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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Lockout II - Moderated: Talk about your plenty, Talk about your ills...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2012, 10:37 AM
  #176
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 17,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Not the owners. Just the players.

Players loss for a lost season: $1.9B
Owners: $250M

Owners can afford to hold out multiple seasons before they get to the point you're talking about. Players shouldn't have even let the first round of games get cancelled if they were interested in coming out ahead.
I love when a common sense post makes it way out on to the boards once in a while...Thanks!!

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:58 AM
  #177
no1b4me
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 270
vCash: 500
Sometimes you have to lose things because you are doing something you believe in. Back in 2005 We went on stike because the company was going to contract out our call center which would have costed 30 jobs. We were out 10 weeks where I ended up losing about 19k in pay. Which I didn't recover. The company finally settled and didn't contract out those jobs. Those people are still working their today. I am retired now but I would do it again today if I had to.

no1b4me is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:02 PM
  #178
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1b4me View Post
Sometimes you have to lose things because you are doing something you believe in. Back in 2005 We went on stike because the company was going to contract out our call center which would have costed 30 jobs. We were out 10 weeks where I ended up losing about 19k in pay. Which I didn't recover. The company finally settled and didn't contract out those jobs. Those people are still working their today. I am retired now but I would do it again today if I had to.
Different circumstances entirely. You would have lost your job.

What exactly do the players believe in? Winning the negotiation ? That's all it seems to me.

Crows* is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:09 PM
  #179
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 21,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1b4me View Post
Sometimes you have to lose things because you are doing something you believe in. Back in 2005 We went on stike because the company was going to contract out our call center which would have costed 30 jobs. We were out 10 weeks where I ended up losing about 19k in pay. Which I didn't recover. The company finally settled and didn't contract out those jobs. Those people are still working their today. I am retired now but I would do it again today if I had to.
And what do the players believe in?

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:13 PM
  #180
Freudian
Clearly deranged
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 40,584
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
And what do the players believe in?
Money and not backing down. Incidentally the exact same thing the owners believe in.

It sounds better if you dress it up in terms like "the health of the league" and "fighting for future generations" of course.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 01:06 PM
  #181
PanthersHockey1
South by Southeast
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Palm Trees
Country: United States
Posts: 8,885
vCash: 500
the fans should pay the attorney who is in charge of writing up the cba to slip a clause inside the 1000 page document stating that if the cba ends with no new agreement binding arbitration should be enforced september 1st of expiring cba year. If we all chip in 10 bucks im sure that attorney could find some way to sneak it in.

PanthersHockey1 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 01:18 PM
  #182
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 94,899
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
the fans should pay the attorney who is in charge of writing up the cba to slip a clause inside the 1000 page document stating that if the cba ends with no new agreement binding arbitration should be enforced september 1st of expiring cba year. If we all chip in 10 bucks im sure that attorney could find some way to sneak it in.
Or just make the CBA a really long one at around 10 years so that by the time it comes around Bettman and Fehr have retired.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 01:32 PM
  #183
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 21,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Money and not backing down. Incidentally the exact same thing the owners believe in.

It sounds better if you dress it up in terms like "the health of the league" and "fighting for future generations" of course.
I think the owners are fine with paying the players their money. They just want to make a reasonable profit on their hockey operation, and no appreciation of franchise value does not count.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 01:34 PM
  #184
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in the Flood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 24,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1b4me View Post
Sometimes you have to lose things because you are doing something you believe in. Back in 2005 We went on stike because the company was going to contract out our call center which would have costed 30 jobs. We were out 10 weeks where I ended up losing about 19k in pay. Which I didn't recover. The company finally settled and didn't contract out those jobs. Those people are still working their today. I am retired now but I would do it again today if I had to.
This isn't even comparable to the NHL lockout.

Players are going to lose their jobs over this lockout, not save them for others.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 01:38 PM
  #185
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Not the owners. Just the players.

Players loss for a lost season: $1.9B
Owners: $250M

Owners can afford to hold out multiple seasons before they get to the point you're talking about. Players shouldn't have even let the first round of games get cancelled if they were interested in coming out ahead.
Each player is losing out their yearly salary. I don't think it's fair to just aggregate the total. That being said, even if we came up with a per capita loss (~2.7 million for players and ~8.3 million for owners) that's not a fair comparison either due to the difference in wealth to begin with. Also, I think it's important to recognize that almost all union players could earn a job somewhere in Europe (From the Crosbys to the Powes). No doubt it's no where near as much of a wage as it would be hear and it can be a big inconvenience to a lot of players. But their income isn't necessarily reduced to 0.

I don't disagree with the premiss of your post but I thought since you're bringing something legitimate to this thread I will try to build upon it

YogiCanucks is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 02:21 PM
  #186
Dellstrom
Pastrnasty
 
Dellstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 22,578
vCash: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Not the owners. Just the players.

Players loss for a lost season: $1.9B
Owners: $250M

Owners can afford to hold out multiple seasons before they get to the point you're talking about. Players shouldn't have even let the first round of games get cancelled if they were interested in coming out ahead.
Not to mention most owners have huge incomes elsewhere... Some owner's #1 income might not even be hockey. If you're a filthy rich American/Businessman it's not hard to become disgustingly richer. Especially if you have the rights to the arena... (Jacobs and Romney, I'm looking at you....)

Dellstrom is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 02:36 PM
  #187
no1b4me
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
This isn't even comparable to the NHL lockout.

Players are going to lose their jobs over this lockout, not save them for others.
No, but their future and the future of the next generation of players. They believe they bend now and give up it just gets lower and lower for the next players that come along. They are losing money right now in hopes that the future players won't later. I had no problem losing thousands in the short term as long as us collectively benifited in the future.

no1b4me is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 02:59 PM
  #188
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 11,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1b4me View Post
No, but their future and the future of the next generation of players. They believe they bend now and give up it just gets lower and lower for the next players that come along. They are losing money right now in hopes that the future players won't later. I had no problem losing thousands in the short term as long as us collectively benifited in the future.
The average NHL career lasts ~5 years. So at least 50% of current players will be retired by that time. Do you honestly believe they're fighting for a bunch of strangers a few years younger than them?

And if you do, then I still think they're not making anything easier for themselves down the road. Players are the ones losing more from this lockout than owners. That's the precedent they're setting. To me, that implies that future players will bend more easily than future owners, not the other way around.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:05 PM
  #189
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1b4me View Post
No, but their future and the future of the next generation of players. They believe they bend now and give up it just gets lower and lower for the next players that come along. They are losing money right now in hopes that the future players won't later. I had no problem losing thousands in the short term as long as us collectively benifited in the future.
Simply having a long lockout this time around isn't going to dissuade future lockouts. We lost an entire season 7 years ago, yet here we are with the possibility of it happening again. Has little to do with how easy or hard negotiation were last time.

The best thing to head off future lockouts and lost games would be to have most to all of the NHL teams making money. That is the #1 thing that would make the league more adverse to missing games over a labor dispute.

mouser is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:16 PM
  #190
Riptide
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Not the owners. Just the players.

Players loss for a lost season: $1.9B
Owners: $250M

Owners can afford to hold out multiple seasons before they get to the point you're talking about. Players shouldn't have even let the first round of games get cancelled if they were interested in coming out ahead.
Don't forget that that 250m is from just a few owners. ~170m came from Toronto, Montreal and New York. So that's only ~80m from a dozen or so owners. The other 3rd of the league is likely barely losing anything (whatever they're still paying staff, and other non-player expenses).

So that's what... maybe 60-90m in salaries, and expenses?

As has already been said on multiple times... the players cannot win this when it comes to money. The only chance they would ever have to "win" would be to abolish the cap.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:20 PM
  #191
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
This isn't even comparable to the NHL lockout.

Players are going to lose their jobs over this lockout, not save them for others.
They're protecting their rights and their contracts, just like the players before them.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:22 PM
  #192
Riptide
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
Also, I think it's important to recognize that almost all union players could earn a job somewhere in Europe (From the Crosbys to the Powes). No doubt it's no where near as much of a wage as it would be hear and it can be a big inconvenience to a lot of players. But their income isn't necessarily reduced to 0.

I don't disagree with the premiss of your post but I thought since you're bringing something legitimate to this thread I will try to build upon it
Actually they can't all get jobs in Europe or the AHL. At some point the skill level isn't there, or there are not any open positions (teams can only have so many players under contract, etc).

However I agree, a lot of players could go overseas - for 1/10th to 1/20th of what they earn today in the NHL. And then they get the inconvenience of playing/living away from their friends and family, living in a foreign country and dealing with the language, customs and culture.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:33 PM
  #193
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Simply having a long lockout this time around isn't going to dissuade future lockouts. We lost an entire season 7 years ago, yet here we are with the possibility of it happening again. Has little to do with how easy or hard negotiation were last time.

The best thing to head off future lockouts and lost games would be to have most to all of the NHL teams making money. That is the #1 thing that would make the league more adverse to missing games over a labor dispute.
From the hockey media standpoint-it was interesting at the beginning of this whole thing, media like TSN were saying "they won't lose the season like last time-this is different, there's less issues". It's (admittedly a touch machevillian)interesting to watch the panel on TSN literally at a loss as to try to explain why we are on the verge of losing a season again, after-while not guaranteeing it-pretty much seemed-almost to the point of overconfidence-that "this won't happen again".

Wether we lose the season or not-when we are here again 6,7 however many years to the next lockout (and there will be one I'm sure)-hopefully the media was take a much more cautious view of it this time around.


I also think the media have their share of "tweeting" every single thing a player/Bettman/Fehr whoever says to take some responsiblity, the fact they were used as a pawn in a schoolyard "Oh, NHLPA says this! NHL, what do you say to that??" every single moment....they didn't help the process IMO

Tinalera is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:42 PM
  #194
M A K A V E L I*
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: van Coevorden
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Not the owners. Just the players.

Players loss for a lost season: $1.9B
Owners: $250M

Owners can afford to hold out multiple seasons before they get to the point you're talking about. Players shouldn't have even let the first round of games get cancelled if they were interested in coming out ahead.
Your money argument might make sense if there were 700 owners in the league. The average owner is losing more than the average player.

Owners can't afford multiple lockout seasons. They would barely have any fans left at that point.

Everyone is losing in this and it's not even about real money anymore. It's 2 sides with big egos.

M A K A V E L I* is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:46 PM
  #195
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Not the owners. Just the players.

Players loss for a lost season: $1.9B
Owners: $250M

Owners can afford to hold out multiple seasons before they get to the point you're talking about. Players shouldn't have even let the first round of games get cancelled if they were interested in coming out ahead.
The players should agree to the 50-50 split and take the make-whole the owners are offering, but in exchange they should push to maintain some leniency on the front loaded contracts and keep the UFA age as is. The NHL would bite IMO.

Lets get on with it already, this is stupid, the players are not going to win, the more games we lose, the more money they lose.

The owners can hold out for a lot longer, as stated above, their profits are not that big, mostly coming from 3-4 teams, and all 3-4 of those franchises have owners who make more money from other businesses.

There's no shame in taking 50-50 to the PA ... it's in line with the NFL/NBA/MLB, the players aren't going to go broke or have to suffer because of it. Flushing away an entire season of pay cheques to fight this is stupid.

Soundwave is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:48 PM
  #196
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 11,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by M A K A V E L I View Post
Your money argument might make sense if there were 700 owners in the league. The average owner is losing more than the average player.
And the average owner stands to gain more from the lockout than the average player. $400M in disputed funds between 30 guys >>>> $400M in disputed funds between 700 guys. Which exactly cancels out what you were trying to say.

But the simplest way to answer this is that it absolutely, unequivocally makes no difference how many owners or players you split it between. You take them all as a class and figure out how much the class stands to gain or lose, and you arrive at the correct number. If you try to muddy the math with numbers of constituents on each side, you just end up with a mathematical detour that's going to cancel itself out when you weigh what they lose against what they stand to gain.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:50 PM
  #197
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by M A K A V E L I View Post
Your money argument might make sense if there were 700 owners in the league. The average owner is losing more than the average player.

Owners can't afford multiple lockout seasons. They would barely have any fans left at that point.

Everyone is losing in this and it's not even about real money anymore. It's 2 sides with big egos.
Your money argument might makes sense if owning a NHL team was the main income of the 30 owners in the league.

It's not. For any owner.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:50 PM
  #198
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by M A K A V E L I View Post
Your money argument might make sense if there were 700 owners in the league. The average owner is losing more than the average player.

Owners can't afford multiple lockout seasons. They would barely have any fans left at that point.

Everyone is losing in this and it's not even about real money anymore. It's 2 sides with big egos.
The only owners making any real big money are the guys in Toronto, Montreal, New York, Boston, and maybe Philly.

And hockey is only a side-project, peanuts-profit for them, they make a ton of money elsewhere. The Rangers are just a nice little feather in MSG's cap for example, the Knicks are a much bigger draw, the Rangers just ride shot gun.

Soundwave is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:01 PM
  #199
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in the Flood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 24,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1b4me View Post
No, but their future and the future of the next generation of players. They believe they bend now and give up it just gets lower and lower for the next players that come along. They are losing money right now in hopes that the future players won't later. I had no problem losing thousands in the short term as long as us collectively benifited in the future.
I'm calling BS.

The current players don't give a damn about future players. Just look at their spitball proposal that paid 57% to current contracts and 50% on future contracts.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:09 PM
  #200
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in the Flood
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 24,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
They're protecting their rights and their contracts, just like the players before them.
Again I'm calling BS.

They're just out for themselves and for what they've been convinced that they deserve.

If they really cared about future players they wouldn't demand so much money that teams will have to fold, causing hundreds of NHL jobs disappear. If they really cared about future players, they'd swallow their pride and accept a deal that would give 30 teams a fighting chance to survive and would have done it in the summer before HRR was destroyed.

Ragamuffin Gunner 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 09:54 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.