seems pretty ridiculous....NHL can go on about players' wages being their biggest expense, they are also their biggest bread winner.
The thing is, I don't know if there are really 30 markets that could viably support an NHL team if they had to move those struggling US markets.

You've got either Markham/Hamilton (and Hamilton could have an impact on Buffalo), plus Quebec City as sure fire places to support the NHL. In the US, it's maybe Seattle, but they want an NBA team first. But, I think it would work there. KC? I don't know who would be the local owner there? Not the Royals owner.

So, if there are 5 or 6 franchises that need to be relocated, are there really enough markets for them to move to?

If not, do they get folded? I'd personally rather see the NHL fold 2 teams to get to 28 teams (makes 4 divisons of 7 rather than expand by 2 to get to 4 divisions of 8 teams).

That's where the NHL is right now. They screwed up with the placement of these franchises, although they will never admit it. They thought short term and took the expansion money, not thinking long term and looking at what it has cost them with having to support these teams now that they are in the NHL.

If you look around really, NBA and MLB probably have too many teams as well.

NBA, if you aren't a big market like LA, Boston, NY, Chicago, Miami, Brooklyn, or a team with a young core like OKC, Indiana, what are your chances for success?

So, is it fair for the owners to ask the players to fix the problem? Maybe no, but I also don't believe that there are 30 cities that can financially support an NHL team in this day and age. It might only be 26 or 28 cities that can.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 07:49 PM
  #771
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Those are 10-11 numbers so they're based on Atlanta.
So they are, I thought the new ones were out, d'oh. I'd like to see their actual data though because they are pretty small and they quite vulnerable to the dollar dropping but holding a $51-55m payroll together and also beating RS is good effort for 730K people in the metro area.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 08:51 PM
  #772
timw33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Figz14 View Post
I officially don't give a **** about this season.
I honestly haven't been missing it that much—I've adapted to the lack of hockey.

I personally hope to see a huge drop in revenue when they come back and part of me wants to see less-than half full buildings in all the crummy sun-belt markets. They should all earn exactly what they deserve.

timw33 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 09:02 PM
  #773
LiquidSnake*
Agent of Chaos...
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/66-s...n-the-first-tw

That'd be why. The general ratings aren't high enough to warrant the cash. Not going to happen any time soon, lockouts or not, the NHL is just a niche sport in the US and is never going to be loved like the big 3. However game has done a great job growing consider it isn't a beloved sport where Americans will tune in to watch a team they don't care about play another team they don't care about.
probably didnt help having the Kings and Devils in the finals. 2 teams that nobody cares about outside their markets.

LiquidSnake* is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 12:27 AM
  #774
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,159
vCash: 500
I'll be happy if they're playing by Christmas. As long as we get a 50 game season and a full playoffs, it's all good. An 82 game season is too long anyway.

Chubros is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 12:39 AM
  #775
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Remember, for the owners to ratify a new CBA, they need 75% of them to agree to it, so they need 23 owners to say Yes to a new CBA or only 7 to say no.
Kind of. They need 24 owners to say yes a proposal offered by the players association. However, they only need the inverse (or a much lower number) to submit their own offers to the PA. If this wasn't the case, you'd have the especially incompetent owners prolonging the lockout as a way to avoid further losses.

The final offer that ends this lockout will probably be the one the NHL put forth and one the PA accepts.

Wisp 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 07:32 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.