HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VIII: "The 11th Hour" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2012, 02:55 PM
  #26
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
I can't even begin to say how eerie it is that we typed the exact same thing and quoted the exact same parts at the same time
I was wondering if you took his text and posted it as your own and then I looked and said, "Wow. That's scary."

Jabroni is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 02:59 PM
  #27
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 18,750
vCash: 500
Dolan needs to be allowed in.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:09 PM
  #28
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
Dolan needs to be allowed in.
It would be a really good thing if it happened, which means Bettman will block it.

Zil is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:15 PM
  #29
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
There is just no way 83% of revenues comes from three teams, of which two even missed the POs.

Sometimes you get what you deserve...

...many clowns covering this thing.
its not 83% of revenue, its 83% of net income according to forbes numbers.

forbes has 13 teams losing money so negative income, they have the leagues total net income after subtracting out those losses at $250.3 mil with the leafs, rangers and habs pulling in 207.5 which is 83%

but obviously (aside from not knowing if those numbers are accurate), its misleading cause it implies that the other 27 teams made nothing. but the other 14 teams that made profits combined for $173 mil. small in comparison to the top 3 but still in the green when not offset by losses.

and they have the 13 teams losing money at -130 mil with 80 mil of that coming from 5 teams (yotes, isles, bjs, lightning and panthers).

the conclusion that i draw from those numbers is the thing that we already knew and no one involved has made any effort to address or fix...the issue is not that the league is sick, the issue is that the league has a handful of sick franchises that are pulling everyone down. you can find ways to help those teams, you can get rid of those teams whatever, but bottomline THAT is the problem and ignoring it isn't going to fix it.

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:28 PM
  #30
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
more on forbes (with the obvious disclaimer that i'm assuming their numbers are accurate for the sake of argument)...

the most important column on their chart to me is revenue cause that is what the cap is based off...

so they have the leafs at $200 mil, rangers at $199 mil...and then way at the bottom the isles at 66 mil last year...

last year's cap was $64.3 mil with the floor at $48.3.

everyone talks about the cap being 57% as if its 57% for everyone...but based on those numbers last year for the rangers and leafs the cap was 32%, floor was 24%. but for the isles the cap was 97% and the floor was 73%. we can call charles wang cheap but the league is FORCING him to spend 73% of his revenue on player salaries...

we can sit here for the next 500 years arguing over what % is fair for the players but reality is you can make it 50%, 45%, 40% and the isles are still screwed under the current system...

increased revenue sharing and moving to brooklyn will help but i don't care how you dress it up until someone figures out a way to push the isles revenue over $100 mil or change the system so its not based off total league revenue then the isles will keep losing money and the problems will continue

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:35 PM
  #31
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
still say the simplest and best way is a soft cap followed by a luxury tax until you hit the higher hard cap. let the rangers and leafs spend to closer to their own true 50% if they are willing to pay the luxury tax and then give that luxury tax $$ to those bottom teams as revenue sharing.

yeah it might create a bigger separation between the top and bottom payrolls, but many of those bottom teams would start turning profits with that extra money, which would allow them to spend more $$ on their own payrolls which would hopefully lead to them increasing their own revenue...and the hard cap stops the teams from getting too out of control if they luxury tax doesn't stop them. but for most teams that tax will act like a hard cap anyway.

of course then again its taken them this long to figure out 50/50. could you imagine how long it would take them to figure out how to work out a luxury tax system with the proper percentages and such we'd never see hockey again lol

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:55 PM
  #32
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,954
vCash: 500
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
Pitt's Ron Burkle,Mtl's Geoff Molson also among many owners who would want to get involved. Canes GM J.Rutherford is an owner. He can help.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:58 PM
  #33
Rangers79
Registered User
 
Rangers79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
Let these owners into the negotiations. They want this lockout over, they represent moderate owners and high revenue owners.

Rangers79 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:20 PM
  #34
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangers79 View Post
Let these owners into the negotiations. They want this lockout over, they represent moderate owners and high revenue owners.
They represent the silent 74%.



CM, great leg work. I don't think the rational posters on either side deny any problems in the league. The player side is upset over two facts: the owners created the last system at the expense of a season; and they insist on keeping it despite these obvious flaws.

There is no true attempt to fix the bottom 5. No amount of contract control or reasonable revenue split will keep those teams out of the red in this system. We are lined up for another protracted labour dispute in 6 years because the same problems will exist. Can you guess what the solution will be then?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:57 PM
  #35
mrjimmyg89
'13-'14 East Champs
 
mrjimmyg89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
They represent the silent 74%.



CM, great leg work. I don't think the rational posters on either side deny any problems in the league. The player side is upset over two facts: the owners created the last system at the expense of a season; and they insist on keeping it despite these obvious flaws.

There is no true attempt to fix the bottom 5. No amount of contract control or reasonable revenue split will keep those teams out of the red in this system. We are lined up for another protracted labour dispute in 6 years because the same problems will exist. Can you guess what the solution will be then?
Removal of the cap floor is the way to resolve the issue. If an owner wants to spend less, they should be able to. Why is the league forcing teams to spend money? Player values rise with a floor because a minimum has to be achieved for teams. Those bottom 5 could spend as they please. Also, they would not have to overpay marginal players. Florida had to do it last season. Look at the deals handed out. Then owners wonder why players want so much. Remove the cap floor. The league should not be able to tell a team how mich they have to spend. There ia the real flaw in the system.

mrjimmyg89 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:03 PM
  #36
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjimmyg89 View Post
Removal of the cap floor is the way to resolve the issue. If an owner wants to spend less, they should be able to. Why is the league forcing teams to spend money? Player values rise with a floor because a minimum has to be achieved for teams. Those bottom 5 could spend as they please. Also, they would not have to overpay marginal players. Florida had to do it last season. Look at the deals handed out. Then owners wonder why players want so much. Remove the cap floor. The league should not be able to tell a team how mich they have to spend. There ia the real flaw in the system.
Good luck getting the PA to agree to that.

Rangers Fail is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:03 PM
  #37
ltrangerfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
They represent the silent 74%.



CM, great leg work. I don't think the rational posters on either side deny any problems in the league. The player side is upset over two facts: the owners created the last system at the expense of a season; and they insist on keeping it despite these obvious flaws.

There is no true attempt to fix the bottom 5. No amount of contract control or reasonable revenue split will keep those teams out of the red in this system. We are lined up for another protracted labour dispute in 6 years because the same problems will exist. Can you guess what the solution will be then?


Yes, everyone understands the league has problems.

What is the solution? I am cynical that the NHL in total will ever have adequate revenues to support a 30 team league. Yes, I've read debates about moving franchises but I'm suspect that all the parties involved wish to go that route? Maybe 15-20 teams is the answer? However, if the players are willing to accept a more profitable smaller NHL then I'm all for it. To me, the major issue of the lockouts continues to be about whether the players are willing to continue to accept player revenue sharing? By giving back salaries the players are really being asked to give money back to the teams in order to support the unprofitable franchises. The profitable teams are a beneficiary as well but they are being asked to revenue share as well for the benefit of the weaker teams. The less profitable teams, with the floor, must allocate a minimum amount of dollars to pay salaries and thus to remain competitive. Therefore, the players are being asked to give up revenues to save jobs. Is that important to them?

Lockouts can't be good for building revenues. I'm 100% in agreement with you that unless the league fixes it's economic issues another lockout is in the cards as soon as a new CBA ends.

ltrangerfan is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:06 PM
  #38
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,260
vCash: 500
The obvious solution here would be some level of socialism, aka income redistribution. The problem with this solution is two-fold: 1) owners of major teams don't want to support the minor teams, they are better off in the long-term to buy them out of existence; 2) this, like all forms of socialism, does not encourage teams to be efficient.

Since there's no reason for a team to make more money, it will waste the money as much as possible. Why would Dolan give money to Wang when he can just pay more money to his own players, scouts, management, janitors, etc. Ultimately socialism will lead to everyone being equally poor, just as it does in all other economic spheres.

The real solution here seems to be a luxury tax. It still encourages teams to save to avoid taxation, but at the same time, if a team is only spending 24% of its revenue on salaries and wants to go up to 35%, nothing is stopping it from paying that luxury tax to Wang & Co.

But this would mean admitting that the cap was a mistake, which Bettman won't do. It also means owners would have to haggle with each other over the percentage of the tax, instead of fighting the players and keeping owner unity.

Beacon is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:24 PM
  #39
Hollywood163
Registered User
 
Hollywood163's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
Posts: 1,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangers79 View Post
Let these owners into the negotiations. They want this lockout over, they represent moderate owners and high revenue owners.
I think the same thing needs to happen with the players. It can't just be the guys with the 10 year deals showing up to the negotiations.

Hollywood163 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:38 PM
  #40
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
The obvious solution here would be some level of socialism, aka income redistribution. The problem with this solution is two-fold: 1) owners of major teams don't want to support the minor teams, they are better off in the long-term to buy them out of existence; 2) this, like all forms of socialism, does not encourage teams to be efficient.

Since there's no reason for a team to make more money, it will waste the money as much as possible. Why would Dolan give money to Wang when he can just pay more money to his own players, scouts, management, janitors, etc. Ultimately socialism will lead to everyone being equally poor, just as it does in all other economic spheres.

The real solution here seems to be a luxury tax. It still encourages teams to save to avoid taxation, but at the same time, if a team is only spending 24% of its revenue on salaries and wants to go up to 35%, nothing is stopping it from paying that luxury tax to Wang & Co.

But this would mean admitting that the cap was a mistake, which Bettman won't do. It also means owners would have to haggle with each other over the percentage of the tax, instead of fighting the players and keeping owner unity.
FWIW Revenue sharing is a form of socialism. Taking from one and giving to another or others. That the super capitalist owners don't object to the idea just shows that whatever puts cash in their pockets is okay by them. That they want guaranteed profits at the same time really goes against the grain of capitalism as well where a business wins or fails purely on the product it sells. An owner like Wang year in and year out puts out a shoddy product and why should he be guaranteed a profit or even Pittsburgh tanking several years in a row collecting Crosby, Malkin etc. isn't that enough? when in the meantime they're just as happy being a mediocrity.

The debate anyway between capitalism and socialism in this particular country misses something IMO as the capitalism of the greatest plutocrats makes them automatically outstanding citizens while in the meantime the socialism of Social Security, medicare/medicaid is a main reason why older citizens can retire and not work until they die or die on the street with no visible means at all. This country is balanced between capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other and when looking at wealth disparity IMO there should be some limitations to wealth because it's gone in some cases beyond obscene. The Walton heirs for instance are billionaires many times over--the people that work for them in their stores don't do very well--even some full timers are collecting food stamps. There is something really wrong with that.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:54 PM
  #41
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjimmyg89 View Post
Removal of the cap floor is the way to resolve the issue. If an owner wants to spend less, they should be able to. Why is the league forcing teams to spend money? Player values rise with a floor because a minimum has to be achieved for teams. Those bottom 5 could spend as they please. Also, they would not have to overpay marginal players. Florida had to do it last season. Look at the deals handed out. Then owners wonder why players want so much. Remove the cap floor. The league should not be able to tell a team how mich they have to spend. There ia the real flaw in the system.
The cap floor is integral to achieving the 57% (and soon the 50%) split. It was also a concession to instituting the cap so players drafted to a Phoenix didn't have seriously reduced earning potential (relative term).

Luxury tax is the best economic solution. It will ruin parity but we need to get over the idea that there is a perfect solution.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:03 PM
  #42
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood163 View Post
I think the same thing needs to happen with the players. It can't just be the guys with the 10 year deals showing up to the negotiations.
But it hasn't been. These meetings have had 18 or 19 players in them at times. Just from a random meeting:

Quote:
The 18 players in attendance at the NHLPA offices are Craig Adams, Brad Boyes, Chris Campoli, David Clarkson, Dan Cleary, Carlo Colaiacovo, Sidney Crosby, Mathieu Darche, Shane Doan, Shawn Horcoff, Jarome Iginla, Robyn Regehr, Eric Staal, Matt Stajan, Shawn Thornton, Jonathan Toews, Kevin Westgarth and Dan Winnik.

http://www.csnne.com/hockey-boston-b...blockID=790447
The whole strength of the NHLPA comes from the fact that it isn't just the stars.

Zil is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:15 PM
  #43
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
FWIW Revenue sharing is a form of socialism.
No, it isn't.

Socialist programs only apply to the government. The NHL is one company with 30 franchises and 30 owners (much like Wendy's is one company with thousands of franchises and thousands of owners). Revenue sharing is internal resource allocation.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 08:35 PM
  #44
Jaromir Jagr
New York Rangers Cup
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
But it hasn't been. These meetings have had 18 or 19 players in them at times. Just from a random meeting:



The whole strength of the NHLPA comes from the fact that it isn't just the stars.
Some of the players are actually a bad thing. Players like Prust and co. have been the problem more often than not. The ones who are bottom 6'ers, making less money have had more of a problem with the negotiations (at least going by public commentary) then those who are making more money or are stars. The players that usually want to get the deal done instead of getting everything they want are those making big money, older players on the verge of retiring, and players that have more sense than ego.

The players are divided just as the owners are, but with Fehr at the helm, as long as the players that want to fight to the death outnumber the ones who want to settle, there will not be a deal.

Jaromir Jagr is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 08:46 PM
  #45
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
No, it isn't.

Socialist programs only apply to the government. The NHL is one company with 30 franchises and 30 owners (much like Wendy's is one company with thousands of franchises and thousands of owners). Revenue sharing is internal resource allocation.

No, different Wendy's franchises do not directly compete with each other. The goal of Wendy's X is not to take money from Wendy's Y.

The NHL is like any other industry: the goal of one entity is to defeat all the others. So Coke is looking to defeat Pepsi and all other soda companies, Nike is looking to defeat Reebok and all other shoe companies. The Rangers are looking to defeat the Islanders and all other hockey teams.

NHL is not a company, it's an industry.

Beacon is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 09:01 PM
  #46
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
No, different Wendy's franchises do not directly compete with each other. The goal of Wendy's X is not to take money from Wendy's Y.

The NHL is like any other industry: the goal of one entity is to defeat all the others. So Coke is looking to defeat Pepsi and all other soda companies, Nike is looking to defeat Reebok and all other shoe companies. The Rangers are looking to defeat the Islanders and all other hockey teams.

NHL is not a company, it's an industry.
I disagree. Pro sports is the industry. The NHL, MLB, NFL, and NBA are the companies.

NHL franchises only compete on the ice. The goal of the Rangers is not to run the Ducks out of business. It is to cooperatively build a superb on-ice product that wins the advertising and gate revenue dollars against what the other leagues have to offer.

A healthy NHL needs healthy franchises with a wide geographic footprint. Right now there are major disagreements on how to achieve that.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 09:32 PM
  #47
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
No, it isn't.

Socialist programs only apply to the government. The NHL is one company with 30 franchises and 30 owners (much like Wendy's is one company with thousands of franchises and thousands of owners). Revenue sharing is internal resource allocation.
it's socialism.

Inferno is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 09:49 PM
  #48
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
No, different Wendy's franchises do not directly compete with each other. The goal of Wendy's X is not to take money from Wendy's Y.

The NHL is like any other industry: the goal of one entity is to defeat all the others. So Coke is looking to defeat Pepsi and all other soda companies, Nike is looking to defeat Reebok and all other shoe companies. The Rangers are looking to defeat the Islanders and all other hockey teams.

NHL is not a company, it's an industry.
You're confusing business competition with on-ice competition. The Rangers aren't trying to put the Isles out of business. Hell, the Islanders make MSG money directly, so that'd be self-defeating anyway. Without other franchises, the Rangers don't have anyone to play against, which means they don't make any money. There may be a slight business competition in terms of market share with the Islanders and the Devils, but the three teams are unique in that. The bylaws of the league generally ensure that each team has a monopoly on the product within their own market.

Even if you were right about all of that, I worked in the fast food industry when I was in high school. I worked for two different restaurants in the same chain and in the same area but with different ownership. You're completely wrong that they don't compete with each other.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 09:55 PM
  #49
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
it's socialism.
Not by any definition actually in use anywhere. Saying something doesn't make it so.

The NHL is not run by a democratically controlled group of it's workers, has individual ownership of it's assets, and is not owned by the government or citizens or any other form of social ownership. The economic definition doesn't hold. And the political definition obviously doesn't.


Last edited by Chairman Maouth: 12-01-2012 at 11:29 PM. Reason: politics
Tawnos is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 10:06 PM
  #50
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaromir Jagr View Post
Some of the players are actually a bad thing. Players like Prust and co. have been the problem more often than not. The ones who are bottom 6'ers, making less money have had more of a problem with the negotiations (at least going by public commentary) then those who are making more money or are stars. The players that usually want to get the deal done instead of getting everything they want are those making big money, older players on the verge of retiring, and players that have more sense than ego.

The players are divided just as the owners are, but with Fehr at the helm, as long as the players that want to fight to the death outnumber the ones who want to settle, there will not be a deal.
Fehr is not a magic wizard. He does what the players tell him to. Despite the odd Roman Hamrlik, the union is fairly united and that is largely thanks to the iron fist negotiating tactics of Bettman and Jacobs. The players have already given a lot up in their offers. This isn't them wanting to fight to the death. It's them refusing to cave in on absolutely every single demand of the owners.

Zil 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 03:48 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.