HFBoards

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

Jan 6/13: CBA reached to end the Lockout. Rejoice! (Post#783)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 01:13 PM
  #226
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,122
vCash: 500
is the 5 year term limit for deals proposed from here on in or retroactive? I haven't heard this discussed at all. Regardless, I would be overjoyed to see a 5 yr limit on contracts ... it is better for the hockey world IMHO.

also, I would love the CBA to be as long as possible. This ******** gets very tiresome, and don't want to see it again in 6 years. How about 8 or 9 years, with no opt out option?

I can certainly see the players not wanting a 5 yr limit, but too bad. I hope they COMPRIMISE and decide on a 6 yr limit, with resigning teams having the option of an extra year.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:18 PM
  #227
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
No way could it be retroactive. The Isles would love it though, Rick Dipietro would be an instant UFA.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:20 PM
  #228
Edonator
The Mightiest Club
 
Edonator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vancouver
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 3,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
It's shocking that people has such short memories.

The league hasnt given up a thing, not one thing.
Compare the NHL's CBA to the other professional sport leagues in North America, and then reconsider what you're saying. The NHL weren't in a position to "give" the NHLPA anything. The players have had a sweet deal for a long time.

Edonator is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:25 PM
  #229
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
The NHL weren't in a position to "give" the NHLPA anything
League seems to be doing fine - solid overall revenues since the lockout (conditions *are* better now than then - and that old CBA is better for the players than anything they're going to sign now). Team valuations are up. They could afford to throw a few crumbs at the other side without going bankrupt. Question should be, is the NHLPA asking for too much not whether the league can afford to give anything - they clearly can.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:28 PM
  #230
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
League seems to be doing fine - solid overall revenues since the lockout (conditions *are* better now than then - and that old CBA is better for the players than anything they're going to sign now). Team valuations are up. They could afford to throw a few crumbs at the other side without going bankrupt.
This says nothing about profits.

It's fine and dandy that valuations are going up, but there are no profits from these valuations unless these owners actually sell the teams.

kanuck87 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:29 PM
  #231
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,122
vCash: 500
ALso, the NHL could make a concession that I would be happy with - allow a signing bonus of 10% of the value of the contract, taken out of the value of the contract of course. So if you sign a 5 yr $5 M/yr contract, you can get a $2.5M signing bonus, and get a yearly salary of $4.5 M.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:30 PM
  #232
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
This says nothing about profits.
Well you'll have to take the word of the owners about "profits" seeing as they're private companies. Everybody knows about the "accounting sleight of hands" that can be done on numbers. As said before, see the movie industry regarding "cooking the books".

Two of the crappier performing (on the books that is) teams can be "fixed" regardless of what CBA is signed - Yotes/Fishsticks. Can't do much about Wacky Charles Wang but the move to Brooklyn should have a noticeable (positive) impact on their finances. Yotes are Bettman's baby - the money pit that could actually generate money if moved to Quebec City. But, that teams stays as they're chasing the ever elusive big TV contract that is "supposed" to bring in the money.


Last edited by Barney Gumble: 12-07-2012 at 01:36 PM.
Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:38 PM
  #233
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Well you'll have to take the word of the owners about "profits" seeing as they're private companies. Everybody knows about the "accounting sleight of hands" that can be done on numbers. As said before, see the movie industry regarding "cooking the books".

Two of the crappier performing (on the books that is) teams can be "fixed" regardless of what CBA is signed - Yotes/Fishsticks. Can't do much about Wacky Charles Wang but the move to Brooklyn should have a noticeable (positive) impact on their finances. Yotes are Bettman's baby - the money pit that could actually generate money if moved to Quebec City. But, that teams stays as they're chasing the ever elusive big TV contract that is "supposed" to bring in the money.
Oh, I'm not saying that the owners are definitely making money or losing money, just that revenues and team valuations arent the best way to assess how financially healthy each franchise is.

kanuck87 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:41 PM
  #234
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
Oh, I'm not saying that the owners are definitely making money or losing money, just that revenues and team valuations arent the best way to assess how financially healthy each franchise is.
Fair enough (though again, given that these are private companies, there's really no other way to make a judgement) - my main point is that one would be hard pressed to claim the league as a whole was better off (financially) in 2004 than it is now.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:04 PM
  #235
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
Oh, I'm not saying that the owners are definitely making money or losing money, just that revenues and team valuations arent the best way to assess how financially healthy each franchise is.
Yes, it is. If a team's profits over 7 years are only 10 million but the value of their franchise grows by 70%, that is not some fake value that the owner sees no benefit from. I don't know why anyone would argue differently. Even if the team was "losing" money while seeing vast growth in franchise value, that would be a sound investment. What businessman wouldn't spend 20 million to make 70?

And besides that, the league is making tons of money. This is indisputable if you look at revenues/player shares after the Levitt report in 2004.

Forbes doesn't pull their numbers from thin air, either.

You can argue for whatever side you please, but the league is making a lot of money. That is indisputable. Even Bettman doesn't dispute it when he's talking up his legacy. That talk just gets quiet when he's spinning like a top for negotiation purposes.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:08 PM
  #236
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
Compare the NHL's CBA to the other professional sport leagues in North America, and then reconsider what you're saying. The NHL weren't in a position to "give" the NHLPA anything. The players have had a sweet deal for a long time.
Record revenues.

Record franchise values.

Need I say more?

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:11 PM
  #237
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Record revenues.

Record franchise values.

Need I say more?
Record expenses too...

The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:14 PM
  #238
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
Record expenses too...
Yup.

So they already got back 7%.

Why 'die on the hill' for the other stuff.

It's not like the expenses are hurting the bottom lines on franchise values.

A linked cap hurts the teams who have to spend to a floor.

We all know Wang wouldn't spend $20m on salaries unless he was forced.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:22 PM
  #239
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
Record expenses too...
In 2004 the league lost 274 million dollars on 2 billion dollars in revenue, while paying 75% of HRR to the players. Revenues have increased by more than 60% and the player's share of HRR was reduced from 75% to 57%. That's pretty simple math.

It doesn't even factor in how much money many of the owners make from arenas they otherwise would never have been able to build -- or, in many cases, have had the funds to build. How much money does Jeremy Jacobs make from the Celtics using TD Garden? How much money does he make from concerts or other sporting events (UFC)? What sort of tax breaks does the municipality offer him?

The owners are doing alright here.

As I posted in another thread, the infamous Frank McCourt bought the Dodgers for a shade under a half billion dollars in 2004. He basically went bankrupt, racked up huge debts, and had to pay off significant creditors when he sold the team last year.... for 2.4 billion dollars. Poor guy. Guess Don Fehr ruined baseball too

Proto is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:07 PM
  #240
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
On average how often do Unions win labor battles with their employer?

Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:24 PM
  #241
BeardedCanuck
Registered User
 
BeardedCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
Record expenses too...
And who singed those contracts to make those record expenses? Who has the vote in saying if the league can bail out Phoenix and try and keep it in a area where all it will ever do is lose money, instead of moving it to a place that will make money and will no longer be a reason for record expenses but a reason for those expenses going down?

BeardedCanuck is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:32 PM
  #242
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
Record expenses too...
Actually the NHL has some of the lowest relative expenses of any of the big 4 sports leagues. Despite having the highest players' share at 57%, the NHL still generated more profit per dollar of revenue than either the MLB or the NBA. And a drop to 50/50 will see their profits double to about 12-15% of revenues. That's an astronomical number for a non-NFL sports league.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:41 PM
  #243
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...ur-fight-kelly

Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:46 PM
  #244
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Actually the NHL has some of the lowest relative expenses of any of the big 4 sports leagues. Despite having the highest players' share at 57%, the NHL still generated more profit per dollar of revenue than either the MLB or the NBA. And a drop to 50/50 will see their profits double to about 12-15% of revenues. That's an astronomical number for a non-NFL sports league.
It's a shame so much of the mainstream hockey media thinks it's impolitic to to actually report the reality of the lockout more objectively. It's like watching CNN cover politics: fallacy of the false center.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:17 PM
  #245
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonymous01 View Post
Hockey writers seem uniquely thick-headed to the notion that the reason for the fight isn't to make more money this year, or in two years, or in three years. It's also to leave a strong union for future hockey players who aren't in the league yet. That's the entire point of forming a union and being part of one, and it seems to be completely lost on a lot of people.

Did MLB players immediately make more money by quitting during the 1994 season and skipping the world series? No. Did it hurt baseball in the short term? Yes. Did it ensure Bud Selig wouldn't test the MLB's resolve again? You bet it did.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:19 PM
  #246
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
is the 5 year term limit for deals proposed from here on in or retroactive? I haven't heard this discussed at all. Regardless, I would be overjoyed to see a 5 yr limit on contracts ... it is better for the hockey world IMHO.

also, I would love the CBA to be as long as possible. This ******** gets very tiresome, and don't want to see it again in 6 years. How about 8 or 9 years, with no opt out option?

I can certainly see the players not wanting a 5 yr limit, but too bad. I hope they COMPRIMISE and decide on a 6 yr limit, with resigning teams having the option of an extra year.
Last I heard it wouldn't be retroactive per se, but based on the NHL proposals any years after the 5th on existing contracts would stay with the team that signed it even in the event of retirement. So the Canucks get Luongo's $5.3M cap hit from the year he retires until 2022 no matter what.

That fact alone pretty much soured me on the owners and has made me not care if there even is a season. I'd rather there not be a season than have the Canucks get handcuffed for 5 seasons with Luongo's cap hit.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:23 PM
  #247
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonymous01 View Post
Yeah, pretty much the way I see it. There is going to be some revenue sharing, and the players are going to fund it, and then they get it back in salaries from the poor teams.

The make whole provision is just what a lot of us said would happen, in other words they don't go to 50/50 right away, they take a couple of years to get there.

As stated earlier, would love to see a compromise of 6 year maximum term, with a 1 or 2 year bonus for resigning with the same club, and 8 or 9 year CBA with no opt out clause.

Get her done.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:25 PM
  #248
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
On average how often do Unions win labor battles with their employer?
Pretty tough to make a blanket statement and even tougher to relate pro athlete unions with unions where people need to work for 30 years to scratch out enough to retire.

Walk into any gov't office. Limited education, often 20+ paid (and bankable) sick days per year, pension and no worry of competition. I'd say many gov't unions have "won" battles.

craigcaulks* is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:26 PM
  #249
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Last I heard it wouldn't be retroactive per se, but based on the NHL proposals any years after the 5th on existing contracts would stay with the team that signed it even in the event of retirement. So the Canucks get Luongo's $5.3M cap hit from the year he retires until 2022 no matter what.

That fact alone pretty much soured me on the owners and has made me not care if there even is a season. I'd rather there not be a season than have the Canucks get handcuffed for 5 seasons with Luongo's cap hit.
I hadn't heard that. Really, that's just stupid. It would make Luongo very hard to trade. Or give away.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:30 PM
  #250
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
I hadn't heard that. Really, that's just stupid. It would make Luongo very hard to trade. Or give away.
No, because the stupid provision is that even if he was traded, the Canucks would still be stuck with his cap hit after he retired (even if he was in Florida).

It's one of the dumbest concepts in history. Alarmingly dumb.

Proto 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 04:49 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.