HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-28-2012, 09:54 AM
  #326
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
The problem is the way it's brought up.

e.g. "they should be grateful to get what they can, they're just playing a game"
"for maybe 20 hours a week"
"too many chicks to bang"
etc.

It sounds like envy. To a large extent, it is envy.
What's your obsession with me?

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:02 AM
  #327
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Yes because "buying a steak on saturday night" is what this is all about. Why don't they just settle for 60K a year? Surely they can buy a steak on that wage! You are one of the many bringing up the nonsensical things so ya people call BS on you.

Yes owners outlast players, good reason for the players to make a good chunk of the pie actually. That and the players are the only reason there is even a pie to begin with.
And: Why is everyone ignoring the huge rise in franchise values the last 20 years? In the last 15-20 years, quite a few owners have lost money on operations for multiple years, and then sold their team for a profit 10 times more than than the accumulated losses.

Yes this rise in franchise values may not go on forever, and THAT is what I think the owners are scared of. If they can't cash out, they want to profit operationally, in order to increase franchise value.

And this is not possible for all NHL teams. It is idiocy for someone to buy a sports franchise, especially in a small market, and expect to profit operationally. And I don't think any of the small market owners did expect this. The question then becomes a moral one for me.

I think the owners know the good days are gone, that franchise saturation has been reached, and that franchise values will not rise substantially in the next decade. In the small markets, I would love to know how many owners tried to sell their teams the last 2 years, with no one offering them a cash out bonanza.

Hello lockout.

Too bad. Like any investment where rise in value is expected, the market can turn bad. Home prices in the US come to mind.

In the investment game, some people always get caught holding the can, usually the dimwits who bought too high. A number of NHL owners certainly are now in this position. I feel no pity whatever for them. Should have bought your franchise 15 years ago, and cashed out 5 years ago.

Further: For every Molson Ltd, who are committed to running their team in a strong market, and take reasonable profit, there are 2 cowboy owners in the NHL who bought in bad markets, expecting franchise value to double in the next 5 years. They lost.

This is all about the difference between owners like Molsons, and the cowboys. Everything else is blather, including player salaries, which are peanuts in comparison to expected rises in franchise values that now are not guaranteed.

The exception to this argument is Jacobs. And I have to conclude he's a mouth frothing capitalist children in the factory 7 day work week maniac, a throw back to 1850. I just don't get him.


Last edited by bsl: 11-28-2012 at 10:12 AM.
bsl is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:05 AM
  #328
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You really disappoint me.

I tried spoonfeeding you the reasons why the owners don't "take all the risks", but even though I wrote it in terms a near-comatose individual would understand, the logic, very rudimentary here, was beyond your reach.

We're going to try again, by zooming in.



Return to the example of Louis Leblanc. He had a hockey scholarship to Harvard. He had a relatively easy option in life: he could have put a minimal effort into hockey to maintain his scholarship, giving him the free time to pursue a Harvard degree and get good grades, pursue summer internships, join the fraternities, etc, and thus guaranteeing him the prospect of a lifetime of six figure salaries. It was a safe bet. I am sure there are many player with promising athletic potential who take this choice when they are in a similar position.

Instead, he left Harvard. He went to the Q for a year to further his hockey skills. He is taking a risk. If this fails, he'll lose a lot. If it wins, he'll become a 2nd/3rd line forward at the NHL level, and make somewhat more money than he would have had he stayed at Harvard, and the fans will see a superior product on the ice, one more good player to enjoy. He is taking a financial risk. Not just in terms of money, but in terms of time -- I don't know if you realize, time and money are equivalent. I'm spelling it out for you this time.

Point is, Leblanc is taking a financial risk. It's from these risks that we, the fans, get to enjoy the product on the ice. In his case I suspect it will pay off, but I'm not an expert talent evaluator.

Note that your "they're not 54" comment is completely ignorant. Let's leave aside the fact that a failed hockey career will leave virtually no money behind, but probably a ton of physiological problems. Going to university at 35 is not the same as going to university at 20. You're a social outsider, and won't make as many connections, which is well-documented to be a large part of the financial benefit of these schools. Further, aside from that, older graduates face discrimination. It's harder to get into postgraduate programs. A lot of companies prefer to hire young graduates, they like to be able to mould them. I'm surprised you're unaware of this.

Finally, note the most common case:
1) Player gets drafted
2) Player goes to an NCAA school.
3) Player wants to make NHL, focuses on hockey. As such, he cannot focus in his studies, probably has a C average in a major such as communication studies or general humanities.
4) Player fails to make the NHL. Career stalls in ECHL/AHL with a few brief stints in the NHL. No hockey career to show for it. No degree worth anything to show for it.
5) Very limited options remain.

I'd say that's an incredibly ****** situation to be in at age 26. It's far, far ****tier than being a billionaire losing 2 million a year on a hockey franchise whose value appreciates by 5 million a year.
Oh my god dude, you're so lame.

First off, going to harvard doesn't guarantee him a lifetime of six figure. He still needs to graduate, find a job, and be great at it. No guarantee.
Also, say he goes to the Q, gets a career ending injury. He can go back to Harvard, or another university, and still grow up to make those six figures.

You don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. I've read you argue that players can't afford a rollback because when they retire, they're so stupid on how they manage their savings that they lose it all to the point where they don't have any pension or health care. As if the owners had to pay for their own personal stupidity. Now you're saying they should pay because those guys took ''risks'' (more of a personal choice than a risk) when they were 18, and it worked in their favor. It's not like they're getting well compensated or anything...


Here's the difference between you and I. I don't go off on you saying how you didn't understand my comments just because you disagree with them.

You don't need to re-explain anything, I just completely and utterly disagree with your idea that these guys are taking risks. They are making some personal choices, and the fallback plan of going through a normal education is never out of the picture.

So, leaving a hockey career behind leaves them ''penniless''? So? They can do like the rest of the majority and apply for loans, or you know, get a damn regular job.

Jesus Christ. God forbid the guys that were talented enough to really pursue their dreams but didn't quite make it have to go back to work and school like the rest of the world...boohoo..Let me cry for them.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:32 AM
  #329
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 Kriss E View Post
Oh my god dude, you're so lame.

First off, going to harvard doesn't guarantee him a lifetime of six figure. He still needs to graduate, find a job, and be great at it. No guarantee.
Also, say he goes to the Q, gets a career ending injury. He can go back to Harvard, or another university, and still grow up to make those six figures.

You don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. I've read you argue that players can't afford a rollback because when they retire, they're so stupid on how they manage their savings that they lose it all to the point where they don't have any pension or health care. As if the owners had to pay for their own personal stupidity. Now you're saying they should pay because those guys took ''risks'' (more of a personal choice than a risk) when they were 18, and it worked in their favor. It's not like they're getting well compensated or anything...


Here's the difference between you and I. I don't go off on you saying how you didn't understand my comments just because you disagree with them.

You don't need to re-explain anything, I just completely and utterly disagree with your idea that these guys are taking risks. They are making some personal choices, and the fallback plan of going through a normal education is never out of the picture.

So, leaving a hockey career behind leaves them ''penniless''? So? They can do like the rest of the majority and apply for loans, or you know, get a damn regular job.

Jesus Christ. God forbid the guys that were talented enough to really pursue their dreams but didn't quite make it have to go back to work and school like the rest of the world...boohoo..Let me cry for them.
Not to mention that those choices have nothing to do with going to 50%, but this guy gets off on telling people how much smarter he is than them, oh and jealousy and such.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:06 AM
  #330
Rockomax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mtl
Posts: 519
vCash: 500
I just read on RDS that if mediation fails in reaching a deal, the players association would proceed with decertification (union dismantling I guess). I could not find that information anywhere else though

Rockomax is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:16 AM
  #331
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,096
vCash: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockomax View Post
I just read on RDS that if mediation fails in reaching a deal, the players association would proceed with decertification (union dismantling I guess). I could not find that information anywhere else though
Theres a huge thread on that on the business section of the main board : http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...9#post56088999

Its rather scary, it would be complete chaos.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:16 AM
  #332
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockomax View Post
I just read on RDS that if mediation fails in reaching a deal, the players association would proceed with decertification (union dismantling I guess). I could not find that information anywhere else though
I think it is more of a threat. If the NHLPA did that, Fehr's boys would be out of work.. forever. Essentially it would destroy every single aspect of the CBA, the draft.... a nightmare for the players and owners.

Habs is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:22 AM
  #333
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Typical salaries in the European leagues are in the low six figures. Starting salaries out of the Harvard Law and MBA programs (which he could transition to after an undergraduate degree there) are in the same ballpark, and can last and increase for 40 years. Or he could have just done statistics and gone straight to Wall Street, starting salary for "quants" is $140,000/year, [less if you go to Chicago or San Francisco]; that's a riskier choice though, possibly riskier than a hockey career.

Financially, school (in Leblanc's case) is the better option to Europe. It will pay out more, for longer, and has a higher chance of success. Since he was focused on hockey, he probably got B's and C's, and if he goes back to school he'll be a mature student, so those doors will be virtually shut.

By the way, I applaud Leblanc's courage, then and now, for giving up a Harvard education to go for the brass ring. He does have the potential to have a great career in hockey, and he gave up a near-sure thing to go for it. I'm excited to see what he does in Hamilton going forward this year.


Agreed, there's no risk in being a fan. I'm merely disagreeing with the idea, expressed by Kriss E and others, that players take zero risks.
He was already accepted at Harvard and got money from a signing bonus, it was a no risk move, if hockey failed he had money in the bank to go back and finish school, so he basically risked nothing.

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 01:12 PM
  #334
overlords
Hfboards
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
I think it is more of a threat. If the NHLPA did that, Fehr's boys would be out of work.. forever. Essentially it would destroy every single aspect of the CBA, the draft.... a nightmare for the players and owners.
Pretty hardcore game of chicken they got going here.

overlords is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 02:14 PM
  #335
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlords View Post
Pretty hardcore game of chicken they got going here.
It really has showed me what a shamefully unprofessional, and ego-driven corporation the NHL, and the NHLPA have become.

Apparently the mediator they hired, ran out of the NBA and NFL talks with his tale between his legs, without any resolution, he's useless..... so I'm not holding any hope out of that either.

Habs is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 02:20 PM
  #336
overlords
Hfboards
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
It really has showed me what a shamefully unprofessional, and ego-driven corporation the NHL, and the NHLPA have become.

Apparently the mediator they hired, ran out of the NBA and NFL talks with his tale between his legs, without any resolution, he's useless..... so I'm not holding any hope out of that either.
I'm not doubting what you're saying about the mediator, but from what I've gathered, the mediator is just a 'going through the motions' kinda thing for the NHLPA to give any bit of credence to their threat of decertification.

Even if the mediator was incredibly competent, I'm not entirely sure if either side would listen to them.

overlords is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 02:25 PM
  #337
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 Habs View Post
It really has showed me what a shamefully unprofessional, and ego-driven corporation the NHL, and the NHLPA have become.

Apparently the mediator they hired, ran out of the NBA and NFL talks with his tale between his legs, without any resolution, he's useless..... so I'm not holding any hope out of that either.
These two sides can't even hire a competent guy, he only lasted an hour before being dismissed because his twitter account was full of stupid stuff, the guy then tried to claim his twitter account had been hacked.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...itter-postings

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 04:57 PM
  #338
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
Not to mention that those choices have nothing to do with going to 50%, but this guy gets off on telling people how much smarter he is than them, oh and jealousy and such.
Try and follow. Some have argued the players don't deserve more than 50% because they take zero risks.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:01 PM
  #339
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Oh my god dude, you're so lame.
Is followed by:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Here's the difference between you and I. I don't go off on you saying how you didn't understand my comments just because you disagree with them.


I don't think you know what the word lame means.

********

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
So, leaving a hockey career behind leaves them ''penniless''? So? They can do like the rest of the majority and apply for loans, or you know, get a damn regular job.

Jesus Christ. God forbid the guys that were talented enough to really pursue their dreams but didn't quite make it have to go back to work and school like the rest of the world...boohoo..Let me cry for them.
So, leaving an owning career behind leaves ex-owners having lost money on their risky investment'? So? They can do like the rest of the majority and apply for loans, or you know, get a damn regular job.

Jesus Christ. God forbid the owners that were egomaniacal enough to really pursue their dreams of running a franchise but didn't quite make it have to go back to work and school like the rest of the world...boohoo..Let me cry for them.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:01 PM
  #340
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
He was already accepted at Harvard and got money from a signing bonus, it was a no risk move, if hockey failed he had money in the bank to go back and finish school, so he basically risked nothing.
Are you really nitpicking the Louis Leblanc thing? Not all players are first round picks with huge signing bonuses and have the opportunity to go back to Harvard. The point of his argument is that players and parents alike take big risks trying to reach the NHL. How the hell can anyone argue otherwise? You know how expensive hockey gets at the higher levels? Big tourneys and such?

Take Patrick Holland for example. I think I read that he had the option to go to med school or to pursue his dream of being in the NHL. That's not a risk for him? The time lost can never be gotten back. When does he quit? How does he know when his dream is dead? Will he ever make it? Maybe he has kids by the time he quits hockey, now its that much harder to go back to med school. Maybe he makes the NHL. Point is, the players are definitely the ones putting it on the line out there. Not everyone of them will be able "go to europe" and be rich either. This is not a video game, this is real life. Some of these guys may blow out shoulders and knees, have multiple concussions; do you know how many doors that closes in the workplace for non-skilled, undereducated people? Try working construction with a fake knee and bionic shoulder. That's how I make my living and I know it'd be impossible for my older brother to work in my field because he pursued his dream to be a pro football player. Now he's got 2 bum shoulders, an messed up hip, and bad knees. There are people worse off for sure, but don't try to make it seem like he didn't take a risk playing big game football.

KrissE, you are so far out of touch with this one, and it really does border on jealousy. You keep saying "they will still be rich", who are you to decide such a thing? Living in a first world country, we are all rich! You don't get to decide that players should be happy to be richer than you. Jeez how do you bring forth such an argument and side with BILLIONAIRES who will be rich no matter what happens to hockey?!!

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:11 PM
  #341
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
And: Why is everyone ignoring the huge rise in franchise values the last 20 years? In the last 15-20 years, quite a few owners have lost money on operations for multiple years, and then sold their team for a profit 10 times more than than the accumulated losses.

Yes this rise in franchise values may not go on forever, and THAT is what I think the owners are scared of. If they can't cash out, they want to profit operationally, in order to increase franchise value.

And this is not possible for all NHL teams. It is idiocy for someone to buy a sports franchise, especially in a small market, and expect to profit operationally. And I don't think any of the small market owners did expect this. The question then becomes a moral one for me.

I think the owners know the good days are gone, that franchise saturation has been reached, and that franchise values will not rise substantially in the next decade. In the small markets, I would love to know how many owners tried to sell their teams the last 2 years, with no one offering them a cash out bonanza.

Hello lockout.

Too bad. Like any investment where rise in value is expected, the market can turn bad. Home prices in the US come to mind.

In the investment game, some people always get caught holding the can, usually the dimwits who bought too high. A number of NHL owners certainly are now in this position. I feel no pity whatever for them. Should have bought your franchise 15 years ago, and cashed out 5 years ago.

Further: For every Molson Ltd, who are committed to running their team in a strong market, and take reasonable profit, there are 2 cowboy owners in the NHL who bought in bad markets, expecting franchise value to double in the next 5 years. They lost.

This is all about the difference between owners like Molsons, and the cowboys. Everything else is blather, including player salaries, which are peanuts in comparison to expected rises in franchise values that now are not guaranteed.

The exception to this argument is Jacobs. And I have to conclude he's a mouth frothing capitalist children in the factory 7 day work week maniac, a throw back to 1850. I just don't get him.
You're really a net plus to these discussion. You bring forth arguments that nobody else could bring up in such an eloquent and poignant matter, or likely not even bring up at all.

With respect to Jremy Jacobs, I don't know if you're aware, but he had gifted his hockey arena to the Romney presidential campaign:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1281787

There is simply no way he would have told his friend Romney to move out, thus, even if the players had accepted the owners' first offer of 43%, the owners would have said "no deal". They would have shifted the goalposts, maybe to 35%.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:20 PM
  #342
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
He was already accepted at Harvard and got money from a signing bonus, it was a no risk move, if hockey failed he had money in the bank to go back and finish school, so he basically risked nothing.
HankyZetts made a lot of points I would have made, as well as some others, in one of the best posts of the past few pages, so I'll just have one:

You said Leblanc had a $270,000 signing bonus and $68,000/year for the minors. If that fails after three years he would not have "money in the bank". You shouldn't be expecting a professional hockey player to pack brown paper bags for lunch, to get the off-hours gym membership to save money, or to show up at a charity golf tournament wearing clothes from Walmart.

Given that hockey players make a lot of money, and that they hang out with other hockey players, I'd expect the ones with below average salary save no money. That's just human nature.

***However****

I don't think he needs to worry about his Harvard tuition. He's probably from a wealthy family. The risk was more the fact that if he went back to Harvard much older, he would lose out on the Harvard experience and not make as many connections, not get as much of an education, be discriminated on the job market because he's older, and possibly have nothing but physiological (and brain?) damage to show for his hockey career. The median opportunity cost that he gave up is worth several million dollars in lifetime earnings (maybe 5 to 10) as well as better health.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:26 PM
  #343
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
The owners take all the risk financially has turned into hockey players take no risk at all in their lives? You guys are arguing against nothing.

He's talking about NHL players, and if you've made the NHL, then you've already made back any money you spent getting there. If you want to talk about guys who missed their shot, that's an entirely different topic.

You guys aren't even arguing about the CBA anymore. Whatever the CBA ends up being, the guys who never make the NHL will never be affected by it.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:48 PM
  #344
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
The owners take all the risk financially has turned into hockey players take no risk at all in their lives?
Those two statements are completely equivalent. People who say "owners take all the risks" are saying that "players take zero risks".


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-28-2012 at 05:54 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:49 PM
  #345
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
The owners take all the risk financially has turned into hockey players take no risk at all in their lives? You guys are arguing against nothing.

He's talking about NHL players, and if you've made the NHL, then you've already made back any money you spent getting there. If you want to talk about guys who missed their shot, that's an entirely different topic.

You guys aren't even arguing about the CBA anymore. Whatever the CBA ends up being, the guys who never make the NHL will never be affected by it.
The point is, the players have taken on risk to get there. Alright so those that don't make it have taken on risk that hasn't worked out. Same is true for any start-up that doesn't make it.

Now why is it that this idea of risk is being argued? It's because the owners have said they take on all the expenses and the players don't. But that's not strictly true, what the players take on is the expense of time invested before their payout IF they make it to the NHL.

To me the risks are equal, the owners take a risk by buying into an NHL franchise to either sell it off for a profit, or in the case of larger franchises make some money from it. I would say that most franchises are bought as an investment much like real estate is often bought as an investment. Especially here in Vancouver, yikes...

And for the players they take on the risk of trying to make it to the NHL.

In both cases, it is the owners responsibility to assume the risk of potentially losing money, much like it is the players responsibility to assume the risk of potentially not making the NHL.

I've read posts about owners hold all the money, and yes they do, but players hold all the "IP". If someone with lots of money wants to be the leader in a market and is only willing to pay minimum wage to try and become a leader in said market, I don't think that model would lead to success, or it would lead to a high turnover rate.

What I'm trying to say is that if you hold all the cards and aren't willing to share with the people that make your company be successful, well you won't be successful because the ones with all the cards don't also do the innovation. (And this is again not exclusively true, but a group of owners don't = NHL players)

Reiher is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:54 PM
  #346
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
These two sides can't even hire a competent guy, he only lasted an hour before being dismissed because his twitter account was full of stupid stuff, the guy then tried to claim his twitter account had been hacked.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...itter-postings
****ing lol, nice .. they can't even hire the right mediator.

Habs is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:58 PM
  #347
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 Reiher View Post
The point is, the players have taken on risk to get there. Alright so those that don't make it have taken on risk that hasn't worked out. Same is true for any start-up that doesn't make it.

Now why is it that this idea of risk is being argued? It's because the owners have said they take on all the expenses and the players don't. But that's not strictly true, what the players take on is the expense of time invested before their payout IF they make it to the NHL.

To me the risks are equal, the owners take a risk by buying into an NHL franchise to either sell it off for a profit, or in the case of larger franchises make some money from it. I would say that most franchises are bought as an investment much like real estate is often bought as an investment. Especially here in Vancouver, yikes...

And for the players they take on the risk of trying to make it to the NHL.

In both cases, it is the owners responsibility to assume the risk of potentially losing money, much like it is the players responsibility to assume the risk of potentially not making the NHL.

I've read posts about owners hold all the money, and yes they do, but players hold all the "IP". If someone with lots of money wants to be the leader in a market and is only willing to pay minimum wage to try and become a leader in said market, I don't think that model would lead to success, or it would lead to a high turnover rate.

What I'm trying to say is that if you hold all the cards and aren't willing to share with the people that make your company be successful, well you won't be successful because the ones with all the cards don't also do the innovation. (And this is again not exclusively true, but a group of owners don't = NHL players)
I like these responses much better, much more level headed.

Did Kriss specifically say players don't take a risk getting to the NHL though? I'm guessing he's talking about NHL players vs NHL owners, and who's taking the bigger risk financially to put a season together.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 06:44 PM
  #348
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
I like these responses much better, much more level headed.

Did Kriss specifically say players don't take a risk getting to the NHL though? I'm guessing he's talking about NHL players vs NHL owners, and who's taking the bigger risk financially to put a season together.
I will put it to you like this, if the owners aren't taking risks by putting their money up, then what are they there for? Why should they be guaranteed to make money year to year, simply by owning an NHL franchise? More importantly, why should that guarantee come at the expense of the players?

If the big owners were so concerned about the smaller teams, then why didn't they accept Fehrs first offer? Didn't it remedy the economic health of the bottom teams by essentially taking 3% of the players share and giving it to the poor teams by means of increased revenue sharing? That's an honest question as I'm not too sure of the details of the offer.

The healthy teams shouldn't make an extra penny because of this lockout. The poor teams should get help, and it should come from both the players and other owners. I'm extremely skeptical that the poor teams need THAT much help so as to take away 7% of the players share. Really seems like a cash-grab to me.

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:37 PM
  #349
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Right now, there is 140 million in revenue sharing. The NHLPA wanted that increased to 240 million, and the NHL has offered to increase it to ~180 million. I'm not sure how the money is distributed in any of the three proposals.

The NHLPA also wanted some sort of cap on non-player hockey-related expenses, but that was turned down by the league.

**********

I don't know that Joe Sakic could buy 3% of the Colorado Avalanche for 10 million dollars even if he wanted to. Is the team for sale? You say that nobody is forced to be majority owner, but it's not on a stock exchange, you can't just buy fractional shares.

Further, the NHL owners are not desperate for new owners. For example, Mike Lazaridis offered to end the Phoenix Coyotes annual losses of 20 million dollars to move the team to Kitchener (lol), but the NHL said no. They're not going to accept anybody into their ownership group. They're picky, as is their right. They did recently add Kenneth Thompson (Winnipeg Jets owner), which was a wise business decision, as he's one of the richest men in the world.
A 40 millions increase from 140 to 180 is already huge IMO, would be interesting to know the distribution though. With the the players reduction it will make the teams that looses 10 millions a years right now catch some breath. If you increase the 140 millions by 71 % (to get to 240 millions) it would be a team like the team would probably pass from giving 20 millions (a realistic estimation IMO) to 34 millions (an increase of 14 millions), about 17 % reduction of the team income(because the 14 millions would directly affect the team income, I'm not entirely sure that it will be exactly as direct as that, but that's a good estimation), and you're against reduction of 11 % for the players aren't you ?

My Joe Sakic was just a random reference, but my point was that I'm sure part ownership in teams is always welcome (look with the Habs with the guy that own the Bulldogs), plus a guy like Sakic would probably be a welcomed PR move for the Avs. Anyway, the point was that almost none of the ex-players are putting money in teams, why ? because guys without big time money can't do bad investments, which are the majority of the teams in the league and when you business isn't a good investment, well there is a problem.

About Mike Lazaridis, his Kitchener idea was a bad one and the NHL want Jamison to own the team and keep it in Phoenix for whatever reason, that's an extreme case. You can't say no to a guy like Kenneth Thompson though and that's the kind of guy it need to bring Pheonix in Quebec city for example, the only other one of theses guys in Canada is Paul Desmarais anyway.


Last edited by Forsead: 11-28-2012 at 07:43 PM.
Forsead is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:50 PM
  #350
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Is followed by:



I don't think you know what the word lame means.

********
I said that I don't tell you ''you don't understand and have to re-explain'', but I guess I shouldn't have said that because apparently saying you're lame=you don't understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
So, leaving an owning career behind leaves ex-owners having lost money on their risky investment'? So? They can do like the rest of the majority and apply for loans, or you know, get a damn regular job.

Jesus Christ. God forbid the owners that were egomaniacal enough to really pursue their dreams of running a franchise but didn't quite make it have to go back to work and school like the rest of the world...boohoo..Let me cry for them.
That made no sense whatsoever. They are not ex-NHL players, they are young players that can stop playing at 18-19-20-21-25, that never made the big leagues.
You don't run a franchise if you're not already a successful businessman or simply loaded.
You try to open up a business at 18 but fail, life can go on perfectly fine. Chances are however, you'd be in much bigger dept than a kid that stops playing hockey at 18.

Really, your bias over the owners has been clear since the start, and now you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. You make very little sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
The point is, the players have taken on risk to get there. Alright so those that don't make it have taken on risk that hasn't worked out. Same is true for any start-up that doesn't make it.

Now why is it that this idea of risk is being argued?
Because one guy is trying to argue that the choice some kid has taken that didn't work out is comparable to the risk an owner is taking financially every season. It's not.

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 05:58 PM.

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.