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
11-30-2012, 04:19 PM
  #451
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
If the players want to pay their own insurances, meals, flights, hotels, training, scouting and coaching staff, players in the minors, arena locations and staff... Well, give them 90%.
LOL, but why should the owners even get 10% at that point?

Don't know your stance, so this may or may not be directed at you: Hypothetically speaking, if the NHLPA could come up with the 2 or 3 billion(or wtv) it would cost to buy the NHL outright from all the owners, and keep all staff in place as is right now, does anyone in their right mind believe that they wouldn't want to? People act as if the players would lose money if they owned the league as well. Who the heck gave them that idea?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The remainder of their contracts is guaranteed even if they suffer a career ending injury. That's all I ever said about that.
You also brought up the NHL minimum salary as if it was relevant to your point so.. No, a lot of players will never see that minimum salary. If players cave, maybe that minimum keeps dropping? maybe the 60-70K in the AHL becomes 50-60?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
As for the risks, they take health risks, not financial. Again, that's what I said.
Their health is directly related to their finance. If you mean that they don't pay guys like Bergevin and things like airfare and hotels, then you're right. We pay that, by spending 100's and 100's going to watch the players play.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Yes, I also said close to it, 70K to me is close to it, not to mention, some actually earn over it.
No it isn't "close". 60K is closer to 25K than it is to 100K, before taxes. 70 to 45 as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I never said people are ''ballin'' if they make six figures, I said they made enough to get off their ass and do something else. Is it really that hard to understand?
hmm.. a little bitterness there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I never said 62 or 200K is something special. I said it's better than what most student have when they go through college or uni. The fact you guys can't even admit that is rather troubling.
Yes, facts state that they should be better off than the average student. So what? Doesn't mean the players have it easy. They work hella hard to get where they are, and we pay to watch THEM play. Owners are better off than every player and student combined. Have you used that line of logic at all in your thinking?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I also never cried for any owners. I said they're entitled to the 50-50 split effective immediately.
I say their entitled to whatever is agreed upon in this, and I use the term loosely, "partnership". My opinion though, is that they should honor all contracts signed until they reach the point where it all adds up to 50/50. Maybe a slight rollback, if that's what's needed, so as to not punish those without contracts (Subban) too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Every occupation has its risks. The players are no different. People act like they should have some guarantees against it.

The point is, thats life. We all take that risk that something could happen and we have nothing to fall back on. A freaking clerk at a convenience store takes more risk than a hockey player.

To sit back and say whoa is me, i dont have a contract so im at risk. I will counter and say there is no guarantees in life. That person who went to school for 5 years has no guarantee either. Sucks to be in the real world dont it.
You're missing the point. I'm not advocating for the players to get more than they have. No one is, not even the NHLPA themselves. I'm defending them from this ridiculous notion that they have it easy and take no risks on their way to being filthy rich.


Last edited by HankyZetts: 11-30-2012 at 04:28 PM.
HankyZetts is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:44 PM
  #452
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,857
vCash: 500
Very interesting tweets from Lundqvist...

Quote:
Henrik Lundqvist ‏@HLundqvist30
If the plan is to have meetings between players and owners to solve this mess, maybe it's time to..

Henrik Lundqvist ‏@HLundqvist30
..allow teams that actually are carrying the league finacially to get involved. So far I have not seen any invitations to the meeting room..

Et le But is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:45 PM
  #453
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
LOL, but why should the owners even get 10% at that point?

Don't know your stance, so this may or may not be directed at you: Hypothetically speaking, if the NHLPA could come up with the 2 or 3 billion(or wtv) it would cost to buy the NHL outright from all the owners, and keep all staff in place as is right now, does anyone in their right mind believe that they wouldn't want to? People act as if the players would lose money if they owned the league as well. Who the heck gave them that idea?
Massive conflict of interest.
Not to mention, not everybody can effectively run a multi-billion dollar business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
You also brought up the NHL minimum salary as if it was relevant to your point so.. No, a lot of players will never see that minimum salary. If players cave, maybe that minimum keeps dropping? maybe the 60-70K in the AHL becomes 50-60?
Yes, because I was talking about regular NHLers that suffer career ending injuries.
Is it really that tough to keep up with a conversation?

Who knows what the minimum would be rolled back to. We will see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Their health is directly related to their finance. If you mean that they don't pay guys like Bergevin and things like airfare and hotels, then you're right. We pay that, by spending 100's and 100's going to watch the players play.
Related, but it's not a financial risk.
A financial risk is directly involving money and investments. Everybody in the world takes health risk that can affect their revenues, but that's not what a financial risk is.

Populations consumes products, it's life. Everything in life is paid for by the people.
This is news?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
No it isn't "close". 60K is closer to 25K than it is to 100K, before taxes. 70 to 45 as well.
And 70K is closer to 100 than to 35K..see what I did there? Clever hey?
60-70K are above average salaries. Also, again, you are not counting the guys in the AHL that actually make six figures.
Not to mention, the endorsements a lot of players have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
hmm.. a little bitterness there?
No bitterness. Annoyed that I have to explain such simple things over and over again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
Yes, facts state that they should be better off than the average student. So what? Doesn't mean the players have it easy. They work hella hard to get where they are, and we pay to watch THEM play. Owners are better off than every player and student combined. Have you used that line of logic at all in your thinking?
So what? So nothing. That's all I was saying. They are better off than most students, and worked hard for it. Good for them. I was arguing with DA because he liked to make it seem as if they would be in a horrendous situation.

Owners are better off than most of the whole world. They worked really hard for it as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
I say their entitled to whatever is agreed upon in this, and I use the term loosely, "partnership". My opinion though, is that they should honor all contracts signed until they reach the point where it all adds up to 50/50. Maybe a slight rollback, if that's what's needed, so as to not punish those without contracts (Subban) too much.
Point is, if the season is canceled, the players will lose more cash from missing the year than they would were they to have accepted a 12% rollback. I said right from the start, we're pass the point of winning or losing this lockout, it's about cutting losses short.


Last edited by Kriss E: 11-30-2012 at 04:50 PM.
Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:45 PM
  #454
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
The owners still bear financial risk no matter what CBA is in effect lets not go off the deep end that they are asking for a perfect situation.

I think what most are looking for is the optimal environment where a well run organization can still break even or make a modest profit at least.

The players risk is no different than any other occupation.
The median owner made a 3 million dollar operating income last year, and saw a 13 million dollar increase in the valuation of his franchise. That is median, not average. It's not "the optimal environment". It's the "median environment". The owners will be even better off if they agree to the union's terms of a 50/50 split.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
if your argument is that players take risks too, that means nothing because everyone faces those risk.
if your argument is that owners take risks too, that means nothing because everyone faces those risks.

In this case, the players invest time and the owners invest money, don't know if you're aware, time and money are economically equivalent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
If you use that argument you are basically affirming indirectly your believe their should be some guarantee.
Potential players making the investment necessary for us to enjoy a game in fifteen years have no guarantees and cannot have any guarantees. They can suffer career-ending injuries... remember Mathieu Carle? He was a 2nd round pick for the Montreal Canadiens, a really good prospect. He had three major injuries on his way to the NHL, and didn't make it.

The injuries included 1 or 2 concussions, so the odds of him going back to school to study medicine or finance or whatever are pretty much shot. He is ruined. No pension from the NHL, no health insurance. I looked him up, he's currently a plug halfway across the world in the KHL, doing poorly.

That's the tremendous financial risk taken on by any teen who wishes to go on the path of being an NHL player: ending up with nothing but bad health.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
when talking risk of owners, anyone with half a brain cell realizes people are talking financial.
There are financial losses for the players as well if they don't make it. They lose years of their lives, may have debilitating physiological damage, and will start off behind in the job market and face age discrimination. All of those effects have financial repercussions.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:50 PM
  #455
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,803
vCash: 500
I'm reminded of this:



Hockey entertainers, much like musicians, software engineers, or neurosurgeons, are skilled workers who require tremendous training to be able to achieve what they do.

A big problem in corporate America, highlited by the above graphic, but also true among the sycophants of the billionaires, is that people implicitly assume that there are no costs in training a skilled labor force.

Bottom line: skilled workers cost money. That's why the players get 76% of HRR in a free market.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-30-2012 at 04:59 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:53 PM
  #456
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The median owner made a 3 million dollar operating income last year, and saw a 13 million dollar increase in the valuation of his franchise. That is median, not average. It's not "the optimal environment". It's the "median environment". The owners will be even better off if they agree to the union's terms of a 50/50 split.


if your argument is that owners take risks too, that means nothing because everyone faces those risks.

In this case, the players invest time and the owners invest money, don't know if you're aware, time and money are economically equivalent.


Potential players making the investment necessary for us to enjoy a game in fifteen years have no guarantees and cannot have any guarantees. They can suffer career-ending injuries... remember Mathieu Carle? He was a 2nd round pick for the Montreal Canadiens, a really good prospect. He had three major injuries on his way to the NHL, and didn't make it.

The injuries included 1 or 2 concussions, so the odds of him going back to school to study medicine or finance or whatever are pretty much shot. He is ruined. No pension from the NHL, no health insurance. I looked him up, he's currently a plug halfway across the world in the KHL, doing poorly.

That's the tremendous financial risk taken on by any teen who wishes to go on the path of being an NHL player: ending up with nothing but bad health.


There are financial losses for the players as well if they don't make it. They lose years of their lives, may have debilitating physiological damage, and will start off behind in the job market and face age discrimination. All of those effects have financial repercussions.
you keep arguing risks that every one puts in life.

The owners put the financial risk up front. The players dont. Owners put up their current money and potential income, players put up their potential income just like every one in this world.

and the franchise value doesnt hold any water. Its no different than a player being able to make investments because he makes millions of dollars a year. Or players getting tv deals, commercials, endorsements etc etc.


Last edited by Kirk Muller: 11-30-2012 at 05:03 PM.
Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:02 PM
  #457
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,857
vCash: 500
Lundqvist again claiming the owners from the big market teams have not been at the negotiating table....

If he's right and Bettman is undermining the wealthier teams to do the biding of the the markets losing money and Jacobs, than Bettman will confirm his place as the worst commissioner in sports.

Et le But is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:05 PM
  #458
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
you keep arguing risks that every one puts in life.

The owners put the financial risk up front. The players dont. Owners put up their current money and potential income, players put up their potential income just like every one in this world.
OK.

When middle class and upper-middle class people take risks, it's to be undermined, because all other middle class people take those same risks (which isn't even true).

When billionaires take risks... well that's different.


DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:06 PM
  #459
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
No I never said an owner can cut the salaries just because he feels like it. I said it based on the 50-50 revenue. I didn't think I actually had to explain this to you.
accounting 101.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:07 PM
  #460
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
Lundqvist again claiming the owners from the big market teams have not been at the negotiating table....

If he's right and Bettman is undermining the wealthier teams to do the biding of the the markets losing money and Jacobs, than Bettman will confirm his place as the worst commissioner in sports.
Jeremy Jacobs needs to be well-compensated for his risks.

He inherited the foundation of his wealth from his father and he bought the Bruins for 10 million dollars in 1974.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:10 PM
  #461
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
OK.

When middle class and upper-middle class people take risks, it's to be undermined, because all other middle class people take those same risks (which isn't even true).

When billionaires take risks... well that's different.

If you were to invest in a stock or company, that would be a financial risk.

Owners invest in the players. They cover all costs, and expect profits. They're taking the financial risk.

An owner investing his time when he was in college and uni, and other job experiences, is the same as a player putting his time into becoming a player, just like any other person invests its time to become whatever they hope to become.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:12 PM
  #462
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
OK.

When middle class and upper-middle class people take risks, it's to be undermined, because all other middle class people take those same risks (which isn't even true).

When billionaires take risks... well that's different.

never said that but, read things how you want to fit your views. no point in discussing if you cant.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:13 PM
  #463
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
If you were to invest in a stock or company, that would be a financial risk.

Owners invest in the players. They cover all costs, and expect profits. They're taking the financial risk.

An owner investing his time when he was in college and uni, and other job experiences, is the same as a player putting his time into becoming a player, just like any other person invests its time to become whatever they hope to become.
we have a winner!

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:35 PM
  #464
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,803
vCash: 500
Et Le But,

In all seriousness, I wonder if the big market owners are hoping the union just decertifies.

If that happens, they (The Rangers, The Leafs, The Habs, The Red Wings, the Canucks, the Oilers) can mop up the free agent market and the upcoming draft class as well. They'll make more money from increased playoff revenue, and the players get their 76% of league income, basically everybody wins except the bottom-20 owners.

Note that Boston would not be among those victorious big market teams. I read a discussion on the Bruins board: Jeremy Jacobs is as much of a cheapskate as he's coming off in these negotiations. In the period 1995-2004, the Bruins sucked because he was known as cheap throughout the league.

The owners trying to bleed the players dry are playing a very dangerous game. They could lose the privileged position of high profits and high franchise valuations they've acquired since the last lockout. They could even lose the draft as a chance to improve. They'll be stuck on their hands with nothing but a devalued investment.

The owner better be careful, if it's no longer worthwhile for the players to have a union, they may lose their union.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:54 PM
  #465
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
OK.

When middle class and upper-middle class people take risks, it's to be undermined, because all other middle class people take those same risks (which isn't even true).

When billionaires take risks... well that's different.

Because when a middle class family put money and time so that their kids can play hockey they don't do it as a risk. They don't expect him to play in the NHL, they do it because he like to play and sports are good for the kids. It's a game is for the fun first, that's why you play hockey, you don't do it as a risk to play in the NHL(that's the deam, but not a realistic one for most).

Forsead is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 06:15 PM
  #466
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Et Le But,

In all seriousness, I wonder if the big market owners are hoping the union just decertifies.

If that happens, they (The Rangers, The Leafs, The Habs, The Red Wings, the Canucks, the Oilers) can mop up the free agent market and the upcoming draft class as well. They'll make more money from increased playoff revenue, and the players get their 76% of league income, basically everybody wins except the bottom-20 owners.

Note that Boston would not be among those victorious big market teams. I read a discussion on the Bruins board: Jeremy Jacobs is as much of a cheapskate as he's coming off in these negotiations. In the period 1995-2004, the Bruins sucked because he was known as cheap throughout the league.

The owners trying to bleed the players dry are playing a very dangerous game. They could lose the privileged position of high profits and high franchise valuations they've acquired since the last lockout. They could even lose the draft as a chance to improve. They'll be stuck on their hands with nothing but a devalued investment.

The owner better be careful, if it's no longer worthwhile for the players to have a union, they may lose their union.
I mean, as a Habs fan, let's be honest here - decertification is probably the only way the team would ever return to the days of dynasty after dynasty.

It would be awful for competitions sake though, and hurt a lot of role players who would lost all protection. You'd get stratified classes of players, as stars (and their lawyers) get everything and grinders become victims of race to the bottom tactics.

At that point we might as well bring in promotion and relegation while we are at it, and let AHL teams in on the bonanza.

Et le But is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 06:25 PM
  #467
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
Because when a middle class family put money and time so that their kids can play hockey they don't do it as a risk. They don't expect him to play in the NHL, they do it because he like to play and sports are good for the kids. It's a game is for the fun first, that's why you play hockey, you don't do it as a risk to play in the NHL(that's the deam, but not a realistic one for most).
you know how much it cost to have a kid playing hockey in AA or AAA...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 07:08 PM
  #468
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
you know how much it cost to have a kid playing hockey in AA or AAA...
How much does it cost?

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 07:51 PM
  #469
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
Because when a middle class family put money and time so that their kids can play hockey they don't do it as a risk. They don't expect him to play in the NHL, they do it because he like to play and sports are good for the kids. It's a game is for the fun first, that's why you play hockey, you don't do it as a risk to play in the NHL(that's the deam, but not a realistic one for most).
A friend of mine, whom I went to CEGEP with, was high school friends with an NHL player currently considered a "good" bottom-6 player; he has a contract lasting more than 3 years paying more than 1.5 million per year.

What my friend told me is that they used to play hockey together among their friends, and until age 15 or so he wasn't better than the others in his group -- he was an equal among equals.

At that point however, he decided he wanted to make the NHL. He started practicing a lot harder, and slowly came to dominate against his group. He ended up being drafted in the late NHL rounds. This means that at this time, he was probably putting less time into school and into business than his friends. It's not really "middle-class" people who become hockey players, it's "upper-middle class" people. Their lives are nearly sure things when they put in the effort, much more so than the rest of us. If they're focusing on a hockey career, they give up a lot.

In the case of this hockey player, it really worked out. He's having very good career, and has made his money many times over. With that said, for every guy like him, there must be many who fail. He's as such very lucky on some level. I just looked him up on hockeydb, hhis injury history is quite marginal.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 07:58 PM
  #470
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
A friend of mine, whom I went to CEGEP with, was high school friends with an NHL player currently considered a "good" bottom-6 player; he has a contract lasting more than 3 years paying more than 1.5 million per year.

What my friend told me is that they used to play hockey together among their friends, and until age 15 or so he wasn't better than the others in his group -- he was an equal among equals.

At that point however, he decided he wanted to make the NHL. He started practicing a lot harder, and slowly came to dominate against his group. He ended up being drafted in the late NHL rounds. This means that at this time, he was probably putting less time into school and into business than his friends. It's not really "middle-class" people who become hockey players, it's "upper-middle class" people. Their lives are nearly sure things when they put in the effort, much more so than the rest of us. If they're focusing on a hockey career, they give up a lot.

In the case of this hockey player, it really worked out. He's having very good career, and has made his money many times over. With that said, for every guy like him, there must be many who fail. He's as such very lucky on some level. I just looked him up on hockeydb, hhis injury history is quite marginal.
I really don't get what you're trying to argue here. What's your point?

He didn't give up anything. He made a career choice, he gets to live his dream, and like everybody that chases a dream job, he worked hard to get there.
For those that failed, they're young enough to go back to school and live the same experiences as every other student.

Still don't get your point.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 08:15 PM
  #471
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Plenty of people have done quite the good job at refuting what you are trying to state, you just don't believe it. Big difference. The players do not take any financial risk in running an NHL team. They should not have a financial worry in the world once they sign their GUARANTEED contracts. The owners take all of the financial risk related to running an NHL team. The Coyotes losing money is a perfect example. Every single Coyotes player received his pay throughout the entire time that the owner was losing money. That is what people are talking about when discussing the financial risks associated with running an NHL team. Every single player injured while playing for the Coyotes received, ahd is still getting, his salary EVEN DURING THE LOCKOUT while the owners get nothing. The financial risks at the NHL level are all on the owners. You want people to ignore that fact just because the NHL has grown over the last few years and is doing financially well.
The Coyotes losing money is nothing close to a "perfect example" of any owner risk that needs to be mitigated. It's actually closer to an argument for the sport changing the way it does business. The Yotes should be in Ontario, resulting in higher revenues for everyone involved. With the possible side benefit of competition driving down ticket prices in Toronto.

The reason Moyes lost money in Phoenix is the rest of the BOG blocking his sale - nothing to do with guaranteed contracts to players. IMO the post-Moyes Coyotes, the Wang Islanders and the Koules/Barrie era Lightning are examples of "financial risk" appropriately applied.

Roulin is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 08:44 PM
  #472
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
This is a very good post for the other side. I agree owners should get 50% of the pie, because that's just how things work. I will nitpick though and say that you shouldn't use Crosby as an example, or you might as well use MLSE on the other end. Also, owners should be taking all the financial risks as that IS their job. If not, then why are they needed? If you were an inventor and had a great invention, but only had half the money needed to get it on the market, you wouldn't allow an investor to give you the other half, and take half the profits. That's not fair, it was your idea and your blood, sweat and tears that went into creating it. If the investor wants in, he should put most all of the money in, and you should still split 50/50. If he doesn't want in, then the next guy will. Agree?

That also brings up another point, if the NHL were so unattractive to prospective owners at the moment, how in God's name did the Phoenix Coyotes of all teams just get bought? Seriously?
It is nice to see someone on "the other side" agree that a 50/50 split is fair.

The players produce what the fans want to watch, they are the entertainment we crave. The players do take time and energy to become good enough to be part of the best hockey league in the world. They also DO take risks to get to where they are. As such, they do deserve a 50% split of the HRR because of the value they bring to the NHL.

The owners pay every single cost associated with the game and with taking care of ensuring the players CAN play the game and be seen doing it. The owners take all of the financial risks related to the running of the NHL and ensuring that we fans get a great product, the best in the world today. The owners also DO take risks to get to where they are. As such, they also deserve a 50% split of the HRR because of the value they bring to the NHL.

The problem is not that both sides don't recognize these facts. The problem is that the owners want their 50% now since they have received less than 50% for the entirety of the last CBA, and the players refuse to give that 50% split without conditions being met that ensures the split is not actually 50%. It is a dishonest form of negotiation and is the real sticking point. Since everyone knows that 50/50 is fair for both sides based on what each side brings to the table, there really is no way the players should be dragging this out.

50/50. Simple. No conditions, just an even and fair split of the pie.

Please keep in mind that the HRR being divided is all from the pockets of the owners. The players have never once been asked to include their own HRR (i.e: endorsement money, autograph signings [Ovechkin charges a minimum of $100 per item you want signed!], appearance fees, hockey card fees, sponsorships, etc...) into the total HRR pie, either. Seriously, the HRR being discussed is all owner related. Thus, the owners are the ones who take all of the financial risks involved in running a franchise and should be accorded a 50% share of the HRR. Plain and simple.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 09:06 PM
  #473
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
It is nice to see someone on "the other side" agree that a 50/50 split is fair.

The players produce what the fans want to watch, they are the entertainment we crave. The players do take time and energy to become good enough to be part of the best hockey league in the world. They also DO take risks to get to where they are. As such, they do deserve a 50% split of the HRR because of the value they bring to the NHL.

The owners pay every single cost associated with the game and with taking care of ensuring the players CAN play the game and be seen doing it. The owners take all of the financial risks related to the running of the NHL and ensuring that we fans get a great product, the best in the world today. The owners also DO take risks to get to where they are. As such, they also deserve a 50% split of the HRR because of the value they bring to the NHL.

The problem is not that both sides don't recognize these facts. The problem is that the owners want their 50% now since they have received less than 50% for the entirety of the last CBA, and the players refuse to give that 50% split without conditions being met that ensures the split is not actually 50%. It is a dishonest form of negotiation and is the real sticking point. Since everyone knows that 50/50 is fair for both sides based on what each side brings to the table, there really is no way the players should be dragging this out.

50/50. Simple. No conditions, just an even and fair split of the pie.

Please keep in mind that the HRR being divided is all from the pockets of the owners. The players have never once been asked to include their own HRR (i.e: endorsement money, autograph signings [Ovechkin charges a minimum of $100 per item you want signed!], appearance fees, hockey card fees, sponsorships, etc...) into the total HRR pie, either. Seriously, the HRR being discussed is all owner related. Thus, the owners are the ones who take all of the financial risks involved in running a franchise and should be accorded a 50% share of the HRR. Plain and simple.
would love to know wich value they bring to the game, really ?

and by that I mean, for example, what does the wild owner bring to the game the other owners dont ?



you know what is also plain and simple ? here : If, as an owner, you think 10M a year for a player is too much, well -> dont give 10M to any player...

seriously, did these poor little owners started crying before or after signing guys like Parize, Suter, Weber, OV, Kovalchuk, etc for more than 100 millions ?

cause I'm trying to figure this out, there's a guy who gave more or less 300 mil for only two players, and the said guy is the one playing hard ball to lower players salary since then...

there's also this other guy acting as a bully (no surprise) after signing a 50pts player to a 6mil a year contract...

and in Edm, 6mil for a kid who has yet to play a full season (has great potential though)

and the guy in Carolina with the other youngster...

and in Philly, willing to give over 100Mil for a D (on top of picks)

and in Nashville, matching the offer, showing willingness to pay the said D 100Mil...

and in NY, acquiring a 8M a year player (Nash)...


(these are just last summer examples, not including previous seasons).


So yeah, these poor little owners are so god damn broke, they're willing to shed 100, 200Mil for ONE player... even teams that are losing money every year.


Last edited by ECWHSWI: 11-30-2012 at 09:19 PM.
ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 09:32 PM
  #474
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
It is nice to see someone on "the other side" agree that a 50/50 split is fair.

The players produce what the fans want to watch, they are the entertainment we crave. The players do take time and energy to become good enough to be part of the best hockey league in the world. They also DO take risks to get to where they are. As such, they do deserve a 50% split of the HRR because of the value they bring to the NHL.

The owners pay every single cost associated with the game and with taking care of ensuring the players CAN play the game and be seen doing it. The owners take all of the financial risks related to the running of the NHL and ensuring that we fans get a great product, the best in the world today. The owners also DO take risks to get to where they are. As such, they also deserve a 50% split of the HRR because of the value they bring to the NHL.

The problem is not that both sides don't recognize these facts. The problem is that the owners want their 50% now since they have received less than 50% for the entirety of the last CBA, and the players refuse to give that 50% split without conditions being met that ensures the split is not actually 50%. It is a dishonest form of negotiation and is the real sticking point. Since everyone knows that 50/50 is fair for both sides based on what each side brings to the table, there really is no way the players should be dragging this out.

50/50. Simple. No conditions, just an even and fair split of the pie.

Please keep in mind that the HRR being divided is all from the pockets of the owners. The players have never once been asked to include their own HRR (i.e: endorsement money, autograph signings [Ovechkin charges a minimum of $100 per item you want signed!], appearance fees, hockey card fees, sponsorships, etc...) into the total HRR pie, either. Seriously, the HRR being discussed is all owner related. Thus, the owners are the ones who take all of the financial risks involved in running a franchise and should be accorded a 50% share of the HRR. Plain and simple.
I agree with what you're saying but this particular point. I think the owners are trying to find a way to fufill what I think is fair and that is that contracts signed under the old CBA be honored. And I think the contracts signed this summer and right up to and before the lock out especially need upholding. The reason I think this is as you have very thoroughly argued, the owners take on all the financial risk, and they have in signing players to contracts that go beyond the CBA. I think those risk should be taken into account, that is all I'm arguing.

An immediate true drop to 50/50 can't happen if contracts are going to be upheld but there in lies the make whole provision that the owners have put forth, and I think the players have taken the owners offer and have worked with it to come up with a number they feel will work. So I see that as negotiation, but I think at this point owners aren't willing to move from their stance and neither are the players.

Just judging by our discussion here on these boards and the divide between all of our opinions on the matter I think really goes to show just how hard it must be for owners and players to really come to an agreement, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in saying that yes owners assume all financial risk, and yes players assume risk to get to the NHL, yes a 50/50 split is a workable arrangement for HRR, but is it also not reasonable to say that the players will go to 50/50 but previous contracts need to be honored as those contracts were awarded to the players as part of the owners financial risk.

You yourself have said that the players will make back the rollback in a few years time but the same could be said about the owners. It will only take a few years for the growth of the game and the players under contract to have those contracts expire. What it means though is players not under contract in the short term will need to accept less money while the transition period happens. I just don't see the need for current contracts to be rolled back.

Reiher is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:09 PM
  #475
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
I mean, as a Habs fan, let's be honest here - decertification is probably the only way the team would ever return to the days of dynasty after dynasty.

It would be awful for competitions sake though, and hurt a lot of role players who would lost all protection. You'd get stratified classes of players, as stars (and their lawyers) get everything and grinders become victims of race to the bottom tactics.

At that point we might as well bring in promotion and relegation while we are at it, and let AHL teams in on the bonanza.
The European style could be a good alternative.

How do average professional soccer players do in Europe? Are they less well off than 4th line NHLers?

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 05:26 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.