HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 12:29 PM
  #976
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanologist View Post
It's mostly about those things. And they will both be reduced from the player perspective.

Do you disagree with this?
Yes, but do you agree that the players could have signed the 82 game offer and grow the HRR so their 50% share outgrows any gains they get from dragging the negotiations past December? Every game lost October, November and December is much worse for the players than the owners. A lost season is terrible for everyone.

Do you agree that the players are fighting on principle over a percentage and contract rights? What is their end game? They already agreed to 50/50 for the future, why fight over the distribution of that 50% and lose $1.8 billion?

The owners are willing to walk away from their $250 million profit to reduce their spend by $1.8 billion. The "make whole" provision will be much easier for 2013-14 since a lot of contracts will be off the books. Players in their 30s will be replaced by cheaper teenagers. I don't see the players gaining much by killing another season; they are going to be at 50/50 in the next CBA. Contract rights just govern how it gets distributed; the 50% of HRR won't change with "better" contract rights.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:31 PM
  #977
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
IMO this whole 'parody' idea that the league put forward after the cap was introduced is just a façade. It's really about not paying players true market value. Players getting paid true market value leaves 0 profits.

The cap certainly does help with parody though.
It's also been proven that true market value is detrimental to the long term health of the league. Which the players make their living off of.

More Jobs or bigger salaries. Take your pick.

Lacaar is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:31 PM
  #978
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
Well isn't the PA in the most powerful position they have been in during these entire negotiations? Owners clearly want to make a deal and if 15% more of the season is cancelled they owners would lose 25% of sponsorship money.
25% of sponsorship money isn't enough money for the owners to sign a "bad" deal in their eyes. I doubt 61 games is even possible anyways.

Didn't the BoG meeting talk about 50-60 games? That is already below the 75% threshold for 100%, that money is already gone.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:32 PM
  #979
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,180
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
Well isn't the PA in the most powerful position they have been in during these entire negotiations? Owners clearly want to make a deal and if 15% more of the season is cancelled they owners would lose 25% of sponsorship money.
I think that sponsorship money is gone either way. Most commentators talk about a 56-58 game season if a deal gets done shortly.

I think the sponsors are annoyed as it is, and NHL trying to squeeze in a 61 game season to get full sponsorship money would sour the relationships. Losing 25% of sponsorship money this season is something the league has to chalk up as another cost of the lockout.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:35 PM
  #980
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,104
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I think that sponsorship money is gone either way. Most commentators talk about a 56-58 game season if a deal gets done shortly.

I think the sponsors are annoyed as it is, and NHL trying to squeeze in a 61 game season to get full sponsorship money would sour the relationships. Losing 25% of sponsorship money this season is something the league has to chalk up as another cost of the lockout.
Let's hope Fehr doesn't come at the NHL by claiming that loss of sponsorship revenues should not affect the player's share

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:38 PM
  #981
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,051
vCash: 500
I don't hold much stock in the differences in the "make whole" numbers. The players have to know that it's pointless to cancel more games just to hold out for more, because they'll just end up farther behind anyhow.

The contract term limits are the one thing that could blow this whole thing up.

Ernie is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:41 PM
  #982
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,925
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
That wouldn't make any sense.
That would be a rash knee-jerk reaction, and these guys are pros at what they do...
This whole procedure is so calculated that such a move would be so uncharacteristic.

Also, its just Dec 6th. Quite a bit more time left.

If they break off today... ok, whats new... step back, and get them going again in a few days.
A few days ago, one of the guys on sportsnet quoted a insider that said, Bettman wanted a deal done by Friday. Made it sound like that was the drop dead date.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:44 PM
  #983
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
A few days ago, one of the guys on sportsnet quoted a insider that said, Bettman wanted a deal done by Friday. Made it sound like that was the drop dead date.
Could be the "drop dead" date for the moderate owners to get a deal done? Maybe after Friday, the hardliners take back the negotiations. If the NHLPA keeps moving the target, the moderates will fall in line with the hardliners and the NHLPA will have a much harder time getting more from the NHL in their offers.

This week could be a huge "told you so" for Bettman to the moderate owners. Shows that the NHLPA doesn't really want a deal because they keep changing their "demands". Very hard to negotiate with someone who keeps changing what they are asking for.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:46 PM
  #984
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Yes, but do you agree that the players could have signed the 82 game offer and grow the HRR so their 50% share outgrows any gains they get from dragging the negotiations past December? Every game lost October, November and December is much worse for the players than the owners. A lost season is terrible for everyone.

Do you agree that the players are fighting on principle over a percentage and contract rights? What is their end game? They already agreed to 50/50 for the future, why fight over the distribution of that 50% and lose $1.8 billion?

The owners are willing to walk away from their $250 million profit to reduce their spend by $1.8 billion. The "make whole" provision will be much easier for 2013-14 since a lot of contracts will be off the books. Players in their 30s will be replaced by cheaper teenagers. I don't see the players gaining much by killing another season; they are going to be at 50/50 in the next CBA. Contract rights just govern how it gets distributed; the 50% of HRR won't change with "better" contract rights.
okay, cool. that's what I thought.

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:49 PM
  #985
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
It's also been proven that true market value is detrimental to the long term health of the league. Which the players make their living off of.

More Jobs or bigger salaries. Take your pick.
Nope, it's not one or they other. There are many other economic tools one could use to avoid owners over stretching their means. For example a luxury tax instead of a hard cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I think that sponsorship money is gone either way. Most commentators talk about a 56-58 game season if a deal gets done shortly.

I think the sponsors are annoyed as it is, and NHL trying to squeeze in a 61 game season to get full sponsorship money would sour the relationships. Losing 25% of sponsorship money this season is something the league has to chalk up as another cost of the lockout.
I realize this is a BIG if but if a deal were to get done soon, how difficult would it be to squeeze in an extra week of hockey to get to the 61 game? Would it be too much at this point?

YogiCanucks is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:55 PM
  #986
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
Nope, it's not one or they other. There are many other economic tools one could use to avoid owners over stretching their means. For example a luxury tax instead of a hard cap.



I realize this is a BIG if but if a deal were to get done soon, how difficult would it be to squeeze in an extra week of hockey to get to the 61 game? Would it be too much at this point?
Arenas are booked before the season starts. My understanding is they haven't been rescheduling the games, but rather just cancelling them in advance. Adding new games would be a nightmare logistically.

smackdaddy is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:56 PM
  #987
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,295
vCash: 500
Luxury tax will help everyone make money. All baseball owners make money. Only the fans wont like it, but its not like this has worked.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:56 PM
  #988
hawksfan50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,848
vCash: 500
Sticking points :

TERM of CBA--NHL wants 10 years -out clause after 8 years ...NHLPA wants only shorter term CBA (5years)...

INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT LENGTH---NHL wants 5 year max. length ecept for re-signing a team's own player which is a max. of 7 years in the NHL's offer (AND the new make-whole uppage to $300milion offer is contingent on NHLPA agrreing to 5 uear max. individual contracts with only a 5% variance for each year of the term)---the FEHR boys do not like anything restricting contract rights like this-BUT there is a price for everything!

MAYBE the NHLPA counters with asking some extra goodies the NHL throws into the pension plan and agrees to the 10 year CBA (THEY SHOULD--fans do not want to go through this every 5 or 6 years-it SHOULD BE A LENGTHY LABOUR PEACE ) -the fans willback the NHL on this issue..


AS TO CONTRACT LENGTH on individual contracts--the NHL seems UNMOVEABLE on this demand 5 year max. /7years max if an extentsion on a team's own player BUT
MAYBE the NHLPA could squuee just 1 more year OR get the 5% variance thing dropped...IF the 'PA gets SOME "give" by the NHL on the "IRONCLAD" position on this issue--then the 'PA" could claim SOME "victory" (albeit small) in getting the NHL to budge off the too harsh restrictions the PA seees on this issue of individual contract length..EVEN just 1 more year on the 5 year mAX for FA's signed to 6 years could be claimed as a "victory" won from the NHL's stubborn refusal to budge on this--HARD to believe the WHOLE DEAL would collapse just on ONE STINKING YEAR OF CONTRACT LENGTH.. OR if not on the extra year to gain--how about just droping the variance per year clause?

JUST a bit more NHL "give" to tweak the NHLPA's give to a 5 yr FA max /7yr extension max restriction so that the PA still claims they got the NHL to back downn (albeit not much) onthis issue--OUGHT to be enough to cement a deal...

SO to me SIX YEAR max. free agent contract length/7 years for extension maxes seems a reasonable compromise OR some more ajusting by the NHL on a shorter 5 year max free agent contract but with no or wider annual variance proving some more flexibility...THIS REALLY DOES NOT SEEM THAT WIDE A GULF TO SCUTTLE THE WHOLE ENCHILADA,DOES IT? COMPROMISE--LET's MAKE A DEAL!

hawksfan50 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:58 PM
  #989
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Luxury tax will help everyone make money. All baseball owners make money. Only the fans wont like it, but its not like this has worked.
luxury tax doesnt necessarily make all baseball owners money. i think those lucrative national TV and MLB generated revenues have more to do with it.

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:59 PM
  #990
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
Nope, it's not one or they other. There are many other economic tools one could use to avoid owners over stretching their means. For example a luxury tax instead of a hard cap.
Won't happen, especially not at this stage. Not sure why you bother to bring up this idea.

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:00 PM
  #991
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
The NHL is serious about the variance on contracts. The NHLPA might be able to negotiate an increase up from 5%, but no way the league is going to continue to allow contracts that circumvent the cap.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:03 PM
  #992
BlueChip01
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BlueChip01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l..._shannon_blog/

You see, for the past few months the actions of Fehr had flummoxed Bettman and Daly. And no matter how many times they told the 29 owners of their plight, no one would really believe that Fehr's conviction and constitution would stand in the way of a new, more even CBA. Now Jeff Vinik (Tampa Bay), Larry Tanenbaum (Toronto), Mark Chipman (Winnipeg) and Ron Burkle (Pittsburgh) just might realize what Bettman, Daly, Murray Edwards (Calgary) and Jeremy Jacobs (Boston) have been saying all along: "this guy doesn't want to do a deal."

BlueChip01 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:05 PM
  #993
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Na'ē panjā
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,769
vCash: 500
The reason why the NHL wants limits on contracts so bad (which will likely end up as restricted YBY variations or age limitations) is because through frontloading players end up getting more than they would normally get under the regular cap; we've seen that larger market teams have no qualms about doing that which means smaller markets very much want some sort of solution to the matter.

Unless dropping the cap floor was suddenly brought up... which would be very... interesting, but no doubt the players wouldn't touch the idea with a 20ft pole.

VinnyC is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:06 PM
  #994
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l..._shannon_blog/

You see, for the past few months the actions of Fehr had flummoxed Bettman and Daly. And no matter how many times they told the 29 owners of their plight, no one would really believe that Fehr's conviction and constitution would stand in the way of a new, more even CBA. Now Jeff Vinik (Tampa Bay), Larry Tanenbaum (Toronto), Mark Chipman (Winnipeg) and Ron Burkle (Pittsburgh) just might realize what Bettman, Daly, Murray Edwards (Calgary) and Jeremy Jacobs (Boston) have been saying all along: "this guy doesn't want to do a deal."

Another way to look at it is not that he won't deal, but that he won't give in to the owners.

colchar is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:07 PM
  #995
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
The NHL is serious about the variance on contracts. The NHLPA might be able to negotiate an increase up from 5%, but no way the league is going to continue to allow contracts that circumvent the cap.
If they get some new agreements regarding contracts how does that affect contracts that are already signed? Has there been any word of a grandfather clause that would allow those contracts to remain in effect?

colchar is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:08 PM
  #996
BlueChip01
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BlueChip01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
So now the PA wants mediators brought back in.

BlueChip01 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:09 PM
  #997
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Luxury tax will help everyone make money. All baseball owners make money. Only the fans wont like it, but its not like this has worked.
Baseball owners make money off of revenue sharing not luxury tax. Do some research.

Luxury tax in baseball in it's current form accomplishes squat. I think it's responsible for what 5% of the revenue dispersal among teams?

Lacaar is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:10 PM
  #998
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
Another way to look at it is not that he won't deal, but that he won't give in to the owners.
There seems to be a lot of people who can't tell the difference between the two.

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:10 PM
  #999
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
So now the PA wants mediators brought back in.

Please add your source for claims. Thanks.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:11 PM
  #1000
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
So now the PA wants mediators brought back in.
who the hell said that?

John Shannon ‏@JSportsnet
Can confirm that NHLPA has indeed requested the return of Federal Mediators to the process.Needless to say,NHL has yet to agree.

trueblue9441 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 02:23 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.