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
11-29-2012, 05:42 PM
  #401
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,697
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?

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 )
The owners remind me of the owners of medieval castles in the middle ages and your analysis of castles would yield the same results.

The peasants must work harder and for less otherwise the whole castle industry will go asunder.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 06:21 PM
  #402
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
Link? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd just like to read up on revenue sharing in the other leagues.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade...snt-have-them/

OK, looks like I misunderstood. The NHL is last in revenue sharing, but I think that's just in absolute numbers. For example, it's 150 million in the NHL, 400 million in MLB, but really those two numbers are very similar because MLB is bigger than the NHL.

The NHL is number 1 in income disparity however. The top-3 teams have operating income that is ~130% of league wide operating income. In the NBA, the top 3 teams make 96%, in the NFL the top 3 teams make 35%, and the top 3 teams in MLB made 20% of total profit. From that basis you can reaonable argue that the NHL:
- needs more revenue sharing
- needs a sensible relocation strategy. Winnipeg is a start, Quebec City can come next; I'm not sure which other US markets are the most sensible.

Part of that is due to national televised deals, which are an indirect form of revenue sharing. NFL, NBA, MLB, have great TV deals; the NHL does not.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-29-2012 at 06:43 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 06:42 PM
  #403
MD thaivuN
Muy Dangerous
 
MD thaivuN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,736
vCash: 470
Pk Subban didn't trash Bettman in an interview? The NHLPA ain't going to be happy.

MD thaivuN is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 07:25 PM
  #404
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
Right on the money. Owners get a free pass for running the league into the ground with terrible franchises but the players should get their wages clawed back because the average man only makes so much. What a deluded viewpoint.

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 07:37 PM
  #405
Lars The GOAT Eller
PSN: WildGranlund
 
Lars The GOAT Eller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,553
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Lars The GOAT Eller
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
thanks for being honest, mate.

Lars The GOAT Eller is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 07:58 PM
  #406
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
I found this piece interesting. While I agree there's some bias for both sides of this argument, I don't understand how you can say this.

I played hockey for 10 years of my life and never missed a game or practice.

I wasn't talented enough to make the NHL and had no delusions with that and went on with my life. However, someone 14-24 may chase a dream and in your opinion lost out on life(or something) because they chased a dream. Look, most people get it, I knew of people who were stars in triple A and made the Q. They never made and they knew they wouldn't. Because someone doesn't get that the dream is over at 24 isn't really a problem of the owners or the market.

Really, there's 2 scenarios of what can be deemed as losing out on the dream(for those who play till 24):

1)You aren't good enough and didn't make it. After your Junior days you weren't good enough to be drafted, you weren't good enough for AHL and no legit league overseas had interest in you. You stayed in the ECHL(or equivalent league, maybe worse) holding on to a dream that you should've let go. Nothing wrong with holding on to a dream, but certainly the person in question should understand his odds.

2)You are a decent player and have NHL potential but don't make it. You play in the AHL after being drafted(or maybe not being drafted) and earn a pretty decent salary for your troubles but in the end, you aren't good enough and got passed on the depth chart.


There's other extreme scenarios but this is the idea. In some cases some may get a few games in the NHL and some may not. What matters is the general scenario. Either you held on too long or you got paid for your troubles with professional salary.

Sure, there's health risks, absolutely, but in these cases, if you aren't good enough, stop, if you are a legit prospect then you'll get paid with it and may even get a signing bonus.

No one forces any kid to stay till 24 or later. I think it's extreme to suggest someone chased the dream for a long time and weren't compensated for it. If you're decent, you'll get paid for it, guys like Keith Aucoin get 350k for playing in the AHL.

Honestly, if you're good enough for the AHL or an overseas league, you'll get compensated for it. If you're not good enough for either, you should probably move on at a certain point.

That being said, there are kids who get severly injured in junios and I'm not sure how CHL system is but I can only hope they would take care of full medical bills and all that.

BTW, CHL players get school paid for I believe, if you aren't good enough and go back to school, they pay your uni I think. Same with players on scholarships.

Not only that, are we seriously saying they got screwed by having only 50-200k left in the bank? I'm trying to avoid that, but it sticks out a lot to me. That's a pretty good way to start your next objective IMO.

I don't think it's fair to say it's all doom and gloom. They get to travel, they might get a salary, they might get benefits and they get a chance to chase a dream. I don't think they have to do it if they don't want, it's their choice.

If injuries occur, its part of the system. Honestly, there's a risk, there just is. If there wasn't, they'd get paid half. The desire to push includes the reward. Someone can get injured on the way but if they make it, they might get 10 mil over their career. If I play lotto, what are my odds? They have better odds but less security, it's life. It's unfortunate if they get hurt but it happens. My cousin got hurt and needs to get his knee checked often, he doesn't ***** about it, he had fun playing and knew he wasn't going to make it.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 08:47 PM
  #407
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
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade...snt-have-them/

OK, looks like I misunderstood. The NHL is last in revenue sharing, but I think that's just in absolute numbers. For example, it's 150 million in the NHL, 400 million in MLB, but really those two numbers are very similar because MLB is bigger than the NHL.

The NHL is number 1 in income disparity however. The top-3 teams have operating income that is ~130% of league wide operating income. In the NBA, the top 3 teams make 96%, in the NFL the top 3 teams make 35%, and the top 3 teams in MLB made 20% of total profit. From that basis you can reaonable argue that the NHL:
- needs more revenue sharing
- needs a sensible relocation strategy. Winnipeg is a start, Quebec City can come next; I'm not sure which other US markets are the most sensible.

Part of that is due to national televised deals, which are an indirect form of revenue sharing. NFL, NBA, MLB, have great TV deals; the NHL does not.
Thanks. I do wonder why the rest of the owners don't seem to be pressuring Bettman for more revenue sharing, considering it would only really affect 3 teams, it shouldn't be too hard to get a majority opinion on it.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:42 PM
  #408
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I found this piece interesting. While I agree there's some bias for both sides of this argument, I don't understand how you can say this.

I played hockey for 10 years of my life and never missed a game or practice.

I wasn't talented enough to make the NHL and had no delusions with that and went on with my life. However, someone 14-24 may chase a dream and in your opinion lost out on life(or something) because they chased a dream. Look, most people get it, I knew of people who were stars in triple A and made the Q. They never made and they knew they wouldn't. Because someone doesn't get that the dream is over at 24 isn't really a problem of the owners or the market.

Really, there's 2 scenarios of what can be deemed as losing out on the dream(for those who play till 24):

1)You aren't good enough and didn't make it. After your Junior days you weren't good enough to be drafted, you weren't good enough for AHL and no legit league overseas had interest in you. You stayed in the ECHL(or equivalent league, maybe worse) holding on to a dream that you should've let go. Nothing wrong with holding on to a dream, but certainly the person in question should understand his odds.

2)You are a decent player and have NHL potential but don't make it. You play in the AHL after being drafted(or maybe not being drafted) and earn a pretty decent salary for your troubles but in the end, you aren't good enough and got passed on the depth chart.


There's other extreme scenarios but this is the idea. In some cases some may get a few games in the NHL and some may not. What matters is the general scenario. Either you held on too long or you got paid for your troubles with professional salary.

Sure, there's health risks, absolutely, but in these cases, if you aren't good enough, stop, if you are a legit prospect then you'll get paid with it and may even get a signing bonus.

No one forces any kid to stay till 24 or later. I think it's extreme to suggest someone chased the dream for a long time and weren't compensated for it. If you're decent, you'll get paid for it, guys like Keith Aucoin get 350k for playing in the AHL.

Honestly, if you're good enough for the AHL or an overseas league, you'll get compensated for it. If you're not good enough for either, you should probably move on at a certain point.

That being said, there are kids who get severly injured in junios and I'm not sure how CHL system is but I can only hope they would take care of full medical bills and all that.

BTW, CHL players get school paid for I believe, if you aren't good enough and go back to school, they pay your uni I think. Same with players on scholarships.

Not only that, are we seriously saying they got screwed by having only 50-200k left in the bank? I'm trying to avoid that, but it sticks out a lot to me. That's a pretty good way to start your next objective IMO.

I don't think it's fair to say it's all doom and gloom. They get to travel, they might get a salary, they might get benefits and they get a chance to chase a dream. I don't think they have to do it if they don't want, it's their choice.

If injuries occur, its part of the system. Honestly, there's a risk, there just is. If there wasn't, they'd get paid half. The desire to push includes the reward. Someone can get injured on the way but if they make it, they might get 10 mil over their career. If I play lotto, what are my odds? They have better odds but less security, it's life. It's unfortunate if they get hurt but it happens. My cousin got hurt and needs to get his knee checked often, he doesn't ***** about it, he had fun playing and knew he wasn't going to make it.
Great post. I like reading experiences from people who actually went through the game at some level.

I'm not saying that everybody should be compensated -- I think that's impossible. You're going to end up with some losers and some winners.

What I'm objecting to, is the political ideology of some people being interspersed here, where they basically are saying that owners need to be guaranteed a profit, because they take so many risks, but that players should not receive any guarantees because that's part of life, and they should be happy to just be "rich". Those two views are inconsistent, the standards are completely different. The reason the inconsistency can exist in people's heads is because there is a huge media apparatus indoctrinating us to worship people like Jeremy Jacobs, we are made to believe that things should be easier for them, for example this article:

http://www.rsvlts.com/2012/09/06/21-...verage-people/

To reiterate, ~90% of players drafted (never mind the ones not drafted) won't be good enough for a serious career, they'll have lost out on their investment of time and money, and we're ok with it, everybody is ok with that. But tons of posters are up in arms over the fact that maybe one third of the owners will lose money on their investment. Those two views are totally unbalanced.

Look at some of your comments, "Honestly, if you're good enough for the AHL or an overseas league, you'll get compensated for it.", and "Not only that, are we seriously saying they got screwed by having only 50-200k left in the bank? I'm trying to avoid that, but it sticks out a lot to me. That's a pretty good way to start your next objective IMO." ... are you or anybody else going to make equivalent comments about an owner who buys a team for 250 million, his dream doesn't work out, and he ends up with 150 million at the end counting losses? Are you going to say that he a pretty good way to start on his next objective? No, you are not going to say that, even though it's totally equivalent -- why not?

Further, the latter outcome is extremely unlikely, as the median owner makes money whereas the median player doesn't work out.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-29-2012 at 09:51 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:43 PM
  #409
S Bah
Registered User
 
S Bah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: victoria bc
Country: Wales
Posts: 6,113
vCash: 500
The Lockout Thread -My wonder about the Lockout is there an owner or a player that can quote each employee's name involved in the Team and the Arena which their Team plays in,not their wives or children just the employees.Owners should have that type of commitment to the Team they bought for $250 mil. or less.Really not that many were bought for more than that amount,the Habs maybe a couple more around $300 mil.

S Bah is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:53 PM
  #410
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Great post. I like reading experiences from people who actually went through the game at some level.

I'm not saying that everybody should be compensated -- I think that's impossible. You're going to end up with some losers and some winners.

What I'm objecting to, is the political ideology of some people being interspersed here, where they basically are saying that owners need to be guaranteed a profit, because they take so many risks, but that players should not receive any guarantees because that's part of life, and they should be happy to just be "rich". Those two views are inconsistent, the standards are completely different. The reason the inconsistency can exist in people's heads is because there is a huge media apparatus indoctrinating us to worship people like Jeremy Jacobs, we are made to believe that things should be easier for them, for example this article:

http://www.rsvlts.com/2012/09/06/21-...verage-people/

To reiterate, ~90% of players drafted (never mind the ones not drafted) won't be good enough for a serious career, they'll have lost out on their investment of time and money, and we're ok with it, everybody is ok with that. But tons of posters are up in arms over the fact that maybe one third of the owners will lose money on their investment. Those two views are totally unbalanced.

Look at some of your comments, "Honestly, if you're good enough for the AHL or an overseas league, you'll get compensated for it.", and "Not only that, are we seriously saying they got screwed by having only 50-200k left in the bank? I'm trying to avoid that, but it sticks out a lot to me. That's a pretty good way to start your next objective IMO." ... are you or anybody else going to make equivalent comments about an owner who buys a team for 250 million, his dream doesn't work out, and he ends up with 150 million at the end counting losses? Are you going to say that he a pretty good way to start on his next objective? No, you are not going to say that, even though it's totally equivalent -- why not?

Further, the latter outcome is extremely unlikely, as the median owner makes money whereas the median player doesn't work out.
I wasn't relating it to owners, I was just responding to that paragraph.

In regards to owners, I never said that, so not sure why it matters.

IMO, owners should be given a reasonable chance at success. That includes Revenue Sharing and it includes cutting salaries for me. This isn't a "it's a player responsibility" thing. PHX can try but they aren't gonna grow when they are losing money. It's just common sense, give them breathing space.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 11:42 PM
  #411
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I wasn't relating it to owners, I was just responding to that paragraph.

In regards to owners, I never said that, so not sure why it matters.

IMO, owners should be given a reasonable chance at success. That includes Revenue Sharing and it includes cutting salaries for me. This isn't a "it's a player responsibility" thing. PHX can try but they aren't gonna grow when they are losing money. It's just common sense, give them breathing space.
The reason I brought up the issues of what risks the players take on the road to becoming players is that there were posters saying that players take zero risks, or that too many owners are at risk of losing money, etc. I raised these issues to demonstrate their inconsistency.

Both owners and players take risks on the way to achieving their positions. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has done a proper actuarial analaysis of which population takes more risks and the rewards relative to opportunity cost -- the latter of which is not measured by "50/50" or "57/43". As I have refuted the simplified idea of some people, that players take zero risks (usually written with the euphemistic "owners take all the risks"), this argument is dead in the water and will remain so till someone posts something more substantial.

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

Most owners have a reasonable chance of success. 17 of 30 teams have positive operating incomes, and 26 of 30 teams have increasing franchise valuations last year. With the players proposal to have more revenue sharing and a convergence to 50/50 even more owners will have a chance of success.

Paying players for exiting contracts -- the players last outstanding demand -- is not going to damage the Phoenix Coyotes.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-29-2012 at 11:56 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:24 AM
  #412
Born in 1909
Vive la France!
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,084
vCash: 500
Bottom line for me is that player salaries rose too far too fast.

The NHLPA has lost perspective... which sometimes happens to the very wealthy.

The young guys will continue do very well financially going forward... regardless.

Sign the offer and lace them up.

Born in 1909 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:35 AM
  #413
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Born in 1909 View Post
Bottom line for me is that player salaries rose too far too fast.

The NHLPA has lost perspective... which sometimes happens to the very wealthy.

The young guys will continue do very well financially going forward... regardless.

Sign the offer and lace them up.
That's because the game grew so fast. If more people are coming to watch them play, at ever increasing prices, then they should be making more money.

50/50 after all contracts are paid, increase revenue sharing by a bit, and get back on the ice.

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:11 AM
  #414
bib
#believe
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,488
vCash: 500
Jan Bulis outscoring Andrei Kostitsyn on Khl team Chelyabinsk Traktor lol.

bib is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:15 AM
  #415
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I wasn't relating it to owners, I was just responding to that paragraph.

In regards to owners, I never said that, so not sure why it matters.

IMO, owners should be given a reasonable chance at success. That includes Revenue Sharing and it includes cutting salaries for me. This isn't a "it's a player responsibility" thing. PHX can try but they aren't gonna grow when they are losing money. It's just common sense, give them breathing space.
well, they've been there for 15 years, have made the PO half the time, even at the beginning (even though it was easier as it was ther Jets moving, not a brand new team), they had close or over 100 pts seasons the last 3 years... end result ? last 3 season were their worst when it comes to attendance.

so if you think the solution for teams like that is to save on salary, you're wrong.

ECWHSWI is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 06:34 AM
  #416
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bib View Post
Jan Bulis outscoring Andrei Kostitsyn on Khl team Chelyabinsk Traktor lol.
He's doing much better than Pacioretty was in the Swiss league.

Andy is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 07:04 AM
  #417
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,120
vCash: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by bib View Post
Jan Bulis outscoring Andrei Kostitsyn on Khl team Chelyabinsk Traktor lol.
Malkin is third in KHL scoring, but only because he gets the chance to play with leading scorer Sergei Mozyakin who is clearly the best player in hockey right now.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 07:59 AM
  #418
Habs 4 Life
No Excuses
 
Habs 4 Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Italy
Posts: 34,024
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by bib View Post
Jan Bulis outscoring Andrei Kostitsyn on Khl team Chelyabinsk Traktor lol.
all those people who wanted to keep Kostitsyn around and even bring him back this past summer.... lol

Habs 4 Life is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 08:08 AM
  #419
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
BTW, CHL players get school paid for I believe, if you aren't good enough and go back to school, they pay your uni I think. Same with players on scholarships.
Only partially true. CHL players must use their scholarships within 18 months of finishing their junior careers. So basically you get about one year of professional hockey to decide whether you need to go back to school or not (because the other six months are the summer after you finish your CHL career and the summer before schools starts, after your first year of pro).

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 08:12 AM
  #420
Tim Wallach
Registered User
 
Tim Wallach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
Only partially true. CHL players must use their scholarships within 18 months of finishing their junior careers. So basically you get about one year of professional hockey to decide whether you need to go back to school or not (because the other six months are the summer after you finish your CHL career and the summer before schools starts, after your first year of pro).
Keep in mind though that the vast majority of junior players attend some college or university while still in junior. And many complete 2 or 3 years if they play an OA year. So most guys at least get a portion of their university education paid even if they sign a pro contract after junior.

Tim Wallach is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 08:22 AM
  #421
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Wallach View Post
Keep in mind though that the vast majority of junior players attend some college or university while still in junior. And many complete 2 or 3 years if they play an OA year. So most guys at least get a portion of their university education paid even if they sign a pro contract after junior.
Source? Because what I have read says the exact opposite:

"For one, only about 32 per cent of CHL players are tapping into the scholarship program."

and

"Players may pursue a pro career in the lower minor leagues the first year after major junior, but it's often an either/or proposition. And for those who sign a contract in the NHL, AHL or top European leagues, they are ineligible for scholarship funds no matter the length of their career."

http://www.globecampus.ca/in-the-new...-a-crossroads/

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:58 PM
  #422
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
A rare academic.

bsl is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:01 PM
  #423
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
There is nothing to fallback on if you don't have a contract.
If you don't have a contract, then you're not playing hockey. So what are we discussing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
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.
It's not irrelevant. Point is they earn good money even if they don't make it to the NHL. Play two years in the AHL, you get 120-140K according to your own numbers. I really have to explain how they earn 6 digits?
Not everybody does earn that, but many, many do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
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!
Who said he was set for life? Man, can you guys stop going to extremes, it's becoming quite annoying and childish.
Everybody in the world takes risks in life, this kid had the luxury to chase his dream and even play some NHL games. Unfortunately he suffered a bad injury. Even if 62K was all he earned (which it isn't, he's earned a lot more over the years), it's still a good enough salary to bounce back on your feet.
People bounce back on their feet from zero dollars, heck, sometimes even from being in the minus. So ya, 62K is plenty enough to go to school full time, and not even have to worry about income in the first year at least.


Last edited by Kriss E: 11-30-2012 at 01:06 PM.
Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:27 PM
  #424
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
How far out of touch are you with reality?
Most students start school with a '' - '' next to the amount of cash they hold. They live on credit. You're arguing about someone that has 50 to 200K in his bank account??
Behind the curve in time at 24??? You're still a freaking kid at that age, you're not behind any curve.
If a player was too stupid and opted not to finish high school, well, that's on him and his parents. Otherwise, they can enter college, and that's just fine.

I don't hold a different tune for owners. They are an extreme minority that can afford and are interested in a franchise. They hold the bigger end of the stick. They don't need to watch out for anything, but they have every right to want 50-50 split effective immediately, which means rollback of salaries. They also have every right to not want to eat the crap alone if the league's revenues decrease.

If an owner becomes broke after his retirement because he wasted his cash on superficial garbage, then yea, it's on him. You don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. Same thing for the player. I don't see how this means the owners aren't entitled to wanting 50-50 split right away.

If investing in a franchise wasn't financially interesting, then there would be no owners, or NHL.

The players you talk about for the 5-10 years are past juniors I'm guessing, the 14-24 age range you previously mentioned.
First off, it's never wasting years when you're chasing a dream and doing what you love. Never.
Second, if they're still playing at 24, in the AHL, then they earned a pretty good pay on average.
Third, I could say and the player's situation is infinitely better than the one of the student that has to work 40hours a week at a dead end job earning 10$/h on top of going to school full time, graduate in a tough or saturated industry, with big debts, can't find a job, and so be stuck at another dead end job.

Players don't have it bad. Nor do the owners. Still don't see how this means owners shouldn't get what they're demanding.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:55 PM
  #425
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
Very interesting. Good research. Jacobs fascinates me. I wonder what his background is, and who his friends are. If he is in fact dictating to other owners, he must be immensely powerful in North American business. Seems like he can hurt anyone, everywhere, including the Molsons and MLSE, evidently.

Who are you Jeremy? I can't figure you out:

Wiki:

Jacobs owns and operates the Delaware North Companies, founded by his father. Delaware North is a global hospitality and food service business headquartered in Buffalo, N.Y. It is one of the largest privately held companies in North America. The company operates in the lodging, sporting, airport, gaming and entertainment industries. The company employs over 55,000 people worldwide and has over $2.5 billion in annual revenues.

Delaware North also owns and manages TD Garden, home to the Bruins and the Boston Celtics, and one of the top concert and sports venues in North America.[6] Home to approximately 200 public events annually, the TD Garden hosts well over 3.5 million people each year.


This sounds like nothing, really, nothing. Headquartered in Buffalo. Yes, Buffalo.

Gaming and entertainment industry.

Hmmm....

What is going on with this family? 'Global hospitality and Food service.' Huh? 'Airport'? Huh?

I design hotels for some of the biggest hotel groups in the world, have been to conferences here in Asia with their management many times.

They are:

1 InterContinental Hotel Group

2 Wyndham Hotel Group

3 Marriott International

4 Hilton Hotels

5 Accor Group

6 Choice Hotels

7 Best Western

8 Starwood Hotels & Resorts

9 Carlson

10 Global Hyatt

I have never, not once, heard the name 'Delaware North Companies' in relation to the hospitality industry.

Where is your cash coming from Jeremy? Not from Hotels and Hospitality, that's for sure.

Bit of a dodgy git aren't you I bet?


Last edited by bsl: 11-30-2012 at 02:01 PM.
bsl is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.