HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Owner-Player meeting only, no Bettman or Fehr (UPD: 12/4 in NYC)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 10:07 AM
  #126
BoltSTH
Registered User
 
BoltSTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 990
vCash: 500
Better the player agents than the players. They seem to be able to get the owners to fork out large amount of $, and persuade players to take the deal they negotiated.

BoltSTH is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:12 AM
  #127
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoltSTH View Post
Better the player agents than the players. They seem to be able to get the owners to fork out large amount of $, and persuade players to take the deal they negotiated.
The problem is agents have no incentive to get players full value for their current contracts. They've already been paid for negotiating those.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:59 AM
  #128
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,180
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Sure Fehr wants to get a deal done! But he wants a deal that keeps or makes his reputation that he can get done for the players even more than some of them may expect. He wants to pull off the "win", even though it could cost the game. Of course I'm perhaps being overly negative, but he is a union negotiator, not a hockey-first guy.
And while I can never claim with any certainty that his motives are not what you describe above, I don't believe for a second that he is letting his ego drive the negotiations.

Regarding the bolded part, I see that as being a positive thing. Not a negative thing.

The NHLPA has long been led by Hockey guys and they have gotten screwed and mis-led.

Having someone lead the NHLPA that is not a Hockey guy is not a bad thing so much as it wasn't a bad thing that the Commish was not a Hockey guy either.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:07 AM
  #129
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
And while I can never claim with any certainty that his motives are not what you describe above, I don't believe for a second that he is letting his ego drive the negotiations.

Regarding the bolded part, I see that as being a positive thing. Not a negative thing.

The NHLPA has long been led by Hockey guys and they have gotten screwed and mis-led.

Having someone lead the NHLPA that is not a Hockey guy is not a bad thing so much as it wasn't a bad thing that the Commish was not a Hockey guy either.
Oh yea, the players really got screwed in the last CBA.

As some here might say, No one is really "getting screwed" in all this. The players have done fairly well for themselves in the NHL, some owners are raking in tons of money, others at least breaking even or a little better, and most of the others being helped out by revenue sharing. The only people being screwed are the fans who are losing out on hockey as the lockout drags on; the fans who actually provide the dollars that fill the pockets of all involved in the League. So anyone, be it Bettman or whoever, who can come up with a plan that could ultimately get the game back on ice is then doing the fans a great favor, as well as those who depend on those fans' paying dollars.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 11-30-2012 at 11:18 AM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:13 AM
  #130
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,180
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmycrackcorn View Post
We're all entitled to our own opinions.

I'm pro-reality. Don't give a rats *** about the players or the owners - sick of them both to be honest.

Eventually the PA will splinter. Maybe next week - maybe next summer. And they will never recover their lost earnings. Count on it.

"Fair" or "not fair" is not part of the equation here. Life isn't fair in the "real world". These self-entitled NHL players will eventually "get it". At least the smart ones.
They may in fact splinter. It won't be because of this meeting.

As for the rest of the post, as you state, you are entitled to your opinion.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:15 AM
  #131
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,180
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Oh yea, the players really got screwed in the last CBA.
Did they want a Salary Cap? No. Did they have to settle for one? Yes.

Did they want their salaries cut by 24%? No. Did they have their salaries cut by 24%? Yes.

Based on what they wanted, and what their "Leader" offered, yeah I would say that they did infact get screwed.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:15 AM
  #132
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,963
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by echlfreak View Post
what about in terms of directly dealing with the owners without representation?


How about this as a proposal...if the players and owners can come to an agreement in the next few days. The combined cost of DF and GB salaries be given back to the fans...$11.5M. In the form of ticket discounts?
I believe Fehr and Bettman declined to receive any salary during the lockout. Even if they did give back their massive $11.5 millions "to the fans". The league attendance last year was 21.4 million. That's a massive 50 cents off per ticket. What a great gesture.

cheswick is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:19 AM
  #133
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,963
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Did they want a Salary Cap? No. Did they have to settle for one? Yes.

Did they want their salaries cut by 24%? No. Did they have their salaries cut by 24%? Yes.

Based on what they wanted, and what their "Leader" offered, yeah I would say that they did infact get screwed.
The fact they conceded on some points auotmatically means they got screwed?

So by your definition they offered a hard cap of $50 million and were instead "screwed" into taking a linked cap which rose to $70 million.

cheswick is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:21 AM
  #134
middletoe
Why am I me?
 
middletoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,794
vCash: 500
It would be nice if they got together and came out of it as partners. Is that possible?

middletoe is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:21 AM
  #135
GoCanes2013
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 916
vCash: 500
Do it with the Mediators present on both sides. Gives the players some added protection on the business/negotiating side of things.

GoCanes2013 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:22 AM
  #136
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Did they want a Salary Cap? No. Did they have to settle for one? Yes.

Did they want their salaries cut by 24%? No. Did they have their salaries cut by 24%? Yes.

Based on what they wanted, and what their "Leader" offered, yeah I would say that they did infact get screwed.
Just because they didn't get exactly what they wanted doesn't in any way mean that they got screwed.

And without that Salary Cap, a percentage of them might very well not be playing in the NHL today, because the League may have had to contract a few teams.

Adding this: In these types of negotiations, just because one side asks for something doesn't necessarily mean that they truly expect to get it. Setting the bar high (or low) seems to be the general rule, wasting a lot of time along the way unless the other side is very stupid. Besides that, we as fans can be thankful that the players didn't and don't get all that they ask for.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 11-30-2012 at 11:33 AM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:22 AM
  #137
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,180
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
The fact they conceded on some points auotmatically means they got screwed?

So by your definition they offered a hard cap of $50 million and were instead "screwed" into taking a linked cap which rose to $70 million.
Conceded?

The NHL wasn't asking for the 24% cut in salary. The Union leader offered that up and the NHL took it along with implementing a three tiered salary cap. No other league has what the NHL has in tha regards.

Conceding to the Cap was an inevitibility. Giving up the 24% was a screw up of fireable proportions and guess what happened? Goodenow got fired.

Yes, the players got screwed by their own leader.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:29 AM
  #138
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,180
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
The fact they conceded on some points auotmatically means they got screwed?

So by your definition they offered a hard cap of $50 million and were instead "screwed" into taking a linked cap which rose to $70 million.
that was a negotiated portion of the deal that the NHL is now looking to eliminate.

They want a fixed % linked to HRR.

The NHL bets against itself time and again and had they even thought that revenues would grow like this, they wouldn't have given in on that point.

Even when they made their first offer it was with the belief that revenues were not expected to continue to grow at the same rate it has the last 2+ years.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:45 AM
  #139
Tont
Registered User
 
Tont's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 781
vCash: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Just for kicks, and off the top of my head:

Self-made: Ilitch, Vinik, Samueli, Melnyk?, Katz?, Leonsis, Karmanos, Wang, Pegula, Burkle?

Family: Jacobs, Wirtz, Gaglardi, Anschutz (although he turned millions into billions), Aquilini, Leipold (wife), Thomson, Chipman, Snider, Molson, Dolan, Kroenke/Walton

?? = Edwards, Sharks group, Nashville group, Panthers owners, Vanderbeek, CBJ?

N/A - Toronto
Edwards is self-made, from Alberta oil.

Tont is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:01 PM
  #140
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,291
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Just for kicks, and off the top of my head:

Self-made: Ilitch, Vinik, Samueli, Melnyk?, Katz?, Leonsis, Karmanos, Wang, Pegula, Burkle?

Family: Jacobs, Wirtz, Gaglardi, Anschutz (although he turned millions into billions), Aquilini, Leipold (wife), Thomson, Chipman, Snider, Molson, Dolan, Kroenke/Walton
I'm not really sure Chipman deserves the sole "family" tag. In reality he took the experience of working with his father's car dealerships and built it into a separate leasing company, National Leasing, and then sold that to a bank. While the family businesses are certainly intertwined with his own successes, he is rocket-surgeon sharp and would have succeeded at whatever endeavor he chose. That is why David Thomson initially partnered with him, because he is so good at what he does.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:02 PM
  #141
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Oh yea, the players really got screwed in the last CBA.

As some here might say, No one is really "getting screwed" in all this. The players have done fairly well for themselves in the NHL, some owners are raking in tons of money, others at least breaking even or a little better, and most of the others being helped out by revenue sharing. The only people being screwed are the fans who are losing out on hockey as the lockout drags on; the fans who actually provide the dollars that fill the pockets of all involved in the League. So anyone, be it Bettman or whoever, who can come up with a plan that could ultimately get the game back on ice is then doing the fans a great favor, as well as those who depend on those fans' paying dollars.
Yeah: They pleaded for the NHL to blow a year to enforce a system that'd "fix everything" but didn't, just to do it again in 7 years! Pointless work stoppages for all!

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:09 PM
  #142
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,995
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Yeah: They pleaded for the NHL to blow a year to enforce a system that'd "fix everything" but didn't, just to do it again in 7 years! Pointless work stoppages for all!
I'm sure that you have no problem finding a quote where NHL says that the 2005 CBA will "fix everything"?

Freudian is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:46 PM
  #143
Lorenzo1000
Registered User
 
Lorenzo1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 585
vCash: 500
There's a lot of negative talk in this thread. In all honesty the possibility exists that if the players are in the room with their owners, who they may have a personal relationship with, then perhaps they can come to a better understanding of each other's viewpoints and find someway to meet in the middle. I sure hope so!!!

Lorenzo1000 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:50 PM
  #144
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,180
vCash: 873
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I'm sure that you have no problem finding a quote where NHL says that the 2005 CBA will "fix everything"?
Maybe not the exact quote, but he did say time and again that the last system was needed to ensure all teams remained viable.

That the system would be better for the fans (lol, that one is still funny)

That the system addresses the economic issues that the weaker teams were suffering from.

He failed on all three counts and is hardlining now because he needs to save face and finally try to get the owners what he failed to get them in 1994 and 2005.

Fact is, the NHLPA could accept the hardline owners initial proposal and we will still be here in at the end of this CBA locked out again because the low revenue generating teams will still not have been able to keep up with the escalating salaries and now the owners are looking to reduce the portion of the pie the players get from 50/50 to 55/45 for the owners. IN ADDITION to further tightening on contractual issues such as extending UFA status back to 30 years old.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:52 PM
  #145
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,180
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzo1000 View Post
There's a lot of negative talk in this thread. In all honesty the possibility exists that if the players are in the room with their owners, who they may have a personal relationship with, then perhaps they can come to a better understanding of each other's viewpoints and find someway to meet in the middle. I sure hope so!!!
To a large degree, I agree with this.

The main issue that could have a negative impact is which owners are in the room.

Do you get the same 4 guys that are on the BOG?

Or do you get all 30 owners in with all 30 player Reps and keep the twin D-Bags (Bettman and Fehr) out.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:55 PM
  #146
CrazyJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 186
vCash: 1295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Bettman's offer is truly genius. It forces NHLPA to either sideline Fehr or make themselves look like unwilling to negotiate.

A win-win for the NHL.

Now, the question is can this meeting do any harm to negotiations? I don't think that's possible.

I'll say let's do it because IMHO it give us a better chance to see NHL this season.

NHLPA won't do any good to it's decertification idea if it refuses this, it makes the NHL's inevitable "decertification is just a negotiation tactic" -claim much more credible in the court room.
I don't find it to be genius at all. It is just another attempt to swing PR their way, which does nothing to bringing hockey back. At the end of the day, does it really matter who the fans are upset with? I blame the owners, many blame the players, but what we all have in common is we just want hockey back on the ice.

This offer does nothing for putting hockey back on the ice.

CrazyJ is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:59 PM
  #147
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,995
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Maybe not the exact quote, but he did say time and again that the last system was needed to ensure all teams remained viable.

That the system would be better for the fans (lol, that one is still funny)

That the system addresses the economic issues that the weaker teams were suffering from.

He failed on all three counts and is hardlining now because he needs to save face and finally try to get the owners what he failed to get them in 1994 and 2005.

Fact is, the NHLPA could accept the hardline owners initial proposal and we will still be here in at the end of this CBA locked out again because the low revenue generating teams will still not have been able to keep up with the escalating salaries and now the owners are looking to reduce the portion of the pie the players get from 50/50 to 55/45 for the owners. IN ADDITION to further tightening on contractual issues such as extending UFA status back to 30 years old.
It's not only not an exact quote, it's a complete mis-characterization of what he actually said.

Bettman said the league wanted cost certainty and they got it. But there also were some problems that surfaced (inflationary pressure from appreciation of the Canadian dollar, the players using the escalator mechanism at every chance, teams signing players to cap circumvention contracts). There is also a reason why CBAs are limited in duration. It's because it gives a chance to go back and fix what doesn't work. That's what the owners are trying now.

There is no conflict between the owners goals in 2005 and the owners goals now. It only in the minds of those that deliberately want to misunderstand things and claim the owners think the last CBA was the ultimate fix for all problems with the league. It never was and they never claimed it was.

Freudian is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:09 PM
  #148
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Did they want a Salary Cap? No. Did they have to settle for one? Yes.

Did they want their salaries cut by 24%? No. Did they have their salaries cut by 24%? Yes.

Based on what they wanted, and what their "Leader" offered, yeah I would say that they did infact get screwed.
Did they keep their jobs because the 30-team league survived? Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
It's not only not an exact quote, it's a complete mis-characterization of what he actually said.

Bettman said the league wanted cost certainty and they got it. But there also were some problems that surfaced (inflationary pressure from appreciation of the Canadian dollar, the players using the escalator mechanism at every chance, teams signing players to cap circumvention contracts). There is also a reason why CBAs are limited in duration. It's because it gives a chance to go back and fix what doesn't work. That's what the owners are trying now.

There is no conflict between the owners goals in 2005 and the owners goals now. It only in the minds of those that deliberately want to misunderstand things and claim the owners think the last CBA was the ultimate fix for all problems with the league. It never was and they never claimed it was.
Exactly, the idea that the owners somehow get one shot at creating the perfect business model is stupid. Adjustments are always necessary in any business. As an example, Bettman warned teams about the cap circumvention contracts that they were handing out and the last I heard he was going to do something about taking some punitive action against them in this CBA for doing it. I hope that is just one of the things that comes to pass in the next CBA.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:13 PM
  #149
Perrah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
It's not only not an exact quote, it's a complete mis-characterization of what he actually said.

Bettman said the league wanted cost certainty and they got it. But there also were some problems that surfaced (inflationary pressure from appreciation of the Canadian dollar, the players using the escalator mechanism at every chance, teams signing players to cap circumvention contracts). There is also a reason why CBAs are limited in duration. It's because it gives a chance to go back and fix what doesn't work. That's what the owners are trying now.

There is no conflict between the owners goals in 2005 and the owners goals now. It only in the minds of those that deliberately want to misunderstand things and claim the owners think the last CBA was the ultimate fix for all problems with the league. It never was and they never claimed it was.
“From our standpoint, we believe that the agreement will give 30 stable, healthy, competitive teams and that the fans in all of our markets will have every opportunity to think they have a shot at winning the cup,” Bettman said yesterday

http://www.hockeyinsideout.com/news/...004-05-lockout

You cant go blaming the players for mucking it up when they only used the power given to them in the agreement that was to give 30 stable, healthy competitive teams.


Last edited by Perrah: 11-30-2012 at 01:18 PM.
Perrah is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:17 PM
  #150
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perrah View Post
“From our standpoint, we believe that the agreement will give 30 stable, healthy, competitive teams and that the fans in all of our markets will have every opportunity to think they have a shot at winning the cup,” Bettman said yesterday

http://www.hockeyinsideout.com/news/...004-05-lockout
So what?

The bolded part is what is important to the fans. Do I really care if the owners have to do some more work on revenue sharing and cutting player salaries to make the 30 franchises stable? No, I don't.

If the owners and players want to maintain 30 franchises and all of the jobs they provide they are going to have to make some hard decisions on re-location of a 1-3 teams, increased revenue sharing, and lower costs for the owners (reducing players' share of HRR).

KINGS17 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 10:19 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.