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, 06:51 PM
  #351
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
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.
All Fehr's options have the NHLPA getting raises or staying at close to 57 percent of revenues so no his proposals dont help the lesser teams.

The NHLPA's proposals continue on with this magic growth factor all the time. Thats why proposals dont even get looked at.

Pro PA people always mention what concessions the NHL has made. There was a list of about 8 of them including revenue sharing, hotels, trainers, etc. on the main board.

Now what has the PA conceded. They have conceded .5 percent based off their proposals. The math has been done. The PA has conceded .5 percent down to 56.5% off last years numbers.

If, the NHLPA would have accepted 50/50 like most believe is fair and could have negotiated the make who properly, we'd be watching hockey.

Fehr's solution of raising sharing while raising the salaries substantially long term only makes the smaller markets less competitive and will make them lose even more money.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:10 PM
  #352
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
All Fehr's options have the NHLPA getting raises or staying at close to 57 percent of revenues so no his proposals dont help the lesser teams.

The NHLPA's proposals continue on with this magic growth factor all the time. Thats why proposals dont even get looked at.

Pro PA people always mention what concessions the NHL has made. There was a list of about 8 of them including revenue sharing, hotels, trainers, etc. on the main board.

Now what has the PA conceded. They have conceded .5 percent based off their proposals. The math has been done. The PA has conceded .5 percent down to 56.5% off last years numbers.

If, the NHLPA would have accepted 50/50 like most believe is fair and could have negotiated the make who properly, we'd be watching hockey.

Fehr's solution of raising sharing while raising the salaries substantially long term only makes the smaller markets less competitive and will make them lose even more money.
Yes they haven't conceded to that 50/50 number in the first year, because they feel they should be paid the contracts they've been signed to, right? It eventually gets to 50/50 I believe. I'm not buying your statement that Fehr's solution raises salaries substantially long-term relative to the hrr of the league.

But, I will ask you, why should the players agree to the biggest demands of the owners, in full, before they get the concessions they're looking for in the other areas? I mean if their endgame is 50/50, why should they put that out there and lose all leverage in the other areas? Just because Bettman and Jacobs say "take it or leave it"? They've got to meet in the middle, the honest middle.

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:17 PM
  #353
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
Did Kriss specifically say players don't take a risk getting to the NHL though?
He wrote that owners take all the risks; ergo, he wrote that the players have not taken and are not taking any risks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissE
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.
*Deep sigh*

That's not what I wrote.

I talked about some of the risks players take. I didn't say that the risk of one player is equal (or comparable) to the risk of one owner. You've somehow inferred that 1:1 mapping that wasn't there, I have no idea how?

If the risk of 1 player was equal to the risk of 1 owner, then the players would be entitled to far, far, more than the owners, because the pool of potential players from which we get 600 NHL players is far larger than the pool of owners.

It's possible that the total risk of tens of thousands of teenagers and their families trying to make the NHL is comparable to that of the owners, but that would take a lot of effort to show, how the numbers work out.

My point is simple, both owners and players take risks. Your belief that players don't take any risks has been refuted.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-28-2012 at 07:27 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:55 PM
  #354
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
He wrote that owners take all the risks; ergo, he wrote that the players have not taken and are not taking any risks.
They do take all the financial risks, or at least most of them. I'm talking about NHL level. I don't care what you think about the kid at 15 or 16, and the risk their taking. If they're in the NHL, they're getting well compensated.
So, the only risk they do take is health wise. They have guaranteed contracts. So unless they suffer a major major injury on their last contract year, then they might end up getting screwed financially. But, sometimes, that's not even the case. Look at Markov who was still capable of getting over 15M worth over 3 years despite barely playing the previous seasons.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:02 PM
  #355
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
They do take all the financial risks, or at least most of them. I'm talking about NHL level. I don't care what you think about the kid at 15 or 16, and the risk their taking. If they're in the NHL, they're getting well compensated.
So, the only risk they do take is health wise. They have guaranteed contracts. So unless they suffer a major major injury on their last contract year, then they might end up getting screwed financially. But, sometimes, that's not even the case. Look at Markov who was still capable of getting over 15M worth over 3 years despite barely playing the previous seasons.
Look at Blake Geoffrion, who may never play hockey again. Markov could have made wayyy more money had he not been oft-injured. Point is, players take risks, health-wise and money-wise, every time they lace up their skates. That is not debatable.

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:19 PM
  #356
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Look at Blake Geoffrion, who may never play hockey again. Markov could have made wayyy more money had he not been oft-injured. Point is, players take risks, health-wise and money-wise, every time they lace up their skates. That is not debatable.
Healthwise, yes, which is somewhat linked to money. However, they still made money and if signed to a deal, their money is guaranteed. Not only that, but they also can't be moved. So yea, there is some risk, and I'm sure those guys would give up their contract for their health and a chance to start anew, but fact remains they get their money.
Owners don't have that luxury.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:39 PM
  #357
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
They do take all the financial risks, or at least most of them. I'm talking about NHL level. I don't care what you think about the kid at 15 or 16, and the risk their taking. If they're in the NHL, they're getting well compensated.
So, the only risk they do take is health wise. They have guaranteed contracts. So unless they suffer a major major injury on their last contract year, then they might end up getting screwed financially. But, sometimes, that's not even the case. Look at Markov who was still capable of getting over 15M worth over 3 years despite barely playing the previous seasons.
If Markov had maintained his 60 point per 80 game pace from before his injuries he would have done far better than 3 years, 5.75 million per.

However, it's certainly true that once players make it to UFA and sign their best contract they have gotten past most of their risks. The majority of their risk distribution is definitely beforehand. The vast majority of the players who undertake the tremendous sacrifice necessary to make the NHL don't make the NHL, that's where the risk is. There's 200 players in a given draft year, maybe 400 putting in some semblance of an effort to make the NHL, very few will have a worthwhile career.

Kids at 15, 16 trying to make the NHL put a lot of time into hockey. If they were to put that into school, for example, they'd have a safe bet for success, a safe bet whose door closes later on. You may say "you don't care", and that's your liberty since you're not involved, but the players likely do care as they gave up on options to make the NHL, and most who give up on those options don't make the NHL. They each know many people among their cohorts who have nothing to show for their efforts.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:39 PM
  #358
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 500
The owners take the financial risks. The players takle certain health risks. What makes the players so special compared to people in other jobs where there is risk, though? Oh, yeah, the incredible compensation on insurance the players receive, overall. Let a police officer, fireman, or construction worker get hurt and see how well he/she is compensated compared to hockey players. It is a joke. The players are in the profession of their choice and get damned well compensated for their job. Far more than the vast majority of other people in jobs as risky or moreso. They should not be entitled to get over 50% of the HRR simply because they could get injured doing their job. The worst thing is that most of the injuries are from other players! They deliberately do it to each other. Let them learn to play without cheap shots and the deliberate attempts to injure we see every year and there would be far less risk.

The owners take all of the financial risk of buying and running an NHL franchise. They pay everyone's salaries and all of the bills. The players line their pockets. It is 100% clear who takes all of the financial risks of paying for hockey and all associated costs. That is why people are on the side of the owners who are asking for 50% of the HRR. They aren't even asking the players to add all of their HRR to the total HRR amount, which they should.

Enough with all this crying for the poor players and the great risks they are taking. The vast majority of people are not as well protected, financially, should something befall them at work. Let the players assume a portion of the costs related to running the NHL and then they can ask for a higher % of the HRR. Until then, do your job, accept your extremely lucrative and guaranteed money, go get your endorsement money, hockey signing money, signature fees, etc...and accept a fair share of the HRR.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:46 PM
  #359
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
I know if I was a 4th liner playing in Phoenix or Florida, in front of 4000 fans, I'd feel very lucky to be making ~ 500K to 1 million per year. Same for the super star like Vinny Lecavailer who's making millions and millions while the owner is giving tickets away. Something doesn't feel right with that equation. I'm not sure how anyone with a clear outlook can view this as being normal. Clearly the outcome of this lock out is crucial to owners who are losing money; which let us not forget, is the majority of the league.

The problem in the NHL is that there are too many teams not making profit. Contraction in weak markets is the long term sustainable solution.

Until then, Bettman is trying to do his best to keep the weak franchises afloat. Or, in other words, trying to repair a situation in markets that should have never existed in the 1st place. Or in other words again, trying to cover his ass.

The irony in Bettman's mistake is that his error has resulted in hundreds of employment for players in markets that should have never existed. Plenty of players have become millionaires by playing in markets that bring ZERO profit.

So why is it unacceptable to suggest that players should be willing to make sacrifices so they can continue to make millions playing in empty arenas. I mean, the real solution would be to eliminate these jobs in the 1st place.

coolasprICE is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:48 PM
  #360
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
What makes the players so special compared to people in other jobs where there is risk, though?
The fact people like you and me spend a lot of money following the game.

I wish teachers like you were better compensated, for example. It would better reflect social impact, and attract better people to your profession. But overall the public would rather have tax cuts. The same public is perfectly willing to pay for higher ticket prices every year.

I was at the Ohio State University for five years. You know who the highest paid employee was? Not the president, not the best professor ... but the Football coach. I'm not sure, but I think he might be the highest paid government employee in any United States public office. He makes about 20x more than the top generals in the army.

Quote:
The owners take all of the financial risk of buying and running an NHL franchise. They pay everyone's salaries and all of the bills. The players line their pockets. It is 100% clear who takes all of the financial risks of paying for hockey and all associated costs. That is why people are on the side of the owners who are asking for 50% of the HRR. They aren't even asking the players to add all of their HRR to the total HRR amount, which they should.
As an aside, though everyone agrees the owners take some risks, it hasn't been shown how big a risk it is.

I think some of you have the impression it's some sort of massive risk.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:48 PM
  #361
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
If Markov had maintained his 60 point per 80 game pace from before his injuries he would have done far better than 3 years, 5.75 million per.

However, it's certainly true that once players make it to UFA and sign their best contract they have gotten past most of their risks. The majority of their risk distribution is definitely beforehand. The vast majority of the players who undertake the tremendous sacrifice necessary to make the NHL don't make the NHL, that's where the risk is. There's 200 players in a given draft year, maybe 400 putting in some semblance of an effort to make the NHL, very few will have a worthwhile career.

Kids at 15, 16 trying to make the NHL put a lot of time into hockey. If they were to put that into school, for example, they'd have a safe bet for success, a safe bet whose door closes later on. You may say "you don't care", and that's your liberty since you're not involved, but the players likely do care as they gave up on options to make the NHL, and most who give up on those options don't make the NHL. They each know many people among their cohorts who have nothing to show for their efforts.
Kids at 15-16 have a safe bet on their future if they opt not to put their effort into hockey? You and I live in different worlds.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:55 PM
  #362
domdo345
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,109
vCash: 500
I do not want to enter the owners vs players debate because pretty much anyone has had his point of view beaten to death but man the last week or so hit hard on the forum. Both the NHL forum and the Habs forum are the slowest I've seen in awhile. Feels like the month of July with some sour taste to it. Sucks.

domdo345 is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:57 PM
  #363
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
If Markov had maintained his 60 point per 80 game pace from before his injuries he would have done far better than 3 years, 5.75 million per.

However, it's certainly true that once players make it to UFA and sign their best contract they have gotten past most of their risks. The majority of their risk distribution is definitely beforehand. The vast majority of the players who undertake the tremendous sacrifice necessary to make the NHL don't make the NHL, that's where the risk is. There's 200 players in a given draft year, maybe 400 putting in some semblance of an effort to make the NHL, very few will have a worthwhile career.

Kids at 15, 16 trying to make the NHL put a lot of time into hockey. If they were to put that into school, for example, they'd have a safe bet for success, a safe bet whose door closes later on
. You may say "you don't care", and that's your liberty since you're not involved, but the players likely do care as they gave up on options to make the NHL, and most who give up on those options don't make the NHL. They each know many people among their cohorts who have nothing to show for their efforts.
If we start taking account of all the risks before getting to the NHL, we will need to account all the risk owners by financial investment to get to the kind of money needed to own an NHL franchise, it work both ways.

In bold, you can study later in life...and no even if they put all their effort in it, it doesn't mean all peoples could study far and that would be a safe bet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
The owners take the financial risks. The players takle certain health risks. What makes the players so special compared to people in other jobs where there is risk, though? Oh, yeah, the incredible compensation on insurance the players receive, overall. Let a police officer, fireman, or construction worker get hurt and see how well he/she is compensated compared to hockey players. It is a joke. The players are in the profession of their choice and get damned well compensated for their job. Far more than the vast majority of other people in jobs as risky or moreso. They should not be entitled to get over 50% of the HRR simply because they could get injured doing their job. The worst thing is that most of the injuries are from other players! They deliberately do it to each other. Let them learn to play without cheap shots and the deliberate attempts to injure we see every year and there would be far less risk.

The owners take all of the financial risk of buying and running an NHL franchise. They pay everyone's salaries and all of the bills. The players line their pockets. It is 100% clear who takes all of the financial risks of paying for hockey and all associated costs. That is why people are on the side of the owners who are asking for 50% of the HRR. They aren't even asking the players to add all of their HRR to the total HRR amount, which they should.

Enough with all this crying for the poor players and the great risks they are taking. The vast majority of people are not as well protected, financially, should something befall them at work. Let the players assume a portion of the costs related to running the NHL and then they can ask for a higher % of the HRR. Until then, do your job, accept your extremely lucrative and guaranteed money, go get your endorsement money, hockey signing money, signature fees, etc...and accept a fair share of the HRR.
They work in entertainment, it's not the same thing. They earns that much, because of the market and the fact that someone think their performance would mean even more money. It's the same with musicians, actors even CEOs. That's isn't like others works, that's life, deal with it.

Plus, you don't take into account that they are amongst the 700 bests in their jobs. Amongst the 700 best police officers you probably have some chief inspector in the FBI, the director of the RCMP and some guy knighted in London, not too shabby as far as compensation is concerned.


Last edited by Forsead: 11-28-2012 at 09:06 PM.
Forsead is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:07 PM
  #364
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,505
vCash: 500
A good article from Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations...on:asc_search:

3 teams lost value in the past year. One team had its value remain stable. The remaining 26 teams had increasing values.

The median franchise value in the league increased by 6%. As the median franchise value is 220 million, the typical owner made ~13 million last year from the increased value of his investment. Additionally, the median operating income (annual profit) was 3 million (17 of 30 teams made a profit), so you could say a 16 million portfolio gain was typical for the owners last year (~7.3%). However, you then need to subtract cost of money (i.e. bank loans).


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-28-2012 at 09:19 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:18 PM
  #365
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
If we start taking account of all the risks before getting to the NHL, we will need to account all the risk owners by financial investment to get to the kind of money needed to own an NHL franchise, it work both ways.
The risk owners take is that they might make or less money from owning a franchise than from whatever else they would put their money in instead. The risks from their earlier operations doesn't factor in since they were already rewarded for those earlier operations.

The risk teens make is that they're giving up a relatively safe bet, and taking on the risk of debilitating health conditions, to try and make the NHL. Those are not independent risks, and they would never be worthwhile if only for an ECHL salary of ~$350/week or an AHL salary of ~$150,000/year for three years. All those risks are taken to try and make the NHL as a productive and well-compensated player..Leblanc would have probably stayed at Harvard if he had no shot at an NHL career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
In bold, you can study later in life...and no even if they put all their effort in it, it doesn't mean all peoples could study far and that would be a safe bet.
You can study later in life, but a lot of doors tend to be closed. Employers and many programs discriminate against "mature" applicants, and you don't make as many connections. Plus there are the possible debilitating health problems.

I personally find that age discrimination unfortunate, but I don't make the rules.

There are no perfectly safe bets in life.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-28-2012 at 09:28 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:21 PM
  #366
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Healthwise, yes, which is somewhat linked to money. However, they still made money and if signed to a deal, their money is guaranteed. Not only that, but they also can't be moved. So yea, there is some risk, and I'm sure those guys would give up their contract for their health and a chance to start anew, but fact remains they get their money.
Owners don't have that luxury.
Not everyone has a big guaranteed contract to fall back on dude. Most players haven't hit UFA, 2-way contracts aren't guaranteed either. If you get injured before your big payday then that's tough luck for you. If owners are losing too much money, they can just sell their team and get back their 2 or 300,000,000 dollars. If Phoenix can be sold, any team can be sold. Owners will never crap out, lots of players, on the other hand, can. You said it yourself, owners outlast players. Players have to cash in in their short careers, as most of them leave the NHL with no job skills and definitely little-to-no experience. Owners can take solace in watching the value of their investment rising by the year.

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:50 PM
  #367
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Not everyone has a big guaranteed contract to fall back on dude. Most players haven't hit UFA, 2-way contracts aren't guaranteed either. If you get injured before your big payday then that's tough luck for you. If owners are losing too much money, they can just sell their team and get back their 2 or 300,000,000 dollars. If Phoenix can be sold, any team can be sold. Owners will never crap out, lots of players, on the other hand, can. You said it yourself, owners outlast players. Players have to cash in in their short careers, as most of them leave the NHL with no job skills and definitely little-to-no experience. Owners can take solace in watching the value of their investment rising by the year.
Then would you be willing to shed out twice as much money next year than you paid last year? Maybe your salary more than doubled in the past decade but that's not the utopia for most other people.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:55 PM
  #368
Luuuongo
Crabs!
 
Luuuongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,939
vCash: 500
Didn't want to start a new thread, is Pax still on that Swiss team? Or is his contract over?

Luuuongo is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:01 PM
  #369
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Yes they haven't conceded to that 50/50 number in the first year, because they feel they should be paid the contracts they've been signed to, right? It eventually gets to 50/50 I believe. I'm not buying your statement that Fehr's solution raises salaries substantially long-term relative to the hrr of the league.

But, I will ask you, why should the players agree to the biggest demands of the owners, in full, before they get the concessions they're looking for in the other areas? I mean if their endgame is 50/50, why should they put that out there and lose all leverage in the other areas? Just because Bettman and Jacobs say "take it or leave it"? They've got to meet in the middle, the honest middle.
What he's telling you is just incorrect. The players last proposal agreed to 50/50 in the first year, whatever that may be. Even the owners agree there should be a make whole provision. The only difference is the "second year forward guarantee" and the size of the make whole provision.

To say that the players proposal is to stay at 57% is just wrong.

NotProkofievian is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:11 PM
  #370
WhiskeySeven
President of Canada
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,988
vCash: 500
Your premise is that the owners of the teams in the sunbelt not make a net profit. This is wrong. They makes tons of money overall (every team but one) and owning an NHL team is fantastic collateral in any case.

It's called Billionaire Accounting, same sort of thing that flabbergasts people outside of Hollywood at all the "flops". THE OWNERS, BY AND LARGE, ALWAYS COME OUT AHEAD. Even if its "only" getting a cheap loan off the team, it's still a massive net positive. Don't forget they have many auxiliary businesses too, like owning the G.D. Arena.

They're laughing to the bank...

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
I know if I was a 4th liner playing in Phoenix or Florida, in front of 4000 fans, I'd feel very lucky to be making ~ 500K to 1 million per year. Same for the super star like Vinny Lecavailer who's making millions and millions while the owner is giving tickets away. Something doesn't feel right with that equation. I'm not sure how anyone with a clear outlook can view this as being normal. Clearly the outcome of this lock out is crucial to owners who are losing money; which let us not forget, is the majority of the league.

The problem in the NHL is that there are too many teams not making profit. Contraction in weak markets is the long term sustainable solution.

Until then, Bettman is trying to do his best to keep the weak franchises afloat. Or, in other words, trying to repair a situation in markets that should have never existed in the 1st place. Or in other words again, trying to cover his ass.

The irony in Bettman's mistake is that his error has resulted in hundreds of employment for players in markets that should have never existed. Plenty of players have become millionaires by playing in markets that bring ZERO profit.

So why is it unacceptable to suggest that players should be willing to make sacrifices so they can continue to make millions playing in empty arenas. I mean, the real solution would be to eliminate these jobs in the 1st place.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:17 PM
  #371
WhiskeySeven
President of Canada
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Kids at 15-16 have a safe bet on their future if they opt not to put their effort into hockey? You and I live in different worlds.
The same future any any other teen in Canada... A safe one.

What gives you pause with this argument?

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:42 PM
  #372
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
The owners take the financial risks. The players takle certain health risks. What makes the players so special compared to people in other jobs where there is risk, though? Oh, yeah, the incredible compensation on insurance the players receive, overall. Let a police officer, fireman, or construction worker get hurt and see how well he/she is compensated compared to hockey players. It is a joke. The players are in the profession of their choice and get damned well compensated for their job. Far more than the vast majority of other people in jobs as risky or moreso. They should not be entitled to get over 50% of the HRR simply because they could get injured doing their job. The worst thing is that most of the injuries are from other players! They deliberately do it to each other. Let them learn to play without cheap shots and the deliberate attempts to injure we see every year and there would be far less risk.

The owners take all of the financial risk of buying and running an NHL franchise. They pay everyone's salaries and all of the bills. The players line their pockets. It is 100% clear who takes all of the financial risks of paying for hockey and all associated costs. That is why people are on the side of the owners who are asking for 50% of the HRR. They aren't even asking the players to add all of their HRR to the total HRR amount, which they should.

Enough with all this crying for the poor players and the great risks they are taking. The vast majority of people are not as well protected, financially, should something befall them at work. Let the players assume a portion of the costs related to running the NHL and then they can ask for a higher % of the HRR. Until then, do your job, accept your extremely lucrative and guaranteed money, go get your endorsement money, hockey signing money, signature fees, etc...and accept a fair share of the HRR.
I'm not so much about crying poor players as I'm crying honor the contracts. I think it's not an argument anymore that the players are accepting to go to a 50% HRR, but want to do so while maintaining previous contracts, and really why should the contract that was signed for 10 years not be honored or the ones signed hours before the lockout? The owners that agreed to those contracts took the risk of awarding those contracts and should live with the risk that they took.

No one is disputing that the Gomez contract was a terrible contract, but regardless Gomez should be paid what he signed. What Gomez's contract should be, is a lesson to all owners to be wary of giving out contracts like that. (not that it is in actual dollar amount a huge burden at this point)

I don't disagree with the owners wanting more of the pie as that is their mandate, that's what corporations do and that's what should be done from the owners point of view. What I don't like is the owners wanting to do that by essentially re-writing contracts that have been written. And really the make whole provision I think is huge at this point.

Now on the flip side the players want to be assured that they won't go backwards and lose money, or the clause that says that no matter what, they won't make less than what was brought in from the previous year. Well this I don't agree with. If the revenue goes down and it has a good chance of doing so then players looking for new contracts in the new CBA I think will need to accept less. As unfortunate as it is for those unlucky players the solution would be to sign short term deals I hope for something more favourable later. If in the near future the league is still shrinking I think there will be bigger problems at hand.

Ultimately I would think that if this does not happen, then the small teams will fold and players should recognize that. But players that are currently under contract should remain under-contract and be paid out the amount that was promised. So if that means that the players make greater than 50% of HRR then fine, but as the contracts expire and the game either grows or shrinks HRR will eventually be split 50-50. Does that mean that some high profile players whose contracts expires next year may not get as much as another big star who is under contract from the previous CBA? Absolutely, but I think it's unreasonable to deny the convergence to 50-50 by not taking on the scenario of shrinkage.

It is a concession from the players to do this, but I'm quite sure the players want the game to be workable with all 30 teams to not have jobs lost to teams that just don't work anymore. I would say that until 50-50 is reached everything remains somewhat frozen. The problem with my suggestion though is how does a team sign new players. I guess I would suggest that from a salary cap point of view all current contracts get "reduced" by the 7% decrease from 57%. Then the league would resume from the framework there forward until true 50-50 is reached in however many years that takes.

What's to stop another lockout though? Well I'm not sure how to address that one, I just don't know how this cycle gets broken...

Reiher is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:06 PM
  #373
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
I know if I was a 4th liner playing in Phoenix or Florida, in front of 4000 fans, I'd feel very lucky to be making ~ 500K to 1 million per year. Same for the super star like Vinny Lecavailer who's making millions and millions while the owner is giving tickets away. Something doesn't feel right with that equation. I'm not sure how anyone with a clear outlook can view this as being normal. Clearly the outcome of this lock out is crucial to owners who are losing money; which let us not forget, is the majority of the league.

The problem in the NHL is that there are too many teams not making profit. Contraction in weak markets is the long term sustainable solution.

Until then, Bettman is trying to do his best to keep the weak franchises afloat. Or, in other words, trying to repair a situation in markets that should have never existed in the 1st place. Or in other words again, trying to cover his ass.

The irony in Bettman's mistake is that his error has resulted in hundreds of employment for players in markets that should have never existed. Plenty of players have become millionaires by playing in markets that bring ZERO profit.

So why is it unacceptable to suggest that players should be willing to make sacrifices so they can continue to make millions playing in empty arenas. I mean, the real solution would be to eliminate these jobs in the 1st place.
Without the BOG's ridiculous control over relocation, I think QC could support a team, Toronto and Montreal could support second teams. If the Isles ever get their act together they should do fine in Brooklyn. Maybe Seattle at some point. I don't think there's any lack of markets. There's enough square holes, it's just that some of the square pegs are being forced into round holes.

Roulin is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:19 PM
  #374
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post

What's to stop another lockout though? Well I'm not sure how to address that one, I just don't know how this cycle gets broken...
Problem stems from fact there are too many teams that are not profitable, nor will be in the near future. Problem is, that you don't need to be profitable, since NHL is a monopoly. If NHL teams had to operate under competitive market laws, many teams would not have to be bailed out year after year, and more a natural progression would be seen in the NHL. Instead we have speculative type of business model, where profitability of the league depends more or less on the future of the non profitable markets. Which, mingled with global recession, specifically the USA, is nearly impossible, and the costs of that failed speculative plan, which more or less is the creation of Bettman (if he's not the puppeteer, he's the puppet) which ultimately lead to lock out.

the "core economic" issues is, from my point of view, is more about the viability of certain markets, then it is about revenue share.
And for me, revenue share problem should more or less be determined by the value of players vs investors in terms of who is responsible for bringing in the revenues. The "final" product. I'm fine with a 50/50, even though i think the players are more responsible of the actual product, mostly because of their level of eliteness.


Last edited by uiCk: 11-28-2012 at 11:32 PM.
uiCk is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 01:28 AM
  #375
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Yes they haven't conceded to that 50/50 number in the first year, because they feel they should be paid the contracts they've been signed to, right? It eventually gets to 50/50 I believe. I'm not buying your statement that Fehr's solution raises salaries substantially long-term relative to the hrr of the league.

But, I will ask you, why should the players agree to the biggest demands of the owners, in full, before they get the concessions they're looking for in the other areas? I mean if their endgame is 50/50, why should they put that out there and lose all leverage in the other areas? Just because Bettman and Jacobs say "take it or leave it"? They've got to meet in the middle, the honest middle.
again, there have been multiple concessions by the owners including revenue sharing, hotels, trainers, doctors, etc.

What can the owners concede that the players dont already have? Aside from getting their 57% what can the owners offer more of.

The players still havent agreed to 50/50. There offers are based on speculative growth to get them to 50/50. Its in their proposals. Thats what they keep basing everything on.

the players dont have to agree to anything, thats why we sit where we are and why they sit on the sidelines right now. They feel entitled to make more than the owners. Thats what they want. If this was about earning the money they are owed, they already lost it by not playing. Now its about principle and trying to make up this so called notion they lost the last negotiation.

Kirk Muller 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 03:33 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.