HFBoards

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

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-29-2012, 02:05 AM
  #376
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,967
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.
let's start with this : they're the product, they're not only employees.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 02:50 AM
  #377
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
again, there have been multiple concessions by the owners including revenue sharing, hotels, trainers, doctors, etc.
It's standard for employers in both the public and private sector to cover travel expenses. That's not a "concession". It's a cost of business. It's similar to providing bathrooms in the workplace and paying for work uniforms.

The owners have not agreed to the players request on revenue sharing. The NHL will continue to have the lowest revenue sharing of the major sports leagues under the Bettman plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
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.
As Eller and Cole and others have already explained, if they fold like a deck of cards the owners will push even harder during the next lockout. 50/50 could turn into 60/40 or even worse, and then to 70/30.

As has also been explained by many, they want the contracts they signed.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 03:18 AM
  #378
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
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.
would be nice to know where you read that, like from wich player's mouth it comes from ?

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 03:54 AM
  #379
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Evidence of dissension among the owners:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/28...-lockout-talks

Quote:
WINNIPEG - Maybe the governors of the Winnipeg Jets were told to go sit at the kids’ table while the big boys talk.

Maybe it never happened.

Regardless of whether anyone reprimanded a Jets governor for allegedly voicing moderate opposition to the lockout, it’s obvious the NHL’s newest team has little say in the current labour negotiations.

A report out of Boston Wednesday, by Bruins insider Joe Haggerty of Comcast Sportsnet New England, said Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs admonished a Jets governor, not principal owner Mark Chipman, in a recent meeting for saying the franchise “was opposed to engaging in a long, bloody lockout sure to stymie their franchise’s momentum and hurt the game of hockey.”

At that point Jacobs, considered one of the owners’ driving forces behind the lockout, “answered by reprimanding the Winnipeg representative as one of the ‘new kids on the block’ and informed him that he would know when he was allowed to speak in the NHL boardroom.”

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 04:11 AM
  #380
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
I need to apologize to the forums.

I've been reading some information, and it turns out that some claims I've made several times are false. I correct them here.

1) I have stated many times that the players got 72% in the free market system before the 2005 lockout. It turns out that this is not true. According to this wikipedia article, the true free market value was 76%, not 72%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2...05_NHL_lockout

The reason I got the wrong answer was that I used the 24% rollback. I think I know what I did wrong. I didn't account for the fact that new players, or players on new contracts, got salaries cut by more than 24% relative to those who retired.

2) I have argued that the owners got everything they wanted the last lockout, it turns out this is not true.

When contract negotiations broke down, the league's offer was for a hard cap of 42 million dollars, independent of league revenues. In the following summer, the league and the players agreed to a 54% cap, equivalent to 39 million in the first year. Thus, the owners didn't get everything they want. The players got something from throwing the season away: they were allowed a share in the growth of the league.

Interestingly, this means that the players can in fact get further concessions by holding their ground.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-29-2012 at 04:17 AM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:18 AM
  #381
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,699
vCash: 500
It's just incredible that people can still get away with saying the players haven't agreed to 50%. Yes, they have. They have agreed to immediately work under a 50% of HRR player share, with two conditions:

1.) Make whole provision(which the owners have agreed to in principle, if not in scope.

2.) After year 1, the total dollar amount cannot be less than the year before.

One of these two provisions is going to be altered. That's how negotiations work. But the discussion is no longer about the salary roll-back. It's about conditions. To insinuate otherwise, or that the players have made NO concessions is either ignorant at best, or dishonest/stupid at worst.

NotProkofievian is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:23 AM
  #382
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,768
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.
The minimum salary after the 04-05 lockout was 450K, last year, 525K I believe. Not bad for a fallback wouldn't you say? I was talking about regular NHLers.
But even the guys that have two way contracts, they still manage to hit over 6 digits annually, which is more than the majority of people. So, things aren't so bleak.
And If things aren't working for them, they're not too old to go back to school, and have made enough earnings to be there full time. Unless they were dumb and spent all their money on superficial things, but that's their problem.

So ya, players have to cash in on their short careers. But the absolute minimum still guarantees them 6 digits. If they have one way contracts at the minimum, in one year they'll make half a million. That's more than plenty of doctors, so again, things aren't bad by any stretch.

For the owners, they have every right to watch their investments rise. When a franchise is bought at half a billion dollars, I would hope the chance of profits is good, otherwise nobody would buy franchises. Who would dish out that much cash if the chance of profit was limited, small or difficult? How many people out there can afford a franchise and be interested in one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
The same future any any other teen in Canada... A safe one.

What gives you pause with this argument?
There's still about 8% of canadians that drop out from high school. I'm talking about high school only here. If I recall correctly, the college rate doubles that.
So, how does going to school assures you a safe future? This is without mentioning all the other students that graduate and still struggle to find jobs in their fields, or others that simply go into areas that aren't financially interesting. Do an arts major, tell me how guaranteed your future is.

Nothing is guaranteed in life, nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Evidence of dissension among the owners:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/28...-lockout-talks
Nothing new. There's evidence of dissension among players too.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:27 AM
  #383
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
It's just incredible that people can still get away with saying the players haven't agreed to 50%. Yes, they have. They have agreed to immediately work under a 50% of HRR player share, with two conditions:

1.) Make whole provision(which the owners have agreed to in principle, if not in scope.

2.) After year 1, the total dollar amount cannot be less than the year before.

One of these two provisions is going to be altered. That's how negotiations work. But the discussion is no longer about the salary roll-back. It's about conditions. To insinuate otherwise, or that the players have made NO concessions is either ignorant at best, or dishonest/stupid at worst.
The thing is, even if players have agreed to 50% of HRR, it's only for one year.
After that, if the league loses money, with the 2) you listed, they would be entitled to the same salary as the previous year, so, all the loss would come out of the owners pockets.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:32 AM
  #384
Tim Wallach
Registered User
 
Tim Wallach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,286
vCash: 500
Just thinking out of the box here, but if the players' concern is the next CBA and being forced into continuous claw-backs and the owners just wanted the player's share to be a percentage tied to HRR, why not put in a clause that players share will be held at 50% in subsequent CBAs?

No matter what happens to the economic landscape, a 50/50 split will always be fair. It'll address both sides' concerns. And best of all, it'll mean a major stumbling block is already settled for future negotiations.

I know this isn't how things work (historically) and it's unlikely to ever fly, but you can't blame me for trying, can you?

Tim Wallach is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:45 AM
  #385
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The thing is, even if players have agreed to 50% of HRR, it's only for one year.
It's not an "even if," that's what their proposal says, and no it's not just for one year. It's for the course of the CBA with some conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
After that, if the league loses money, with the 2) you listed, they would be entitled to the same salary as the previous year, so, all the loss would come out of the owners pockets.
That's a big if, and here's why:

1.) Even the league itself projects something like 5% per annum growth.

2.) If this year were to count as the 'first year' then the absolute dollar amount would amount to something like 30% of a reasonable full season.

3.) Even if it weren't, because of the drastic 12% reduction in salary in year one, the league wouldn't have to just not break even to lose money compared to the most recent CBA. They would have to lose a lot, and I don't think that's remotely foreseeable.

4.) Even that scenario is only losing money compared to the last CBA, not losing money in absolute terms

5.) This is the most likely provision to be altered. Most likely it's a wedge to get the NHL to budge on the make whole.

So, now would be a fairly good time for you to stop insinuating that the players have made 0 concessions.

NotProkofievian is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:47 AM
  #386
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Wallach View Post
Just thinking out of the box here, but if the players' concern is the next CBA and being forced into continuous claw-backs and the owners just wanted the player's share to be a percentage tied to HRR, why not put in a clause that players share will be held at 50% in subsequent CBAs?

No matter what happens to the economic landscape, a 50/50 split will always be fair. It'll address both sides' concerns. And best of all, it'll mean a major stumbling block is already settled for future negotiations.

I know this isn't how things work (historically) and it's unlikely to ever fly, but you can't blame me for trying, can you?
I think it'd be more useful as a "force." If the owners reject such a notion, and they would, it would give real teeth to the players' argument that it isn't necessarily about this lockout, it's about future lockouts, and stopping the buck somewhere.

NotProkofievian is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:58 AM
  #387
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 owners have not agreed to the players request on revenue sharing. The NHL will continue to have the lowest revenue sharing of the major sports leagues under the Bettman plan.
Link? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd just like to read up on revenue sharing in the other leagues.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:11 AM
  #388
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
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.

Bold above. Do you think that is what is going on? Really? Do you think Don Fehr sits with the players in a room, having a beer, and says: 'WE HAVE TO MAKE MORE THAN THE OWNERS, NO MATTER WHAT!'

Do you know how coal fired electricity is generated? Sketch a diagram of the process. Tell me about the principle of compound interest. Explain in detail the difference between convection and conduction. Do you think the 19th century systems teaching of medicine is superior to the more recent holistic approach? Do you know why the sky is blue, and why sunsets are orange and red? Who was John Maynard Keynes and what was his influence in economics? What is the role of metals in the production of colour? What is Joyce's finest novel, in your opinion? Discuss the DADA movement in 20th century art. What is Entasis, used by Greek architects in the design of the Parthenon? What is the difference between granite and marble? What is the principle difference between the harpsichord and the piano? At what times where these instruments invented, and who are the two composers considered to be the masters of each? Explain the role of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial bodies in modern democratic government. What is the function of a metal Lathe? What is the element used to prevent corrosion in stainless steel?

The owners make 100 times what the players make by return on investment. The players are not competing for income or wealth with the owners. They are negotiating the best possible contractual arrangement for their services. If you want to argue the owner's case, choose your argument well, next time.


Last edited by bsl: 11-29-2012 at 10:18 AM.
bsl is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:25 AM
  #389
Tim Wallach
Registered User
 
Tim Wallach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
I think it'd be more useful as a "force." If the owners reject such a notion, and they would, it would give real teeth to the players' argument that it isn't necessarily about this lockout, it's about future lockouts, and stopping the buck somewhere.
Very true. I know the owners would reject it out of hand since they'd never want to lose their leverage to negotiate and craft a better deal going forward.

But you're right... it'd sure highlight the players' claim. It's hard to argue 50% of an agreed-upon HRR definition would ever be unfair. How could the owners really argue? No, it wouldn't be an amount they could control, but it's a percentage, so they're protected.

Tim Wallach is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:01 AM
  #390
poetryinmotion
Registered User
 
poetryinmotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,053
vCash: 500
NO GAMES SCHEDULED FOR TODAY

LAST GAME: JUNE 11, 2012
NEXT GAME: DECEMBER 15, 2012


poetryinmotion is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:10 AM
  #391
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Evidence of dissension among the owners:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/28...-lockout-talks
I don't understand how Jacobs is able to wield so much power. This is as much about Jacobs getting his way as it is anything else.

Much as this is benefiting some players (the ones with big contracts and younger ones) much more than others, the other side is serving the hardliners closest to Bettman.

I wish the moderates - Snider, Molson, Chipman, Dolan, whoever else has more to gain from playing hockey - would collude to overthrow Jacobs, but I know it won't happen. The worst part is Jacobs runs one of the most profitable teams in the league, but is so blinded by his own greed that crushing unions comes before logic.

Et le But is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:18 AM
  #392
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
I don't understand how Jacobs is able to wield so much power. This is as much about Jacobs getting his way as it is anything else.

Much as this is benefiting some players (the ones with big contracts and younger ones) much more than others, the other side is serving the hardliners closest to Bettman.

I wish the moderates - Snider, Molson, Chipman, whoever else has more to gain from playing hockey - would collude to overthrow Jacobs, but I know it won't happen. The worst part is Jacobs runs one of the most profitable teams in the league, but is so blinded by his own greed that crushing unions comes before logic.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking that Jacobs has that much sway. That he's the newly revealed Emperor behind Gary Bettman's longstanding Darth Vader persona. It's easier to publicly vilify specific individuals, perhaps. Instead, maybe 30 billionaire owners really are all just smart enough, confident enough, strong enough to speak for themselves and aren't taking that much issue with the overall league approach? They know their business, and I doubt any of them is dumb or has a small ego, they didn't get to be billionaires by being backbencher yes-men, probably. Fans and PA would like it if there was some hope that the villainous leaders of the BoG could be overthrown by an internal mutiny of the till-now-silent majority, but... I'm not sure it would make much sense if things actually worked that way... Maybe they do, but wouldn't it defy common sense if it was like that?

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:28 AM
  #393
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Maybe it's just wishful thinking that Jacobs has that much sway. That he's the newly revealed Emperor behind Gary Bettman's longstanding Darth Vader persona. It's easier to publicly vilify specific individuals, perhaps. Instead, maybe 30 billionaire owners really are all just smart enough, confident enough, strong enough to speak for themselves and aren't taking that much issue with the overall league approach? They know their business, and I doubt any of them is dumb or has a small ego, they didn't get to be billionaires by being backbencher yes-men, probably. Fans and PA would like it if there was some hope that the villainous leaders of the BoG could be overthrown by an internal mutiny of the till-now-silent majority, but... I'm not sure it would make much sense if things actually worked that way... Maybe they do, but wouldn't it defy common sense if it was like that?
I know it's not that simple, but it's logical that different owners have different interests. IMO what makes Jacobs such a powerful figurehead for cost cutting is that nobody will take McConnell or Wang seriously if they claim to speak for the NHL, but Jacobs owns a very popular and well managed team.

On the other hand, other owners who know they'd make a profit this year have dropped hints at their frustration - the owners of the Sens and Habs both hinted they want to be playing hockey right now. Dolan, who might be an idiot in many ways but is not cheap, has previously talked about wanting to fire Bettman. Odds are he's not alone there but Dolan is impulsive and lacks tact making him more likely to say what he's really thinking than some of the other potential moderates.

Even the "moderates" are going to avoid showing any weakness, and since these are all guys who dedicated their lives to making money above all else, they likely approve of the NHL approach to some degree. No matter what Molson or Snider really believes, they aren't going to risk pulling a Hamrlik.

But it's clear right now both sides are letting the most ideologically zealous speak for them, and Jacobs is a symbol of this for a reason.

Et le But is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:44 AM
  #394
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
It's not an "even if," that's what their proposal says, and no it's not just for one year. It's for the course of the CBA with some conditions.



That's a big if, and here's why:

1.) Even the league itself projects something like 5% per annum growth.

2.) If this year were to count as the 'first year' then the absolute dollar amount would amount to something like 30% of a reasonable full season.

3.) Even if it weren't, because of the drastic 12% reduction in salary in year one, the league wouldn't have to just not break even to lose money compared to the most recent CBA. They would have to lose a lot, and I don't think that's remotely foreseeable.

4.) Even that scenario is only losing money compared to the last CBA, not losing money in absolute terms

5.) This is the most likely provision to be altered. Most likely it's a wedge to get the NHL to budge on the make whole.

So, now would be a fairly good time for you to stop insinuating that the players have made 0 concessions.
Fact remains, if they do lose money, then owners would be the one eating the crap.
No way to project anything right now.

I never said players didn't make any concessions, you got the wrong guy.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:48 AM
  #395
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
But it's clear right now both sides are letting the most ideologically zealous speak for them, and Jacobs is a symbol of this for a reason.
If they are, then it's likely because they see the potential business benefit of doing so, IMHO, not because they are cowed or being submissive...? I'm just assuming if I got to that level of wealth and power, I'd be pretty comfortable speaking up in the boardroom and extremely unlikely to let anybody push me around if I really thought they were blowing millions of my dollars and heading off the rails in their approach. I have a little more faith in NHL ownership having the business acumen and the resources to fully evaluate the potential impacts of their actions than the players, I guess... and to act accordingly in their own interests. Players have grown up "taking one for the team" and defending their own and following orders from the boss, so I can imagine them submitting to the zealot a little more easy.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 02:17 PM
  #396
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The minimum salary after the 04-05 lockout was 450K, last year, 525K I believe. Not bad for a fallback wouldn't you say?
There is nothing to fallback on if you don't have a contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I was talking about regular NHLers.
But even the guys that have two way contracts, they still manage to hit over 6 digits annually, which is more than the majority of people. So, things aren't so bleak.
First off, it's irrelevant if they make "more than the majority of people" (seriously dude, why do you keep bringing that up)and secondly, guys on 2-way contracts in the minors rarely hit anywhere close to 6 figures. AHL salary is usually 60-70,000. Look it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
And If things aren't working for them, they're not too old to go back to school, and have made enough earnings to be there full time. Unless they were dumb and spent all their money on superficial things, but that's their problem.
Really? You know that for a fact right? They've all made enough to be in school full-time, no matter what, right? Blake Geoffrion and his $62,500 AHL salary, before taxes, is set for life! He should just be happy to have had such an easy life so far with little-to-no risks!

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 04:30 PM
  #397
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The minimum salary after the 04-05 lockout was 450K, last year, 525K I believe. Not bad for a fallback wouldn't you say? I was talking about regular NHLers.
But even the guys that have two way contracts, they still manage to hit over 6 digits annually, which is more than the majority of people. So, things aren't so bleak.
And If things aren't working for them, they're not too old to go back to school, and have made enough earnings to be there full time. Unless they were dumb and spent all their money on superficial things, but that's their problem.

So ya, players have to cash in on their short careers. But the absolute minimum still guarantees them 6 digits. If they have one way contracts at the minimum, in one year they'll make half a million. That's more than plenty of doctors, so again, things aren't bad by any stretch.

For the owners, they have every right to watch their investments rise. When a franchise is bought at half a billion dollars, I would hope the chance of profits is good, otherwise nobody would buy franchises. Who would dish out that much cash if the chance of profit was limited, small or difficult? How many people out there can afford a franchise and be interested in one?
It's amazing how you apply a completely different standard to the owners and players.

For the players, if they invest 10 years (e.g. ages 14-24) of their lives into hockey, don't make it, have maybe $50,000 or even $200,000 left in the bank, have no job skills, and have debilitating injuries, then that's all well and good in your opinion because they still have the option of living like regular people; even though they're behind the curve in job skills and time.

For the owners, if they buy a team for 200 million in the median, make 3 million dollars a year in operating income in the median, and their team values increases by 15 million a year in the median; then they need to watch out !!! They have every right to a better outcome.

Note that you don't say, of the 3 owners out of 30 in the league whose franchises are losing value: "Unless they were dumb and spent all their money on superficial things, but that's their problem." Nope, you give Charles Wang gets a pass for running the Islanders into the ground, but you don't give a pass to Blake Geoffrion who didn't build up a trust fund out of his $62,500 before taxes.

Really, the absolute worst case scenario for an owner is investing 300 million (a small fraction of their total money), being totally incompetent and inept in hiring management, and thus losing 3 or 4 million a year and selling the team later for 200 million, and still having billions left over. That situation is infinitely better in every way than a young person losing 5-10 years of their lives and not making it.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 04:40 PM
  #398
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
I don't understand how Jacobs is able to wield so much power. This is as much about Jacobs getting his way as it is anything else.

Much as this is benefiting some players (the ones with big contracts and younger ones) much more than others, the other side is serving the hardliners closest to Bettman.

I wish the moderates - Snider, Molson, Chipman, Dolan, whoever else has more to gain from playing hockey - would collude to overthrow Jacobs, but I know it won't happen. The worst part is Jacobs runs one of the most profitable teams in the league, but is so blinded by his own greed that crushing unions comes before logic.
I found it confusing as heck, so I went to read the lockout thread on the Bruins board, and a bit of a thread on the main board. They don't seem to have much of a problem with it.

Bruins fans blame Jacobs for how bad their team was in the period 1995-2004. I read that he was apparently cheap, and that UFAs didn't want to go to Boston because of poor working conditions there. He also lost in the last lockout, he let his UFAs walk in 2004 expecting to cash in on a post-CBA UFA market, instead, he was caught off guard by the union's then concession of a 24% rollback.

Apparently, he insulted Cam Neely druing the 2011 stanley cup parade. He said something about how he never won as a player.

Either way, Jacobs is the CEO of the board of governors, I think he's been there since 2007. He has a few other positions as well. The other teams apparently can only vote on positions as presented, if they're presented. The NHL is not run as the democracy some people think it is, it's not 30 owners, 30 votes.

He has a lot of shared economic interests with other owners, I think he runs concessions for a large swath of the teams.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 04:40 PM
  #399
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post

Really, the absolute worst case scenario for an owner is investing 300 million (a small fraction of their total money), being totally incompetent and inept in hiring management, and thus losing 3 or 4 million a year and selling the team later for 200 million, and still having billions left over. That situation is infinitely better in every way than a young person losing 5-10 years of their lives and not making it.
I love how you stripped it down to its infancy. The above scenario isn't how it works. If you owned a team that lost 10 million a year, for 10 years.. where are you accounting for your losses?

If you invested 300 million into a team, what return on your investment would you expect? What do you think is fair? If the NHLPA can't make the game profitable for the owners, its really not viable no matter what scenario you post.

The billionaire owners you speak of... what are we really talking about here these days.. a handful if that? You can't tell me any player in their right mind would want to own a team, rather than collect a paycheck (The entire Mario fiasco saved for a raiy day )

Habs is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 04:59 PM
  #400
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
I love how you stripped it down to its infancy. The above scenario isn't how it works. If you owned a team that lost 10 million a year, for 10 years.. where are you accounting for your losses?
The median team is making 3 million a year.

There are 8 teams out of 30 losing 10 million a year or more. However, of those, they're not going to permanently down there, and at the same time that their operating income is negative, their franchise valuations are rising.

Quote:
If you invested 300 million into a team, what return on your investment would you expect? What do you think is fair? If the NHLPA can't make the game profitable for the owners, its really not viable no matter what scenario you post.
The median team is worth 220 million, makes 3 million a year in operating income, and has its franchise valuation increase by 13 million a year.

I think that's fair. That's a 7% return in the median. That's pretty good actually.

If there's one owner out of 30 who loses 100 million on a 300 million dollar investment, then damn, that's an incredibly safe investment !!! Safer than real estate, safer than money market funds, safer than commodities.

Quote:
The billionaire owners you speak of... what are we really talking about here these days.. a handful if that? You can't tell me any player in their right mind would want to own a team, rather than collect a paycheck (The entire Mario fiasco saved for a raiy day )
Players can't afford to buy teams, it's been explained a few pages back. The best paid hockey players get 150-200 million over a career, before taxes. You can't buy a team with that money.

DAChampion 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 02:55 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.