HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2012, 03:36 PM
  #276
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfan92 View Post
Because Lars has so much experience with lockouts. If in the future, after this CBA, if the owners have faired much better than the players, then the players will strike. If the owners have not faired as well as the players, then the owners will have a lockout. Caving in will not restrict either from happening in the future.
Quoting Lars has zero bearing on anything, like you're grasping at straws. I am sure you are getting tired. Nothing will ever get resolved in this thread. Nobody is going to change their mind. Some players get too much money, some owners get too much money. Imposing a lower salary cap and having revenue sharing amongst the teams just makes for a stronger league and competitive teams. Which I am in favor. This isnt about work conditions, or pensions, or benefits, it is about how big a slice of the pie players think they deserve, they made it, but the owners have the recipe that makes it so delicious and the oven that it was cooked in. 50/50 will be the end result, but as long as the players want that high minimum amount, nothing is going to happen.
Even if the players give the owners everything they want, most teams will be losing money in ~2018 and another lockout will be demanded.

That's an economic law, which has already been explained. In a competitive system, profits tend toward zero. Owners compete.

http://mises.org/community/wikis/eco...ee-market.aspx

What the players "deserve" is 72%, anything below the free market level is a concession. It's kind of funny that the posters siding with the owners, instinctively supporting the billionaires and the investors, hate the free market so much.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-27-2012 at 03:56 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 03:44 PM
  #277
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
As far as other careers allowing people to do whatever they want with their free time that is also not necessarily true. Many people work overtime that they do not get paid for because they want to keep their jobs. There are many others who work week-ends or other off hour times in order to ensure they still have a job. Players do not have to worry about those little things once they sign a contract. So, you are making some broad assumptions that aren't exactly accurate.
The performance of a player determines his pay on his next contract, which is the case for tens of millions to hundreds of millions of workers worldwide.

It's the case with teachers for example. Teachers have tenure -- they can get away with working as little as possible. However, that closes some options down the line, so most don't do that.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-27-2012 at 03:55 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 03:53 PM
  #278
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Survive? No. That league would die, and players will join another league making that league the strongest.
Can it make some cash over half a year however? Very possible. Nobody is talking long term.
Anything's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. If a die-hard fan like me wouldn't watch then I really wonder who would. I wouldn't pay a penny, literally, for replacement players. They'd have to have Cirque du Soleil and Justin Bieber (smh) doing free spots at each intermission for there to be any profit, imo.

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 03:59 PM
  #279
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Even if the players give the owners everything they want, most teams will be losing money in ~2018 and another lockout will be demanded.

That's an economic law, which has already been explained. In a competitive system, profits tend toward zero. Owners compete.

What the players "deserve" is 72%, anything below the free market level is a concession. It's kind of funny that the posters siding with the owners, instinctively supporting the billionaires and the investors, hate the free market so much.
To your first paragraph, so then what? What's the point in even negotiating?

Saying the owners are just going to do this again is such a stupid argument, that it's not even worth bringing up.

The salary cap is the best thing to happen to the game since the forward pass, but everyone who supports that must love billionaires and corporations.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:03 PM
  #280
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
To your first paragraph, so then what? What's the point in even negotiating?

Saying the owners are just going to do this again is such a stupid argument, that it's not even worth bringing up.

The salary cap is the best thing to happen to the game since the forward pass, but everyone who supports that must love billionaires and corporations.
You think it's stupid to expect more lockouts?

You're a confused individual in that case. For that and for saying players only work 20 hours a week.

Eller confirmed my suspicion, which was also implied by Cole -- a large part of the point in these negotiations is laying thee groundwork for future negotiations. Really, you shouldn't need me or the players to explain this to you: it should come naturally as a very logical thing.

Bettman loves work stoppages. He's had 4 or 5, I'm not sure. Is that a record? Copmpare that to the post-Fehr era in baseball: 18 years of labour peace and counting. Meanwhile, now the law firm representing and advising all the major sports has taken part in negotiations for four lockouts in the past two years.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:11 PM
  #281
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
To your first paragraph, so then what? What's the point in even negotiating?

Saying the owners are just going to do this again is such a stupid argument, that it's not even worth bringing up.

The salary cap is the best thing to happen to the game since the forward pass, but everyone who supports that must love billionaires and corporations.
like the actual lockout is a first...

ECWHSWI is online now  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:23 PM
  #282
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,699
vCash: 500
The owners are competing, but they're not competing for the market. People almost always cheer for the the team nearest to them, and the exceptions, such as myself, are miniscule. In a gate driven league, with protections as to who can put a team where, there's very little in the way of a market, IMO. It's not like people have the choice to go to a Columbus game, or a Toronto game, and the reason why they choose the Toronto game is because of a superior product.

NotProkofievian is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:31 PM
  #283
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
The owners are competing, but they're not competing for the market. People almost always cheer for the the team nearest to them, and the exceptions, such as myself, are miniscule. In a gate driven league, with protections as to who can put a team where, there's very little in the way of a market, IMO. It's not like people have the choice to go to a Columbus game, or a Toronto game, and the reason why they choose the Toronto game is because of a superior product.
It is true that the NHL does not have imperfect competition.

However, there's still finite playoff revenue to go around, and only around half the teams can be .500 or better.

People point out the losing Maple Leafs still make 90 million/year, but if they won the cup they'd probably make 150-200 million. If the Leafs ever win the cup, expect the salary cap to go up.

They also need to compete to attract the best UFAs, though some teams like NYR ave a natural advantage in terms of where their wives want to live. They compete for having the best drafting, the best scouting, etc.

There's a lot of competition, it's imperfect, but I'd expect it drives down the profit level to a lower point than say, cell phone services.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:32 PM
  #284
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You think it's stupid to expect more lockouts?

You're a confused individual in that case. For that and for saying players only work 20 hours a week.

Eller confirmed my suspicion, which was also implied by Cole -- a large part of the point in these negotiations is laying thee groundwork for future negotiations. Really, you shouldn't need me or the players to explain this to you: it should come naturally as a very logical thing.

Bettman loves work stoppages. He's had 4 or 5, I'm not sure. Is that a record? Copmpare that to the post-Fehr era in baseball: 18 years of labour peace and counting. Meanwhile, now the law firm representing and advising all the major sports has taken part in negotiations for four lockouts in the past two years.
I think it's stupid to bring into an argument, especially as a point about why the owners can't "win" this time. I could just as easily say maybe 50% is the point Bettman stops, that is just as logical is yours.

Please tell me, since you know everything, how many hours a hockey player spends at the arena per week. Please continue bringing it up in every subsequent post you make as well, to prove to everyone how smart you are. I already conceded my estimation was off, which isn't enough for you apparently, so go ahead and continue lacing your posts with more not so subtle jabs at my intelligence.

It's literally impossible to argue without because you've convinced yourself you're right about everything, yet you've done more cheerleading for the players than anyone has done for the owners.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:43 PM
  #285
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You think it's stupid to expect more lockouts?

You're a confused individual in that case. For that and for saying players only work 20 hours a week.

Eller confirmed my suspicion, which was also implied by Cole -- a large part of the point in these negotiations is laying thee groundwork for future negotiations. Really, you shouldn't need me or the players to explain this to you: it should come naturally as a very logical thing.

Bettman loves work stoppages. He's had 4 or 5, I'm not sure. Is that a record? Copmpare that to the post-Fehr era in baseball: 18 years of labour peace and counting. Meanwhile, now the law firm representing and advising all the major sports has taken part in negotiations for four lockouts in the past two years.
no sport in their right mind will play without a contract especially after Fehrs stunt in baseball

It is nothing about Bettman loving work stoppages. Thats one of the most idiotic statements i have heard to date. Pure logic dictates no sports league will play without a contract. It puts 100% of the risk the owners that it can pulled from underneath them anytime the union wants.

and really, Bettman does what the owners want. These guys are billionaires. Laughable to think Bettman is controlling them.

What this lockout is about is that players somehow bought into this "we were screwed last time" argument when in fact the average salary has risen over 1 million since the last negotiations.

The players believe the we lost last time rhetoric so we should win this time and thats why we have a lockout.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:46 PM
  #286
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
I think it's stupid to bring into an argument, especially as a point about why the owners can't "win" this time. I could just as easily say maybe 50% is the point Bettman stops, that is just as logical is yours.
You can just as easily say that, but it's not logical. There's no reason Bettman would stop at 50%. It's an arbitrary position without any logical underpinning.

At the very least, my position is logical because it extrapolates linearly: the Bettman lockout cycle. If you have a tradition, and there's no reason for that tradition to end, you expect it to continue. With that said, we can do better here, because we understand why lockouts happen: because the owners want more money. If the owners are keeping 50% of revenue, it makes sense that they would then ask for more. It makes no sense that they would say, as you're suggesting, "we're satisfied with what we have now, so even though we can cut labour costs now we won't", that doesn't happen in the business world.

The owners will stop at the point where the players have been bled dry; where they can't possibly pay the players less. What's the minimum player salary they could enforce? The salaries players would make in Europe/Russia plus some cushion to ensure the NHL is the best league. Look up the average salary in SEL, KHL, etc and add ~50%, and you have an estimate of where Bettman will stop. They'll stop when there's a stop sign telling them to stop. But as you say I'm not right about everything, maybe the cushion needs to be 100% rather than 50%, I'm not sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
It's literally impossible to argue without because you've convinced yourself you're right about everything, yet you've done more cheerleading for the players than anyone has done for the owners.
I'm not right about everything, for example, I didn't know how much OHL players make.

I also didn't think the owners would cancel the season, which now looks likely -- I underestimated their ruthlessness.

ETA: You asked for an estimate of how much the players work. I'm not sure.

Let's say an average of ~95 games/year with playoffs and exhibition, so that's 4 hours at the arena, so 380 hours.
Practice might be 7 hours a week for 40 weeks? I'm not sure, so 280 hours.
Weight training, yoga, cardio, etc might be 2 hours a day, 50 weeks a year, so 700 hours.
Flights and travel, I'm not sure maybe 50 flights a year, with an average of 5 hours a flight including transport to and from the airport, time on the plane, waiting in, so 250 hours.

You're up to 31 hours a week assuming 52 weeks. But there's for sure a lot of things I'm forgetting as I didn't put in that much thought into it. I don't know how to estimate contract negotiations, media appearances, etc.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-27-2012 at 05:29 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:54 PM
  #287
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
no sport in their right mind will play without a contract especially after Fehrs stunt in baseball

It is nothing about Bettman loving work stoppages. Thats one of the most idiotic statements i have heard to date. Pure logic dictates no sports league will play without a contract. It puts 100% of the risk the owners that it can pulled from underneath them anytime the union wants.

and really, Bettman does what the owners want. These guys are billionaires. Laughable to think Bettman is controlling them.

What this lockout is about is that players somehow bought into this "we were screwed last time" argument when in fact the average salary has risen over 1 million since the last negotiations.

The players believe the we lost last time rhetoric so we should win this time and thats why we have a lockout.
You're right, assigning all the blame/credit onto Bettman is silly. I do it, and probably others do it, because we're not sure which of the 30 owners have the most say. I know that the Minnesota and Boston owners are on the executive committee, but I don't know who the other five members are. Even if I knew the 7 members, I wouldn't know which one is the alpha male, though Twitter (for the $0.02 that's worth) implies it is Jeremy Jacobs. Last lockout it was clearly the Calgary owner. As I don't know exactly who the leaders are among the owners, I will keep using the word "Bettman" as shorthand.

Bettman certainly has some degree of command, and that his administration believes in the lockout as a negotiating tactic. They didn't need to play without a contract -- they could have offered to extend the CBA by one year, at which point the players can't quit. You can say Fehr would have turned them down, that's fine, but they didn't try, so too bad.

The players were screwed last time. They went from the free market level of 72% of revenue to 57%. Yes, average salaries rose, and they would have risen faster without the rollback. In any case, I don't think anybody expects perpetual 8% annual growth. But maybe that's wrong?

The lockout isn't caused by the players, it's caused by the owners, that's the definition of a lockout. The first offer from the players was sensible: a salary reduction from 57% to 54%, increased revenue sharing, and a cap of some sort on non-player hockey-related expenses. The owners said no. I would support the owners if they supported a substantial increase in revenue sharing and a cap on non-player expenses.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-27-2012 at 05:22 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 06:25 PM
  #288
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
I think by virtue of the last two decades, you can see the trend that after every CBA expiration there has been a lockout.

You can bet that the owners will view the 50-50 split as an acceptable concession to their initial demand of 57-43 (owner-player). So having seen the initial offer way back in the summer I will bet that when the next CBA is up they'll be back to demanding at least 57%. And everyone is arguing about a fair deal. Well I'm quite sure the owners don't give a damn about fair, they want to make as much money as possible. That's the purpose of a corporation.

I would put money on another lockout when the next CBA is up asking the players to again take a reduction and point at the NFL with the argument that those players make less than 50%. I'm not sure when the NBA or NFL CBAs are set to expire but it wouldn't surprise me that those CBA negotiations will involve another lockout again trying to take more from the players. And so there is a circular effect of pointing fingers at other leagues to match.

You can be optimistic about 50-50 being fair and all, but corporations don't operate under what is "fair" they will try to make the most amount of money possible and that is done by cutting expenses where ever possible.

Why people seem to detach sports from your everyday large corporation is quite bizarre to me. The difference with sports is that you can't out-source your "employees" that easily and just replace them with equivalently trained "personnel" with as much ease as you can with other types of work.

It has been argued that replacement players be brought in which would be the equivalent of out-sourcing for less expenses. But my personnel opinion is that watching NHL games with replacement players would be like trying to sell someone a Honda with a Ferrari logo on it. And sure they both do what they are advertised to do and that is to drive and provide a means of transportation from point A to B, but you can all appreciate that it would not be the same experience.

Reiher is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 06:29 PM
  #289
WhiskeySeven
Enlarged Member
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
Why people seem to detach sports from your everyday large corporation is quite bizarre to me. The difference with sports is that you can't out-source your "employees" that easily and just replace them with equivalently trained "personnel" with as much ease as you can with other types of work.
They're not employees - they're literally the product being sold. They "ought" to have as much of the pie as financially possible - settling at 50% is a huge, huge downgrade for them and they're right to be mad.

Jacobs and Leipold are downright criminal.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 06:37 PM
  #290
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
I think by virtue of the last two decades, you can see the trend that after every CBA expiration there has been a lockout.

You can bet that the owners will view the 50-50 split as an acceptable concession to their initial demand of 57-43 (owner-player). So having seen the initial offer way back in the summer I will bet that when the next CBA is up they'll be back to demanding at least 57%. And everyone is arguing about a fair deal. Well I'm quite sure the owners don't give a damn about fair, they want to make as much money as possible. That's the purpose of a corporation.

I would put money on another lockout when the next CBA is up asking the players to again take a reduction and point at the NFL with the argument that those players make less than 50%. I'm not sure when the NBA or NFL CBAs are set to expire but it wouldn't surprise me that those CBA negotiations will involve another lockout again trying to take more from the players. And so there is a circular effect of pointing fingers at other leagues to match.

You can be optimistic about 50-50 being fair and all, but corporations don't operate under what is "fair" they will try to make the most amount of money possible and that is done by cutting expenses where ever possible.

Why people seem to detach sports from your everyday large corporation is quite bizarre to me. The difference with sports is that you can't out-source your "employees" that easily and just replace them with equivalently trained "personnel" with as much ease as you can with other types of work.

It has been argued that replacement players be brought in which would be the equivalent of out-sourcing for less expenses. But my personnel opinion is that watching NHL games with replacement players would be like trying to sell someone a Honda with a Ferrari logo on it. And sure they both do what they are advertised to do and that is to drive and provide a means of transportation from point A to B, but you can all appreciate that it would not be the same experience.
Outstanding post.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 06:39 PM
  #291
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
They're not employees - they're literally the product being sold. They "ought" to have as much of the pie as financially possible - settling at 50% is a huge, huge downgrade for them and they're right to be mad.

Jacobs and Leipold are downright criminal.
I guess I use the word "employee" in the sense that they are given a contract to perform a task which is entertainment to the club they are hired to play for. But you're right in that people come to watch the team or sometimes specific player play, and the team is made up of highly skilled players and that is the product you're watching when you go to a game.

Reiher is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 06:57 PM
  #292
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Would anybody watch ATP if Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Andy Murray, Rafael Nadal, and the top 50 players were removed? Would people tune in to the finals of Wimbledon to watch Lukas Lacko take on Bernard Tomic?

No, people want the satisfaction of watching the best. There's something majestic about the 5-set finals between Djokovic and Nadal, that can't be reproduced with the huge talent drop off further down the line.

As an example, I'll point out the well-documented fact that part of the reason Major League Soccer has trouble taking off is that people know it's an inferior product, with the players largely being cast-offs who can't succeed in Europe. We probably all know very many knowledgeable soccer fans, who follow European soccer in detail, who have money to spend on sports, but who are super-casual (at best) about MLS, because they're not that into cast-offs.

Let's say hypothetically the NHL brings in replacement players. Sidney Crosby and Steven Stamkos are sent packing to the KHL, and their NHL teams replace them with Mathieu Darche and Corey Locke. Sure, some fans would still tune in. But overall there'd be a massive dropoff in attendance and TV ratings. The contract with NBC would not be renewed. And the most diehard fans would tune in to the superior product that is the KHL.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 07:00 PM
  #293
WhiskeySeven
Enlarged Member
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
I guess I use the word "employee" in the sense that they are given a contract to perform a task which is entertainment to the club they are hired to play for. But you're right in that people come to watch the team or sometimes specific player play, and the team is made up of highly skilled players and that is the product you're watching when you go to a game.
Yup. I was just trying to correct the terminology because it affects the rhetoric greatly. I agree with you and I think (with DAChamp and a few others) we're pretty much in the same boat. It hurts my brain thinking that there are people out there who think the players are being greedy or that it's "both sides' fault". The latter being an even bigger affront and insult to the whole process.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 07:20 PM
  #294
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You're right, assigning all the blame/credit onto Bettman is silly. I do it, and probably others do it, because we're not sure which of the 30 owners have the most say. I know that the Minnesota and Boston owners are on the executive committee, but I don't know who the other five members are. Even if I knew the 7 members, I wouldn't know which one is the alpha male, though Twitter (for the $0.02 that's worth) implies it is Jeremy Jacobs. Last lockout it was clearly the Calgary owner. As I don't know exactly who the leaders are among the owners, I will keep using the word "Bettman" as shorthand.

Bettman certainly has some degree of command, and that his administration believes in the lockout as a negotiating tactic. They didn't need to play without a contract -- they could have offered to extend the CBA by one year, at which point the players can't quit. You can say Fehr would have turned them down, that's fine, but they didn't try, so too bad.

The players were screwed last time. They went from the free market level of 72% of revenue to 57%. Yes, average salaries rose, and they would have risen faster without the rollback. In any case, I don't think anybody expects perpetual 8% annual growth. But maybe that's wrong?

The lockout isn't caused by the players, it's caused by the owners, that's the definition of a lockout. The first offer from the players was sensible: a salary reduction from 57% to 54%, increased revenue sharing, and a cap of some sort on non-player hockey-related expenses. The owners said no. I would support the owners if they supported a substantial increase in revenue sharing and a cap on non-player expenses.
Again, stop being completely ignorant, its just semantics. Its a lockout or a strike.

Without an agreement owners must initiate the lockout because their is no agreement. Damn that was difficult to understand. Either way there is no hockey. This stoppage is players initiated just as much by not negotiating along time ago and for that matter still havent negotiated.

Semantics is your only argument here for siding with the PA tooth and nail.

And no the players didnt get screwed. No job that pays you on average 2.2 million dollars has you being screwed. Thats why the PA has very little support. Arguments like that.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 07:27 PM
  #295
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It is true that the NHL does not have imperfect competition.

However, there's still finite playoff revenue to go around, and only around half the teams can be .500 or better.

People point out the losing Maple Leafs still make 90 million/year, but if they won the cup they'd probably make 150-200 million. If the Leafs ever win the cup, expect the salary cap to go up.
Would they though? I would think that the income potential of a market like Toronto is pretty well tapped. I would expect fluctuations to occur more in places like LA, for example. Team's good, sell more tickets and jerseys. Team's not good, sell few tickets and jerseys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
They also need to compete to attract the best UFAs, though some teams like NYR ave a natural advantage in terms of where their wives want to live. They compete for having the best drafting, the best scouting, etc.

There's a lot of competition, it's imperfect, but I'd expect it drives down the profit level to a lower point than say, cell phone services.
Certainly, this is where there is competition in the NHL.

NotProkofievian is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 07:28 PM
  #296
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Again, stop being completely ignorant, its just semantics. Its a lockout or a strike.

Without an agreement owners must initiate the lockout because their is no agreement. Damn that was difficult to understand. Either way there is no hockey. This stoppage is players initiated just as much by not negotiating along time ago and for that matter still havent negotiated.

Semantics is your only argument here for siding with the PA tooth and nail.

And no the players didnt get screwed. No job that pays you on average 2.2 million dollars has you being screwed. Thats why the PA has very little support. Arguments like that.
The owners don't have to initiate anything. It is perfectly allowable for them to work under the last agreement, they just lose all leverage. The owners wanted a lockout a long time ago, this has already been proven.

And there is the green eye of jealousy again, hard to go two sentences in these discussions without someone crying about how much the players make.

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 07:32 PM
  #297
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Again, stop being completely ignorant, its just semantics. Its a lockout or a strike.
Lockouts and strikes are different things. That isn't "semantics". Don't be completely ignorant by arguing that lockout = strike. They're not the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Without an agreement owners must initiate the lockout because their is no agreement. Damn that was difficult to understand.
The owners could have offered to renew the CBA for one more year, they chose not to.

Nobody on these boards is suggesting the owners play without a contract -- Nobody.

It is the owners making the more aggressive demands. The owners first offer was a 25% reduction in salary for the players. The players first offer? A 5% reduction in salary for the players, bringing salaries to a full 25% below the free market baseline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
And no the players didnt get screwed. No job that pays you on average 2.2 million dollars has you being screwed. Thats why the PA has very little support. Arguments like that.
If you're worth 2.8 million in a free market and getting 2.2 million due to a cartel, then you're being screwed by approximately $600,000.

**********************

ETA: By the way, in case you don't know, the owners were planning a lockout regardless of what the players said. This has been demonstrated. A fan in the Boston Bruins board pointed out that Jeremy Jacobs had rented out the arena to the Romney presidential campaign. Do you think if Donald Fehr had said "yes" that Jacobs would have booted Romney to let the players play? Absolutely no ****ing way lol.

This further drives home the point that it's a lockout, not a strike.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 07:34 PM
  #298
dynastyREredux
Where's the Doritos?
 
dynastyREredux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: All over Canada
Posts: 1,246
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dynastyREredux
Quote:
Originally Posted by onesharpmarble View Post
and there is the green eye of jealousy again, hard to go two sentences in these discussions without someone crying about how much the players make.
but if the players take less money ticket prices will be cheaper for me and my family!!!!!!!

dynastyREredux is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 07:44 PM
  #299
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fantasybaseballchamp View Post
but if the players take less money ticket prices will be cheaper for me and my family!!!!!!!
They will also give free hotdogs/beer to everyone and the price of gas will surely drop too.

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 09:13 PM
  #300
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
The owners don't have to initiate anything. It is perfectly allowable for them to work under the last agreement, they just lose all leverage. The owners wanted a lockout a long time ago, this has already been proven.

And there is the green eye of jealousy again, hard to go two sentences in these discussions without someone crying about how much the players make.
The reason why people bring up how much cash are players making is because it is one of the key point of this debate. Not sure how any of it is jealousy.

And why would they owners agree to play under an agreement they wanted to change?

Seriously, this debate has become beyond ridiculous. Both sides have handled this poorly and there is not one side who's more at fault.

Kriss E 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 06:42 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.