HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Lockout Thread UPD 1/6 - framework of new CBA agreed to

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2012, 11:14 AM
  #301
Nighthock
**** the Kings...
 
Nighthock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 15,800
vCash: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJenga View Post
This isn't a strike. It's a lockout.
ah, thank you ... buzzkill

Nighthock is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 04:01 PM
  #302
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighthock View Post
ah, thank you ... buzzkill
So to your point, if owners were unable to do other kinds of business when they had labor issues at one of their businesses, they would be more inclined to move.

That's partly the point of unions, and why the decline of unions has caused problems. In days past, mistreatment of one union would garner support from other unions, making it harder for owners to hold out against labor.

Phu is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 01:47 AM
  #303
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,329
vCash: 567
So we know that not all owners support a lockout at this point, right? Boston and Philly are pro-lockout, and the Sharks are supposedly anti-lockout. Anyone have any guesses?

TheJuxtaposer is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:18 AM
  #304
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
So to your point, if owners were unable to do other kinds of business when they had labor issues at one of their businesses, they would be more inclined to move.

That's partly the point of unions, and why the decline of unions has caused problems. In days past, mistreatment of one union would garner support from other unions, making it harder for owners to hold out against labor.
Well I wouldn't call the decline of unions a problem...

Unions have declined because they forgot the first rule of being a parasite. Never kill the host.

Stickmata is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 01:16 PM
  #305
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
So we know that not all owners support a lockout at this point, right? Boston and Philly are pro-lockout, and the Sharks are supposedly anti-lockout. Anyone have any guesses?
I've read conflicting reports on Sharks ownership. I can see reasons for why they would favor the lockout (more level free-agency playing field, lower cap) and why they would not (non-traditional market).

All indications are that Bruins ownership is probably the loudest pro-lockout voice among the owners. I honestly hope a meteor wipes out the TD garden (while no one is in or around it).

Eighth Fret is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 03:49 PM
  #306
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
There is a reasonable offer on the table right now that the players could sign today, that would allow them to continue to earn ridiculous amounts of money to play a game, and which would put them on par with all the other professional leagues in terms of percentage of revenue share and contracting rights. They could sign today and be playing hockey in two weeks, so please spare me Brad Richards' faux 'concern for the game' comments. If he were so concerned for the game, he would approve the deal on the table and get back to making $8-9 million a year even after the share reduction. And the owners might be able to actually earn a fair return on their investment, so we're not back in the same place 5 years from now.

The NHL's offer is not an austerity offer. It would not send any players to the poor house. And the NHL doesn't need revenue sharing, it's needs more economic profit. If you read the Forbe's article and believe their franchise values, even the highest value teams in the league are making less than 10% OPERATING INCOME currently and the league as a whole is making way less than that. That's not a fair return on investment and it's not a sustainable business model.

Stickmata is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 04:19 PM
  #307
SharksFan1
Registered User
 
SharksFan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
The NHL's offer is not an austerity offer. It would not send any players to the poor house. And the NHL doesn't need revenue sharing, it's needs more economic profit. If you read the Forbe's article and believe their franchise values, even the highest value teams in the league are making less than 10% OPERATING INCOME currently and the league as a whole is making way less than that. That's not a fair return on investment and it's not a sustainable business model.
This is exactly how I feel. Maybe it isn't fair for the players to take another cut, but this is the reality, and life is not always fair. When it comes down to it it is just simple business practices, for a business to be successful it cannot pay its employees more than or close to what it is bringing in, simple as that. I don't see how the players don't get it.

SharksFan1 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 04:46 PM
  #308
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharksFan1 View Post
When it comes down to it it is just simple business practices, for a business to be successful it cannot pay its employees more than or close to what it is bringing in, simple as that. I don't see how the players don't get it.
It's you who doesn't get that it doesn't come down to anything "simple" ... the structure of the business surrounding an NHL franchise is not so cut and dried.

Nor is pretty much any modern large business, which is why many in the public such as yourself believe businesses just have no choice but to screw workers, then wonder why the economy is so messed up after decades of wage stagnation and inequality growth.

Phu is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 06:04 PM
  #309
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
So we know that not all owners support a lockout at this point, right? Boston and Philly are pro-lockout, and the Sharks are supposedly anti-lockout. Anyone have any guesses?
Philly is questionable as are the Sharks. The Sharks were pro-lockout the last go round. Compton is the new BOG member, replacing Jamison who was a hawk. There are indications that Snider (Philly) has switched sides to the dovish. Friedman had an article detailing the Who's Who of Hawks and Doves around the NHL. It was not a complete list. IIRC, Karmanos (Carolina) and Leipold (Minny) are hawks (pro-lockout) as is the new Florida owner. Doves are harder to find, but indications are Dolan (NYR) is. The best way to find an owners stance is to look for his quotes around labor when there is not a current work stoppage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
It's you who doesn't get that it doesn't come down to anything "simple" ... the structure of the business surrounding an NHL franchise is not so cut and dried.

Nor is pretty much any modern large business, which is why many in the public such as yourself believe businesses just have no choice but to screw workers, then wonder why the economy is so messed up after decades of wage stagnation and inequality growth.
It isn't simple because they have 30 different businesses. Someone else pointed out that they are roughly 10/10/10. Ten are doing well, ten treading water and ten losing their shirts. They need an agreement where possibly only one or two are losing their shirts. Their current structure is such that a paycut will help all franchises and shift the above ratio but that they will be in trouble again in a few years and back in the same ratio. The structure will force franchises to and over the brink of bankruptcy (even if Phoenix is moved, who is next?). They need a combo of a small paycut, and a change in the ranging system and rev sharing for a capped structure to work. Neither side has addressed the issue adequately. The PA is rightly offended by the league proposing a fix which will produce another windfall for the moneymaking franchises while not addressing the core issues.


Last edited by SJeasy: 11-29-2012 at 06:13 PM.
SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 06:39 PM
  #310
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
It isn't simple because they have 30 different businesses. Someone else pointed out that they are roughly 10/10/10. Ten are doing well, ten treading water and ten losing their shirts. They need an agreement where possibly only one or two are losing their shirts. Their current structure is such that a paycut will help all franchises and shift the above ratio but that they will be in trouble again in a few years and back in the same ratio. The structure will force franchises to and over the brink of bankruptcy (even if Phoenix is moved, who is next?). They need a combo of a small paycut, and a change in the ranging system and rev sharing for a capped structure to work. Neither side has addressed the issue adequately. The PA is rightly offended by the league proposing a fix which will produce another windfall for the moneymaking franchises while not addressing the core issues.
I was speaking more vertically but you are right that horizontally there is a major issue as well. Revenue sharing is the solution, and as long as the owners do not propose it, the players are right to think their offer not only can but should be better.

Phu is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 02:52 PM
  #311
René
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kölle / Cologne
Country: Germany
Posts: 51
vCash: 500
Certainly the wrong thread but there´s a game review video of Thomas Greiss´ first match for his lockout team Hannover Scorpions in Germany at his former team Cologne Sharks @ http://www.laola1.tv/en/int/eishocke...62-105075.html

René is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:16 PM
  #312
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
So we know that not all owners support a lockout at this point, right? Boston and Philly are pro-lockout, and the Sharks are supposedly anti-lockout. Anyone have any guesses?
All I know is all it takes is eight owners to keep the lockout going. I'd guess the big sticking issue is really contract rollback. This wouldn't be an issue that would effect the Sharks as much as other owners in fact since the sharks have been effectively managing their contracts they likely would view contract rollback as unfair. From there just look at what teams have ridiculous long term contracts and you may be able to guess who would be pro lockout.

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 09:06 AM
  #313
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,138
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
All I know is all it takes is eight owners to keep the lockout going. I'd guess the big sticking issue is really contract rollback. This wouldn't be an issue that would effect the Sharks as much as other owners in fact since the sharks have been effectively managing their contracts they likely would view contract rollback as unfair. From there just look at what teams have ridiculous long term contracts and you may be able to guess who would be pro lockout.
i know it isn't perfect, but even if you look at teams that have signed contracts for over 5 years (jacobs is in that group with 3 or 4 players), couple of them signed just this offseason.

this is one reason why i think 5 years is not the number they want, i think they want 7 years (the number for insurance purposes i believe)

Barrie22 is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 04:38 PM
  #314
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
i know it isn't perfect, but even if you look at teams that have signed contracts for over 5 years (jacobs is in that group with 3 or 4 players), couple of them signed just this offseason.

this is one reason why i think 5 years is not the number they want, i think they want 7 years (the number for insurance purposes i believe)
An article just came out that the benchmark for the insurance companies is now 5 years, not 7 which it was a few years ago. You can use Crosby as a sample to look at costs. $2.4mil yearly premium for 10 years and $104mil. I did a rough calc for the big, long leaguewide contracts, about $100mil/year over and above league insurance.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 05:37 PM
  #315
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,560
vCash: 500
http://www.csnbayarea.com/hockey-san...5&feedID=10290

Owen Nolan's $0.02 on lockout

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 08:38 PM
  #316
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,560
vCash: 500
http://www.csnbayarea.com/hockey-san...1&feedID=10290

Boyle and Havlat talk about lockout

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 01:32 PM
  #317
LeeIFBB
Teflon Doug
 
LeeIFBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tanning Bed
Posts: 1,478
vCash: 500
Has there been anything in the media about the Shark ownership's position on the lockout? Obviously they are not allowed to comment publicly, but has there been an inkling about where these guys fall among the hardliners/get a deal done owners?

I'd be interested to know given the Sharks position as a cap ceiling team that doesn't have back-diving contracts or any contracts extending beyond 5 years. A term length that a been in the NHL's proposal as the max length for SPCs.

LeeIFBB is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 05:20 PM
  #318
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeIFBB View Post
Has there been anything in the media about the Shark ownership's position on the lockout? Obviously they are not allowed to comment publicly, but has there been an inkling about where these guys fall among the hardliners/get a deal done owners?

I'd be interested to know given the Sharks position as a cap ceiling team that doesn't have back-diving contracts or any contracts extending beyond 5 years. A term length that a been in the NHL's proposal as the max length for SPCs.
Compton is the current governor for SJ. Jamison was a hardliner in the last lockout.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:02 AM
  #319
JayP812
The Team of Tomorrow
 
JayP812's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 5,846
vCash: 455
I can't help but feel excited right now, looks like the closest we've ever been to the end.

JayP812 is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 11:34 AM
  #320
Nighthock
**** the Kings...
 
Nighthock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 15,800
vCash: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayP812 View Post
I can't help but feel excited right now, looks like the closest we've ever been to the end.
Did Crosby really have to be involved? I was content in not liking him ... this could change everything!!

Nighthock is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 01:09 PM
  #321
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighthock View Post
Did Crosby really have to be involved? I was content in not liking him ... this could change everything!!
Ha -- my thoughts exactly last night as I was reading reports from the session. If he pulls this off, I'll partially forgive him for the 2010 Olympics -- especially if the potential new CBA ends up being long-term (more than 7 years).

Eighth Fret is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 04:25 PM
  #322
trumpetman
Registered User
 
trumpetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Country: United States
Posts: 98
vCash: 500
RE.- NHLlockout I think the cities who own the arenas should throw out the NHL and put in topless womens volleyball leagues in their place.,

Does anybody think the cities and businesses and employes unions of the arenas may have a cause of action for the breach of their obligations to them against the owners and players? I mean really twice in 7 yrs. How many of the lil people have to suffer before somebody does something about it? These people are already richer then 99% of their fans. Cut the greed.


Last edited by trumpetman: 12-05-2012 at 04:30 PM.
trumpetman is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 04:41 PM
  #323
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,141
vCash: 500
Holy crap.. word is the NHL is discussing a 10 year deal. My guess is that the added length would make them feel better about going higher on make-whole by allowing them to spread it out over a few more years.

Eighth Fret is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:26 PM
  #324
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,527
vCash: 500
Looks like this is happening ... the players want a shorter CBA length. Why? So they lose half the salary again in 5 years?

Kitten Mittons is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 11:47 PM
  #325
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,138
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitten Mittons View Post
Looks like this is happening ... the players want a shorter CBA length. Why? So they lose half the salary again in 5 years?
5 years perfect timing that way they have all of the leverage and the league has none. 100th anniversary of the nhl is in 5 years.

Barrie22 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 07:11 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.