HFBoards

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

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 11:25 PM
  #476
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I really don't get what you're trying to argue here. What's your point?
My point is that players take risks, and I'm attacking the misguided belief that chronological and physiological risks are less valuable than financial risks. I think they're equivalent in an intrinsic sense, even though those with financial means own the media and legal system and are able to convince many that they built the sun and watered the oceans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
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.
You can make the same argument about the rare owner who buys a franchise and sells it 15 years later at a cumulative loss. He made a career choice, he got to live his dream of being an owner, he worked hard, and he still has tons of money in the bank to pursue other dreams.

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

Anyway, risk has very little to do with. Jeremy Jacobs seems to be running the BoG as his own private fiefdom. He inherited his wealth from his daddy and bought the Bruins for 10 million in 1974, and they're currently worth 320 million and making 15 million a year. This seems to be his fight, and he's not taking any risks, other than the fact that he's throwing away a year of Zdeno Cahara's prime years and the Bruins Stanley Cup window in order to pursue an ideological crusade.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 01:01 AM
  #477
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
My point is that players take risks, and I'm attacking the misguided belief that chronological and physiological risks are less valuable than financial risks. I think they're equivalent in an intrinsic sense, even though those with financial means own the media and legal system and are able to convince many that they built the sun and watered the oceans.
Ah, so right now we're arguing over value?
Give it a rest already. Owners are the ones taking all the financial risk. That's a fact.
If you think the value of the health risk is the same, that's good for you, but it's an opinion, not a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You can make the same argument about the rare owner who buys a franchise and sells it 15 years later at a cumulative loss. He made a career choice, he got to live his dream of being an owner, he worked hard, and he still has tons of money in the bank to pursue other dreams.
But why would I say that? That makes no sense at all.
You're talking about a player getting a career ending injury, or a young kid just not quite making it. You don't become the owner of a franchise at 19 or 23.
And yes, if an owner loses money and needs to sell, he'll pursue something else. I fail to see how this means they shouldn't get 50-50 splits right away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Anyway, risk has very little to do with. Jeremy Jacobs seems to be running the BoG as his own private fiefdom. He inherited his wealth from his daddy and bought the Bruins for 10 million in 1974, and they're currently worth 320 million and making 15 million a year. This seems to be his fight, and he's not taking any risks, other than the fact that he's throwing away a year of Zdeno Cahara's prime years and the Bruins Stanley Cup window in order to pursue an ideological crusade.
I'm the last guy that will defend Jacobs or anything Bruins, but all you're going about on is hearsay. There hasn't been any confirmation.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 01:20 AM
  #478
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Ah, so right now we're arguing over value?
Give it a rest already. Owners are the ones taking all the financial risk. That's a fact.
If you think the value of the health risk is the same, that's good for you, but it's an opinion, not a fact.
Aside from being backed by common sense, it's also backed by the legal system. Physiological damages usually result in financial reparations, for example if you cripple somebody with your car while driving drunk your insurance company will have to pay a hefty fine. That's a legal equivalence between the financial and physiological, and it goes as reason would expect: the greater the physiological damage, the greater the financial compensation, on average.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
But why would I say that? That makes no sense at all.
It doesn't make any sense to you.

For some reason, you can realize this doesn't apply to the owner, that it's a weak morality, yet for the players you have no gumption spouting nonsense like "so what? they'll still be rich and they've only lost five years of their lives, they still have it better than the Palestinians" -- you would NEVER write that about the owners. Why not? Simple, because you apply different, softer, standards of morality on powerful people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I'm the last guy that will defend Jacobs or anything Bruins, but all you're going about on is hearsay. There hasn't been any confirmation.
The evidence is coming in from multiple quarters and is pretty overwhelming. You can deny any particular story, but the general pattern is convincing.


Last edited by DAChampion: 12-01-2012 at 06:35 AM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 08:34 AM
  #479
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post

Anyway, risk has very little to do with. Jeremy Jacobs seems to be running the BoG as his own private fiefdom. He inherited his wealth from his daddy and bought the Bruins for 10 million in 1974, and they're currently worth 320 million and making 15 million a year. This seems to be his fight, and he's not taking any risks, other than the fact that he's throwing away a year of Zdeno Cahara's prime years and the Bruins Stanley Cup window in order to pursue an ideological crusade.
Jacobs couldn't care less, he believes in hockey as an investment. Anybody who kept his hands in his pockets instead of trying their damnedest to win a Cup for Ray Bourque doesn't care about winning.

My Boston friends were amazed when they won the Cup, even more amazed that they did it under Jacobs. They never thought they would win one under the cheap *******.

HabsByTheBay is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 08:34 AM
  #480
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,617
vCash: 500
The CBA between the NHL and NHLPA creates an artificial environment the way the most CBAs do. It was formed to improve players' rights, playing conditions and to ensure that players received fair pay. Players also received guaranteed contracts.

But the formation of the union also paved the way for player drafts and the ability of teams to hold on to the rights of a player even if they had not signed a contract. Other artificial mechanisms such as free agency (which wouldn't be necessary in an open system) were implemented.

And of course the big one.... revenue sharing between owners and players. What does 50-50 or 57-43 have to do with anything. Whatever the final number becomes, it is an artificial number decided upon by the two organizations

In the real world owners would be able to pay as much or as little as they wanted to their players. It would be a free and open market. With no draft the bidding for players could start when they turn sixteen years old.

The league, as a group, doesn't want that because teams like the Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens could out bid their rivals for top talent. It would have the potential to create a terrible imbalance.

The players union shouldn't want it because it could spell the end of some franchises and therefore some jobs. The guys on the low end could make far less than they are making today. The league would shrink, it would probably lose what little status it now has, TV revenues would become even smaller. There would be a few winners and a lot of losers but maybe that is what should happen

If the union goes the route of de-certifying in order to gain concessions and then immediately re-certifying, then they are trying to play the system to gain the best of both worlds. It would be a sham. That's not to say it couldn't happen but it would still be a sham.

Are the owners terrified that this might happen? Probably. And if they aren't they should be.

In a reasonable world, if the players decide to remain under the umbrella of the CBA they should be able to do so and if they decide to de-certify they should be able to do that as well. What they should not be able to do is jump back and forth as the situation suits them.

Fehr as said he would like players to enjoy the salaries they could achieve in a free market. That is laughable. He wants all the upside of a free market but the downside protection of guaranteed contracts, minimum salaries and other benefits.

Maybe the league does need a free market.... at least for a while. The union should be allowed to de-certify as long as they don't re-certify for at least two years, unless the league approved. Two years should be plenty of time for both sides to evaluate which system works better.

One thing is certain. The result would look much different from what we have today.

At the moment all we are doing is watching a slow motion train wreck with the players and their supporter on one side and the owners and their supporters on the other.

HCH is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 10:30 AM
  #481
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Aside from being backed by common sense, it's also backed by the legal system. Physiological damages usually result in financial reparations, for example if you cripple somebody with your car while driving drunk your insurance company will have to pay a hefty fine. That's a legal equivalence between the financial and physiological, and it goes as reason would expect: the greater the physiological damage, the greater the financial compensation, on average.
You are so reaching it's become rather funny.
Fact remains, the players do not take any financial risks in the NHL. None. Zilch. Nada. Stop trying to argue otherwise.
Health risk =/= Financial Risk.
Health risk ---***> Financial loss =/= Financial Risk.
If you still don't get this, you're a lost cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It doesn't make any sense to you.

For some reason, you can realize this doesn't apply to the owner, that it's a weak morality, yet for the players you have no gumption spouting nonsense like "so what? they'll still be rich and they've only lost five years of their lives, they still have it better than the Palestinians" -- you would NEVER write that about the owners. Why not? Simple, because you apply different, softer, standards of morality on powerful people.
First off all, the comparison to the Palestinian situation was in response to someone claiming the player's future is at risk and their fighting for their rights.
I said that was rather insulting because these guys have it better than the majority of the world. It was specifically said because someone used ''fighting for their future and rights''. Their rights are very good and their future is pretty much assured unless a huge injury happens (but even then, they are assured the remaining of their contract, which, again is better than most of the people in the world).

And you're absolutely wrong. I would have no problem writing that about the owners, matter of fact, I've said numerous times that both sides are dumb and have handled it poorly. However, the owners, to me, seem to have the upper hand.
They're in a position to hold out longer than the players.
Also, as I previously mentioned, if the full season is cancelled, players end up losing more than if they were to agree to a 12% roll back effective immediately.
Because of those reasons, I'm saying ''you know what, players will always have it good anyways, they will be millionaires and have tons of benefits, they will be treated better than the big majority of the world. So ya, maybe they should just cut their losses short''. That's why I think they should cave, because I don't think the owners will, and I don't think the players are in a horrible situation that warrant them to lose the year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The evidence is coming in from multiple quarters and is pretty overwhelming. You can deny any particular story, but the general pattern is convincing.
Still it's coming from fans. I've heard plenty of habs fan say Molson is cheap. I'm not saying he ain't a cheap owner. But I just don't think that he's the reason why the Bruins were crappy or didn't win.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:39 PM
  #482
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Aside from being backed by common sense, it's also backed by the legal system. Physiological damages usually result in financial reparations, for example if you cripple somebody with your car while driving drunk your insurance company will have to pay a hefty fine.
The maximum compensation a victim of a car accident can receive in Ontario is $1 million. In some U.S. states it is a mere $150,000, some even lower, this according to my Lawyer who was called to the bar in California.

The average hockey player makes $2.2 million/year. They are more than well compensated.

The owners do not have a right to a profit, however, if they do not make a profit, eventually they will transfer, or cease operations. That means less jobs for the PA. Therefore, healthy teams are in the interest of the PA.

I do not call what players do taking a risk, I call it earning their paycheck, and doing what is necessary to earn a greater paycheck. And the players understand this. Heck, some do it just because that is their playing style, and they enjoy playing that way.

18 of 30 teams loosing money is not sustainable. And yes, part of the solution is increase revenue sharing. The league offered to increase it 33%, a substantial amount. 33/5 (years of a new deal)= 6.6 percent per annum, or more than three times the rate of inflation. Will you side the owners now? You said you would.

And if you think that profits trend towards zero in a competitive environment. Google "dividend champions". You will find a list of many companies that have increased shareholder value for 25 years in a row. Take Coca Cola for example. This company has been around for over 100 years, yet you can buy a highly similar product for about half the price in any grocery store, yet they dominate the market, and increase profits for over 100 years. Refuted?

Edit: I should mention that it will cost at least $400,000 in lawyers and medical expenses to get the $1 million in compensation for being a quadriplegic. While the "average" players gets 13.2 million for the "risk" of permanent injury, chances of which are relatively small.


Last edited by Habbadasher: 12-01-2012 at 12:51 PM.
Habbadasher is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:45 PM
  #483
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
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.
We seem to be in the same ballpark (arena?) in regards to much of what we feel. Maybe we should be the negotiating team for each side...lol.

My only real disagreement is with your last paragraph. I think you misunderstand something. If the players take a rollback and the game grows, then they will easily make it back. The same is true for the owners, if the game grows, they will make more money. Here is the main difference, though: if the players take a rollback, but the game doesn't grow, they lose nothing beyond that initial rollback, because of the guaranteed nature of their contracts. The owners? They have no such guarantees and would lose money. The players need to accept that the "guaranteed" part of their contracts balances out a lot of other factors. Even if they accept a rollback, they will get paid throughout the length of the signed CBA whether or not the owners make money or the game grows. This is the main benefit that many who are on the side of the players fail to recognize the value of.

Should the owners honour the contracts signed leading up to the new CBA? Well, that is the crux of the argument. If you feel the owners are entitled to a true 50/50 split of the HRR, the answer is "no" because it is not possible. The truth is, the owners signed players, and those same players signed contracts, KNOWING that the CBA was expiring and KNOWING that there could be rollbacks on the table. Many of those contracts are quite bloated and I am certain that agents bargained under the knowledge that rollbacks would be on the table for the new CBA. Heck, if people like you and I knew, surely everyone associated with hockey knew. I don't know about you, but I am not a genius and I knew where the CBA negotiations were going before the terms were announced. As such, I do NOT feel the owners need to honour the amounts in the contracts, but should honour the term on them. Why? It is part of the reality of life. Sometimes owners reduce salaries. It happens to people working for Hostess. It happens to teachers. It happens to people in ALL walks of life. The players are not being harshly treated in any way, shape, or form. Their employers are saying that they need to cut some employee costs in order to ensure that the franchise does better. The reality is that it will probably lead to better long term financial gains for both the owners and the players. Just like the last CBA did.

The problem is that there is this huge "pendulum" effect that is causing people to see things in a skewed manner. It used to be the owners who were screwing the players and paying them so poorly that many had to get other jobs to survive. Then the pendulum swung to the opposite extreme and the players started to get over 70% of the HRR!! At the start of the last CBA, the pendulum began going back towards the owners and a fair 50/50 split but stopped short, giving the owners 43 to the players' 57%. Over the course of the last CBA, both parties did well. Now the owners are trying to get the pendulum to stop where it should be: 50/50. They have gone through more than a decade being on the lesser side of the pendulum and want it to finally hit the 50/50 it should be at. Anything that delays that final return to equality is simply continuing the unbalanced swinging of the pendulum.

Thanks for a lot of fun discussion!

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:59 PM
  #484
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Aside from being backed by common sense, it's also backed by the legal system. Physiological damages usually result in financial reparations, for example if you cripple somebody with your car while driving drunk your insurance company will have to pay a hefty fine. That's a legal equivalence between the financial and physiological, and it goes as reason would expect: the greater the physiological damage, the greater the financial compensation, on average.


Go tell that to a police officer who gets shot while doing his job and is no longer able to do his job. Try and compare the compensation he gets to what Markov got for his knee injury. Not. Even. Close.
Someone being "crippled" in a car accident is not the same as someone suffering a knee injury that stops them from playing hockey. Someone who is "crippled" will have a far more difficult time finding work that they will be able to perform in order to simply live. A hockey player who blows out his knee can still find plenty of careers with which to earn a living. Not to mention in your example above the person who was driving drunk was committing a crime and is being punished for what he did wrong as much as the person who was hurt is being compensated. It is a HUGE difference between such an occurrence and someone getting hurt while doing their job.

By the way, there are far more risky jobs in the world than playing hockey and most of the people hurt in those jobs or hurt while trying to attain such jobs do not get compensation (during the training) anywhere close to what players can receive. Most players in the NHL can get hurt and have their insurance able to cover their entire contract plus. Most normal people in high risk jobs do not have anything close to that level of compensation.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 02:39 PM
  #485
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Someone being "crippled" in a car accident is not the same as someone suffering a knee injury that stops them from playing hockey. Someone who is "crippled" will have a far more difficult time finding work that they will be able to perform in order to simply live. A hockey player who blows out his knee can still find plenty of careers with which to earn a living. Not to mention in your example above the person who was driving drunk was committing a crime and is being punished for what he did wrong as much as the person who was hurt is being compensated. It is a HUGE difference between such an occurrence and someone getting hurt while doing their job.

By the way, there are far more risky jobs in the world than playing hockey and most of the people hurt in those jobs or hurt while trying to attain such jobs do not get compensation (during the training) anywhere close to what players can receive. Most players in the NHL can get hurt and have their insurance able to cover their entire contract plus. Most normal people in high risk jobs do not have anything close to that level of compensation.
Most normal people... as in, people you arent (and never will) buy a jersey from with their name on it, people you will never pay 100+ $ to watch while they work, people you'll never ask for an autograph, people you'll never pay to watch in training, people others dont (or barely) talk about on TV/radio, people there's no forum/blogs about either ?

just wondering if that's what you mean by '"normal people"

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:12 PM
  #486
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,638
vCash: 500
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...MnnYTIJebhPr4L

As a Knicks fan I hate Dolan but this might be the one time he can play hero. Unlike Molson, et all, he's dumb enough to risk leverage by defying the hegemony.

Et le But is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:29 PM
  #487
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...MnnYTIJebhPr4L

As a Knicks fan I hate Dolan but this might be the one time he can play hero. Unlike Molson, et all, he's dumb enough to risk leverage by defying the hegemony.

the interesting part : If the 2012-13 NHL season is canceled, it is believed the Rangers would lose upward of $60 million, the final number dependent upon the teamís playoff success. The Maple Leafs, sources report, stand to lose more than $100 million.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:40 PM
  #488
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
the interesting part : If the 2012-13 NHL season is canceled, it is believed the Rangers would lose upward of $60 million, the final number dependent upon the teamís playoff success. The Maple Leafs, sources report, stand to lose more than $100 million.
And Dolan is a loose enough cannon to let this be known.

Et le But is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:28 PM
  #489
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...MnnYTIJebhPr4L

As a Knicks fan I hate Dolan but this might be the one time he can play hero. Unlike Molson, et all, he's dumb enough to risk leverage by defying the hegemony.
I hope the players know better than to accept this meeting. There's a reason why players hire agents - they are relatively young men who have spent their time honing their physical skills. Owners are generally experienced in negotiations. Campoli vs Dolan is not an even playing field.

Roulin is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:35 PM
  #490
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Someone being "crippled" in a car accident is not the same as someone suffering a knee injury that stops them from playing hockey. Someone who is "crippled" will have a far more difficult time finding work that they will be able to perform in order to simply live. A hockey player who blows out his knee can still find plenty of careers with which to earn a living. Not to mention in your example above the person who was driving drunk was committing a crime and is being punished for what he did wrong as much as the person who was hurt is being compensated. It is a HUGE difference between such an occurrence and someone getting hurt while doing their job.

By the way, there are far more risky jobs in the world than playing hockey and most of the people hurt in those jobs or hurt while trying to attain such jobs do not get compensation (during the training) anywhere close to what players can receive. Most players in the NHL can get hurt and have their insurance able to cover their entire contract plus. Most normal people in high risk jobs do not have anything close to that level of compensation.
We've spent the past six or seven pages arguing about risk because I decided to refute the claim that "the players take zero risks", but we shouldn't forget that risk isn't everything.

As an easy example, the NBA players take less risk than NHL players, yet they get paid more. Average NBA salary is 5.15 million. On the other hand, the average NFL player takes far, far more risks, and they're paid less. And then of course you can go beyond sports.

What sets the salary scale in the NHL are:

1) The total revenues of the league;
2) The fact teams get much more revenues if they are dominant, winning teams, which incentive's spending more on better players.
3) The fact that players are not just talented but differently talented, i.e. if all players were equally skilled their average salary would probably be $45,000/year, because nobody would have any leverage. However, as Zdeno Chara (for example) will increase team revenue by 10-20 million a year or more by increasing regular season attendance and hosting more home playoff games, there's no issue spending a 7 million dollar salary cap on him.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:38 PM
  #491
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
I hope the players know better than to accept this meeting. There's a reason why players hire agents - they are relatively young men who have spent their time honing their physical skills. Owners are generally experienced in negotiations. Campoli vs Dolan is not an even playing field.
Yeah lol.

The step down from Bettman to Dolan is small. The step down from Fehr to Crosby? Huge.

They could probably convince the player representative to go against their interests with relative ease.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:47 PM
  #492
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Yeah lol.

The step down from Bettman to Dolan is small. The step down from Fehr to Crosby? Huge.
But, but, but... Mike Johnson of TSN said that players were highly educated, savvy individuals who wouldn't be fooled or bullied. He should know... he is a former player

HCH is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 06:03 PM
  #493
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
We've spent the past six or seven pages arguing about risk because I decided to refute the claim that "the players take zero risks", but we shouldn't forget that risk isn't everything.
Actually, to be precise, it was ''players take zero financial risks''. Seven pages later and you still can't get that right.
Also, it's a fact, not a claim. Owners pay for everything hockey related within a team, they're the ones investing all the cash, therefore they're the ones taking the financial risks. FACT, not a claim.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 06:08 PM
  #494
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
The maximum compensation a victim of a car accident can receive in Ontario is $1 million. In some U.S. states it is a mere $150,000, some even lower, this according to my Lawyer who was called to the bar in California.
I put the car example there, and you're arguing a technicality about laws specific to cars that governments put in there to protect the insurance companies. Maybe I just should have said "personal injury".

Your argument is irrelevant, as there are other kinds of injuries where you can get a lot more money. It doesn't need to be car accidents where governments have specifically jumped in to protect the insurance companies. For example, McDonalds once had to pay ~2.9 million dollars (1994 dollars, equivalent to 4.5 million today) because their coffee gave a woman third degree burns. A woman in Louisiana was recently awarded 117 million because she was injured when an ambulance crashed. Et cetera. And yes, I know that for each individual case you can cook up an argument saying "that's different !!!!", but the general pattern holds; physiological risk = financial risk, and that common sense point is recognized by the legal system.

Not to mention the even more obvious one, that an investment of time is equivalent to an investment of money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
The average hockey player makes $2.2 million/year. They are more than well compensated.
That's the average hockey player who makes it. The salary needs to be high enough to compensate those who make it for those who don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
18 of 30 teams loosing money is not sustainable.
17 of 30 teams have positive operating income, and 26 of 30 teams have increasing franchise valuations. The median team in the NHL has a 3 million dollar operating income and a 13 million dollar increase in franchise valuation. That looks sustainable to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
And yes, part of the solution is increase revenue sharing. The league offered to increase it 33%, a substantial amount. 33/5 (years of a new deal)= 6.6 percent per annum, or more than three times the rate of inflation. Will you side the owners now? You said you would.
I said I would side with the owners if they proposed a substantial increase in revenue sharing; 33% over 5 years is not substantial. It's smaller than the league's growth rate of 8%/year.

I think the players request of 100 million was more sound. I posted some numbers in a previous thread, with 100 million in extra revenue sharing, and a 50/50 deal, nearly all of the teams, I think it was 28/30, could report annual profits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
And if you think that profits trend towards zero in a competitive environment. Google "dividend champions". You will find a list of many companies that have increased shareholder value for 25 years in a row. Take Coca Cola for example. This company has been around for over 100 years, yet you can buy a highly similar product for about half the price in any grocery store, yet they dominate the market, and increase profits for over 100 years. Refuted?
No, not really.

First, Coke's only real competition is Pepsi, whereas the owners compete with 29 other teams, it's much more competitive. The other companies that compete with Coke can't afford the same advertising campaigns, which means that consumers won't get as much satisfaction, as much of a "high", when they put RC cola in their bodies as when they put Coke in their bodies. The other companies also can't afford to negotiate exclusive vending machine rights with schools, buildings, hospitals, etc.

As an example, a few years ago, when trying to hire some people, we hosted them at a party. We brought back to the receipt for the party to HR for refunding, and we got an email saying the refund was going to be problematic because we had Pepsi products at our party, and our employer had an exclusive agreement with Coke. I'm sure Pepsi does the same thing in other places. Overall though, it's a two-company market, and one company is substantially bigger than the other and can engage in monopolistic behavior.

In this case, if Bain Capital had bought the NHL in 2005, and eliminated competition by having a single owner for all 30 teams, the NHL would be immensely profitable. There would be only one scouting office for the entire league, and teams wouldn't compete with each other for free agents in the same way. There'd be no offer sheets. etc.

I could go on and on but it's besides the point. There are other caveats.


Last edited by DAChampion: 12-01-2012 at 08:32 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 06:18 PM
  #495
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Actually, to be precise, it was ''players take zero financial risks''. Seven pages later and you still can't get that right.
Also, it's a fact, not a claim. Owners pay for everything hockey related within a team, they're the ones investing all the cash, therefore they're the ones taking the financial risks. FACT, not a claim.
Players lose out financially the majority of the time when they don't make it, rendering it a financial risk.

FACT, not a claim.

Yes I already know what you're going to say "they've only lost five to ten years of their lives, and they can still be RICH".

****

Owners don't pay for everything hockey-related within a team, the fans pay for most of it. Owners are intermediaries who process the fans' expenses into hockey expenses and take a median 3 million dollar annual cut as compensation for services rendered.

There is no owner in this league or any other that I'm aware of "paying for all hockey expenses".

Let me know how many times you need this point explained to you.


Last edited by DAChampion: 12-01-2012 at 06:25 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:04 PM
  #496
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Actually, to be precise, it was ''players take zero financial risks''. Seven pages later and you still can't get that right.
Also, it's a fact, not a claim. Owners pay for everything hockey related within a team, they're the ones investing all the cash, therefore they're the ones taking the financial risks. FACT, not a claim.
owners taking financial risks : fact
players not taking any : claim (at the very least, they do to try to reach their gioal)

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 02:51 AM
  #497
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
We seem to be in the same ballpark (arena?) in regards to much of what we feel. Maybe we should be the negotiating team for each side...lol.

My only real disagreement is with your last paragraph. I think you misunderstand something. If the players take a rollback and the game grows, then they will easily make it back. The same is true for the owners, if the game grows, they will make more money. Here is the main difference, though: if the players take a rollback, but the game doesn't grow, they lose nothing beyond that initial rollback, because of the guaranteed nature of their contracts. The owners? They have no such guarantees and would lose money. The players need to accept that the "guaranteed" part of their contracts balances out a lot of other factors. Even if they accept a rollback, they will get paid throughout the length of the signed CBA whether or not the owners make money or the game grows. This is the main benefit that many who are on the side of the players fail to recognize the value of.

Should the owners honour the contracts signed leading up to the new CBA? Well, that is the crux of the argument. If you feel the owners are entitled to a true 50/50 split of the HRR, the answer is "no" because it is not possible. The truth is, the owners signed players, and those same players signed contracts, KNOWING that the CBA was expiring and KNOWING that there could be rollbacks on the table. Many of those contracts are quite bloated and I am certain that agents bargained under the knowledge that rollbacks would be on the table for the new CBA. Heck, if people like you and I knew, surely everyone associated with hockey knew. I don't know about you, but I am not a genius and I knew where the CBA negotiations were going before the terms were announced. As such, I do NOT feel the owners need to honour the amounts in the contracts, but should honour the term on them. Why? It is part of the reality of life. Sometimes owners reduce salaries. It happens to people working for Hostess. It happens to teachers. It happens to people in ALL walks of life. The players are not being harshly treated in any way, shape, or form. Their employers are saying that they need to cut some employee costs in order to ensure that the franchise does better. The reality is that it will probably lead to better long term financial gains for both the owners and the players. Just like the last CBA did.

The problem is that there is this huge "pendulum" effect that is causing people to see things in a skewed manner. It used to be the owners who were screwing the players and paying them so poorly that many had to get other jobs to survive. Then the pendulum swung to the opposite extreme and the players started to get over 70% of the HRR!! At the start of the last CBA, the pendulum began going back towards the owners and a fair 50/50 split but stopped short, giving the owners 43 to the players' 57%. Over the course of the last CBA, both parties did well. Now the owners are trying to get the pendulum to stop where it should be: 50/50. They have gone through more than a decade being on the lesser side of the pendulum and want it to finally hit the 50/50 it should be at. Anything that delays that final return to equality is simply continuing the unbalanced swinging of the pendulum.

Thanks for a lot of fun discussion!
I agree with you here that the players guaranteed contracts is quite a powerful clause that they have going for them. I have mixed feelings about the players latest proposal with the clause saying they won't take less than any year prior, I mean I totally understand why they've put that forward especially when the league had been boasting about record league revenue of $3.3 billion. However in the scenario that this last year was the peak of league revenue and it's going to be all down hill from here on out I'm not sure it is necessarily fair or beneficial to the players for that matter for the owners to have to pay out while the league crashes and burns and that is, IF the league crashes and burns which I don't think will happen but it might take a few years before the league recovers from this lockout.

So from that point of view I do think that the players revenue needs to be linked to the HRR and fluctuate with the HRR. Now having said that yes salary roll backs happen to everyday people in all industries and I don't think the players are fundamentally opposed to going to a 50/50 split, but I think that the players have a point in saying if we do this you the owners need to find a way or accept a way to fix the league so that it's not bleeding all over the place.

As it has been pointed out, I don't think that having a salary roll back is going to save a team in Phoenix or other markets that aren't making a profit, it will help in the short term, but I understand the players caution moving forward to just accepting a salary roll back without conditions applied to it, otherwise as has been argued before what's to stop the owners from enacting another lockout after the expiration of the next CBA to test the resolve of the players again?

Which brings me to your last statement. I think the pendulum is swinging and converging on a balance, but I've got a suspicion that the owners are really trying to swing it beyond fair and trying to bring it back to their side. I've said it before that this would be in the owners interest, to have a greater share and get it to swing all the way back to the way it was when players were getting fleeced. However I want to be hopeful that this will be the last lockout in the next 20 to 25 years or longer. I'm also not holding my breath on that though.

When a 50/50 split is achieved and it will, I want to bet that the next lockout won't be about changing a 50/50 split it will be about changing the definition of HRR, which kind of makes the idea of a 50/50 split kind of arbitrary because it is entirely based on what HRR means.

If the lockout is really about the owners trying to implement greater revenue sharing and doing everything the owners can to uphold contracts given under the last CBA, and provide solutions to prevent further lockouts then I'm all for it. However I think there are other motives at work here and so I have a tendency to empathizes with the players, just like I did with teachers here in BC when they went on strike (and the two are not really related, just that players individually and teachers individually don't yield a lot of power). Although often times when salary roll backs are being enacted there is only so much you can do, and so I support the fighting against roll backs just for the sake of saving money. Even though being objective on the matter I can also quite clearly see the other side's point of view and benefits from it.

If the owners want my support I think they'll need a better reason than we deserve a 50/50 split. An argument that offers a sense of trouble and outlines a need for a 50/50 split to fix the league in this and this and this way, will I think make it far easier to digest the need for a roll back. Maybe it's just the way I think, but for me if a clear justification can be made for why an immediate roll back will help the owners and the league in either the short or long term it would be very easy for me to understand why the players need to lose money now to make money later. I'm just not sure I've seen or heard of that level of justification.

Reiher is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 08:31 AM
  #498
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Most normal people... as in, people you arent (and never will) buy a jersey from with their name on it, people you will never pay 100+ $ to watch while they work, people you'll never ask for an autograph, people you'll never pay to watch in training, people others dont (or barely) talk about on TV/radio, people there's no forum/blogs about either ?

just wondering if that's what you mean by '"normal people"
Try to understand what my point was rather than focusing on something irrelevant. We were discussing risk, not what people watch.

However, I, and most others, pay to watch the TEAM we love more than the players. We love the players as long as they are part of our team. We support the Habs. As long as Price is our goalie, I will cheer for him. If he leaves to play elsewhere, I will forget or boo him. The TEAM is far more important to me than any player.

See? On topic, but not quite what the discussion was about.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 08:50 AM
  #499
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Players lose out financially the majority of the time when they don't make it, rendering it a financial risk.

FACT, not a claim.

Yes I already know what you're going to say "they've only lost five to ten years of their lives, and they can still be RICH".

****

Owners don't pay for everything hockey-related within a team, the fans pay for most of it. Owners are intermediaries who process the fans' expenses into hockey expenses and take a median 3 million dollar annual cut as compensation for services rendered.

There is no owner in this league or any other that I'm aware of "paying for all hockey expenses".

Let me know how many times you need this point explained to you.
I guess the owners of any business no longer take inancial risks, then. McDonald's owners don't pay anything, the people who eat there do;gas station owners don't pay anything, the owners of vehicles needing gas do;book publishers don't pay anything, it is all covered by people who buy books;etc... Is that really your argument?

The owners put up the cash for everything from hot dog sales people to player salaries. IF enough fans follow the team and spend money on it, THEN the owners recover what they spent and THEN they MIGHT make a profit. It is called running a business. The owners take all of the risks because they pay everything and hope fans spend enough to cover what the owner is paying.

Let me know how many more times you need this simple fact explained to you.

Again, the player takes the same risk as anyone else perusing a career that they may or may not achieve. Once the player hits the NHL, he no longer takes financial risks related to HRR. He does his job and gets very well compensated for it. He takes the same risk as most employees, but with far greater financial protections than most other people. It is not the same kind of financial risk constantly being explained to you that the owners take. Players pay nothing, owners pay everything. Fans, hopefully, support their team to a point where it stays profitable and remains in the city it started in.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:56 AM
  #500
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Try to understand what my point was rather than focusing on something irrelevant. We were discussing risk, not what people watch.

However, I, and most others, pay to watch the TEAM we love more than the players. We love the players as long as they are part of our team. We support the Habs. As long as Price is our goalie, I will cheer for him. If he leaves to play elsewhere, I will forget or boo him. The TEAM is far more important to me than any player.

See? On topic, but not quite what the discussion was about.
what you consider irrelevant is key actually, if you were to understand that basic concept (in previous post) you would understand why they make 2 or 3 M a year while you and I dont, you'd give up on the stupid "fair" concept, and a lot of other stuff like risks.


Just like Savard was forgotten since he ended his career as a Jets, or Jarvis, or Muller, or Roy, or Langway, or Koivu, or ... right ?

ECWHSWI 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 04:11 AM.

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.