HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 06:22 PM
  #276
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
Fair enough.

I actually gave you some factual argument, laying out expectations for someone making an investment of any kind might be (in fact, would be). I also gave you an actual real example of what happens in the market from time to time.

Please provide me with you factual argument as to why this is unreasonable. I look forward to it.
And that's fine, but there's also the counter argument that standard investment rules kind of go out the window for pro sports because of other factors like I mentioned above. The ROI that is going to keep a Tim Horton's franchise viable is going to be a lot different than a sports team that is effectively a hobby for a billionaire.

Look at it in real estate terms. The required return from a local commercial or residential investment property in order to make it worthwhile is going to be a lot higher than a vacation property that you might occasionally rent out. The vacation property is more for fun and most people would be fine if they could just break even. That's what NHL teams are like. They're basically hobbies that give the owner prestige and some fun. Obviously it can't be a money pit or it won't sustain itself, but when the incentive isn't primarily ROI (which for many teams I'd argue it isn't) then you can't just apply the rules of normal investments and expected returns to it.


Quote:
Experience does matter in forming an opinion, and you certainly can't believe me in suggesting that I have done what I have done. I understand how that may look bad. Apologies if you think that I have inappropriately expressed my own experience.

I find useful info on here from time to time, and this issue is one close to my real life issues, so I tried to offer a perspective that is contrary to the one being constantly expressed on here- without any insight, in my opinion.
Experience is important as is insight from people that have it. But in a venue like this where no one can verify anything anyone says about themselves, you can't just appeal to your own authority. It's poor logic and leads to poor arguments. There are certainly tenable arguments that support the owners' position and you can make them without having to talk down to others.

opendoor is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:23 PM
  #277
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
All part of negotiations... You think it was the owners that wanted to be forced to spend to within a fixed amount of the mean? It scold have been, but that would seem like an odd choice and a very poor decision, as it has come close to being the cause for several of these franchises almost going bankrupt.
The current NHL proposals for the cap floor are even more onerous for the poor teams (i.e. you can no longer use bonuses to get there; it must be actual salary), so I don't see it as something that there's a great will to change.

opendoor is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:24 PM
  #278
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Can I send you my resume because you seem like someone who would be a gem to work for?
That, I enjoyed!

I actually think if you are motivated, hardworking, honest, and committed, we would get along just fine:-)

But of course, I can be a real ***** too, and a selfish *******. And I am extremely demanding of myself and those on my team. Some really don't like me and others swear by me. My biggest challenge is that I have made so many mistakes that showed such a lack of character, that I am really, really hard to respect. Truth be told, I don't deserve any of the meager success I have found

Cheers

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:26 PM
  #279
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
As I just said in another post, it is not for you to decide what an owner must do. Perfectly acceptable for an owner to say, I am willing to lose money, but it is not acceptable for the players or fans to EXPECT it.

I love your response re ego. I have one. We all do. Mine is just fine thank you. Each post you make spews your view at someone else and you do not seem to appreciate someone else sharing their real life experience in a way that does so to you. Too bad. And the fact that you don't care is exactly why I choose to tell you that you have absolutely no life experience to share with the rest of us that matters in any real way. It was just time that someone told you so.

And lastly, I am intimately aware of the financial issues surrounding professional football. And I return to my point that any owner has the right to choose to spend more than he takes in, but he should not be mandated to do so.

It is that last point re Nashville, where I completely agree with you. The fact that the players have forced a system where there is a flow so that they can benefit by larger salaries is something that should be looked at.
Please refer me to my condescending tone, from the post you quoted. Can't see one.

About players and fans expecting owners to operate at a loss...is that not what a linked cap system does to team with lower revenues? The players didn't impose a linked salary cap, that's totally on the owners, now the owners have no choice but to spend beyond their means to compete, am I close?

You gotta help me out, I don't own my own business, so I must not contribute to society.

The real life experience you tried to draw a line to, was a 250million dollar investment....maybe thats real life for a shrewd business man like yourself...not me.

I mean I dont run a business so my thoughts/opinions mean nothing, why even respond.

So I'll ask how you think the players forced, or mandated the old system....because for a simpleton like myself, I can't see it....all I see is the NHL getting their way, leaving open loopholes, taking advantage of those loopholes, and then crying poor.

Are you trying to suggest to me that the players mandated the Shea Weber offersheet? That Minnesota's owner was held at gun point to sign not one but two 98million dollar contracts.

Another business question, say your company was hired, you entered an agreement on rate, and as soon as you got the job they informed you, the rate was cut....as a business man, what would you do? How would you feel, what would you do so this didn't occur again?



Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
Fair enough. Your perception and mine of what this CBA battle is about are different. Mine is that the owners are arguing to get expenses in line with revenues, so that a critical number of teams can begin to reach the objective that I gave stated- having the ability to sustain an appropriate ROI. You believe this is about how much the players are giving up from the last agreement; while I believe it is about making the business profitable, sustainable, and more attractive in all markets- or at least giving all markets a chance to be profitable (not a goal that is unfair in my view).
Back to my original post you quoted, the owners already got their 50/50 agreement, no?

So how does 'dying' on the hill for 5 year max contracts, get revenues in line? Serious question?

It seems they were decided on the money split, the transitional payments, forgive my ignorance, isn't that the expense portion or the argument?

The owners are trying to break the union, again, and will do so again the next time the cba expires.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:35 PM
  #280
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
And don't be so convinced that all owners can so easily replaced. There simply are not that many people out there with interest and the resources of these people. But I can't argue with you... My beef is not with the players or with the owners, but with people who constantly argue that these owners SHOULD give more and that the players are ENTITLED to get more and not receive less.
But the players aren't asking for more, and are already resigned to taking less....

.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:38 PM
  #281
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
And that's fine, but there's also the counter argument that standard investment rules kind of go out the window for pro sports because of other factors like I mentioned above. The ROI that is going to keep a Tim Horton's franchise viable is going to be a lot different than a sports team that is effectively a hobby for a billionaire.

Look at it in real estate terms. The required return from a local commercial or residential investment property in order to make it worthwhile is going to be a lot higher than a vacation property that you might occasionally rent out. The vacation property is more for fun and most people would be fine if they could just break even. That's what NHL teams are like. They're basically hobbies that give the owner prestige and some fun. Obviously it can't be a money pit or it won't sustain itself, but when the incentive isn't primarily ROI (which for many teams I'd argue it isn't) then you can't just apply the rules of normal investments and expected returns to it.
Your argument is fine. It actually supports mine.

If I choose to buy a vacation property and then decide to rent it out or not. I am in complete control. The only loose parallel to your argument I can come up with would be for you to tell me that I must rent it to you and for a certain price. I argue that this is below value and you tell me, "well- you didn't buy your vacation property expecting to make money did you? If you wanted to make money, you should have bought a commercial property instead."

In both cases, I CHOOSE to spend money on what I choose to spend it on. A renter, client, customer, fan, employee, player, coach, etc. does not get to force me to sign an agreement that does not allow for a return.

This is the problem I have. The players and so many fans expect it and believe the players are entitled to a certain share. If there is a dispute over how much that should be and the owners are able to back up the fact that 15 franchises (or whatever number it is) are losing money, I am good with that share only being at a level that first ensures that these franchises show a ROI in line with what any investment would be. If the owners say- "That's ok, we will pay you more, because this is our toy and we don't mind not making or losing money- we can afford it," then I am happy- happier actually, if it sustainable. But nobody, fans, players, etc., can tell me that I don't have a right to expect an ROI on investment.

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:58 PM
  #282
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
Your argument is fine. It actually supports mine.

If I choose to buy a vacation property and then decide to rent it out or not. I am in complete control. The only loose parallel to your argument I can come up with would be for you to tell me that I must rent it to you and for a certain price. I argue that this is below value and you tell me, "well- you didn't buy your vacation property expecting to make money did you? If you wanted to make money, you should have bought a commercial property instead."

In both cases, I CHOOSE to spend money on what I choose to spend it on. A renter, client, customer, fan, employee, player, coach, etc. does not get to force me to sign an agreement that does not allow for a return.

This is the problem I have. The players and so many fans expect it and believe the players are entitled to a certain share. If there is a dispute over how much that should be and the owners are able to back up the fact that 15 franchises (or whatever number it is) are losing money, I am good with that share only being at a level that first ensures that these franchises show a ROI in line with what any investment would be. If the owners say- "That's ok, we will pay you more, because this is our toy and we don't mind not making or losing money- we can afford it," then I am happy- happier actually, if it sustainable. But nobody, fans, players, etc., can tell me that I don't have a right to expect an ROI on investment.
Under a capped and linked system the players ARE entitled to a negotiated upon share. It was the owners that created this system that guaranteed the players this share. The players weren't entitled to certain share for the entire existence of the NHL until the NHL foisted linkage upon them in 2005.

If the NHL wants a salary cap and linkage, then they have accept that players are entitled to a negotiated upon share of HRR. I'm sure the players would be just fine if they could go back to pre-2004 where they weren't guaranteed a share of anything, but the last time that happened the owners ended up spending 75% of their revenues on salary. The teams simply have no discipline when it comes to spending so they created a system where players were guaranteed a portion of Hockey Related Revenue; no more, no less.


Further, you cannot build a system based upon providing a team like Phoenix or Columbus a positive ROI; it's simply impossible. Those teams have gate revenues of $20M or so. Their players could play for free and they'd still probably lose money, absent a lot of revenue sharing. You cannot base employee compensation off of ensuring that the absolute bottom of the barrel team will turn a profit. It's simply not possible in a league with revenues as disparate as the NHL.

opendoor is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:05 PM
  #283
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Please refer me to my condescending tone, from the post you quoted. Can't see one.

There are many, but you seemed to have moved on to a real discussion, so let's have one!

About players and fans expecting owners to operate at a loss...is that not what a linked cap system does to team with lower revenues? The players didn't impose a linked salary cap, that's totally on the owners, now the owners have no choice but to spend beyond their means to compete, am I close?

The link is not the issue- the issue is the link to the floor, forcing teams like Pheonix to spend beyond their means. It was a clear mistake for those small market teams, to the benefit of the players and parity, and it needs to be addressed, as if revenues continue to grow in the giant markets, these smaller franchises will be in more and more serious trouble moving forward

You gotta help me out, I don't own my own business, so I must not contribute to society.

Not even close to what I said. But what I said was maybe not the nicest thing either. Not at all what I intended to mean and apologies if it came across that way. However, I have some issue with people that have not risked their own capital holding views on those that have a massive amount on the line. My employees certainly did not have their homes on the line when it was time for me to meet payroll- and they don't have to, but then they don't get the upside reward that those of us who have risked capital do. Irrelevant to your point of feeling attacked on this point. Regardless of your sarcasm- Apologies.

The real life experience you tried to draw a line to, was a 250million dollar investment....maybe thats real life for a shrewd business man like yourself...not me.

Lolo to the shrewd part. nope- just a businessman who has built a few rings in his time. And it is absolutely nowhere near me either- I can not imagine risking this kind of my own capital and therefore, I have huge respect for this that do

I mean I dont run a business so my thoughts/opinions mean nothing, why even respond.

Glad you did respond, but absolutely not the point. you missed it and maybe continue to do so. I am trying to make it more clear

So I'll ask how you think the players forced, or mandated the old system....because for a simpleton like myself, I can't see it....all I see is the NHL getting their way, leaving open loopholes, taking advantage of those loopholes, and then crying poor.

Again, your sarcasm and condescending tone aside... The players mandated the system by negotiating for it and trying to get the most out of it. It was to their benefit that teams were forced to pay salary to a minimum level, not to the owners benefit (but i also believe it was good for the competitive level)

Are you trying to suggest to me that the players mandated the Shea Weber offersheet? That Minnesota's owner was held at gun point to sign not one but two 98million dollar contracts.

Doesn't require a response, and with all the sarcasm, I am still trying to cut through it. Actually, in a competitive business, people would be crying collusion if they were not trying to work through every loophole possible to win. But I believe it is completely and unbelievably ridiculous to do what was done. And it was done by a franchise that CAN afford it. They could pay the salary and still make an ROI, and as such, reasonable from a business perspective. So.. to ensure that there is a competitive level for teams like Nashville, and in a way that they can survive, the players must agree to a different kind of agreement. Without it, Nashville can not match what can be offered and survive

Another business question, say your company was hired, you entered an agreement on rate, and as soon as you got the job they informed you, the rate was cut....as a business man, what would you do? How would you feel, what would you do so this didn't occur again?

If I entered into an agreement to be paid a salary based on me agreeing to negotiating a link to revenues and revenues went down, I would understand I was to take less. Not what happened here, but certainly relevant to the idea that I signed a deal and was now shockingly not going to get that number. In this case, I would have known that the percentage of revenue that I was to calculate my contract on was going to be discussed moving forward and that currently it was at 57% but that other contracts like mine in comparable pro sports were calculating based on 50%, I would be aware that I did not sign a contract that was certain to pay me what I signed for. I would know that there was a calculation in place that would determine my actual pay, and that calculation was up for discussion


Back to my original post you quoted, the owners already got their 50/50 agreement, no?

No. They have not got that yet.

So how does 'dying' on the hill for 5 year max contracts, get revenues in line? Serious question?

It is an absolutely absurd comment by the ownership group- Agreed

It seems they were decided on the money split, the transitional payments, forgive my ignorance, isn't that the expense portion or the argument?

Nope, it is not belief that they have agreed to this. I understand there has been proposals that linked an offer of agreement to other terms that were not agreed to. I say to you I will give you my Taylormade golf clubs while you give me your ski equipment IF you agree to exchange your skip pass with my free golf passes. You say no to the ski passes but say we still have an agreement on trading the golf and ski equipment. We don't have a deal and everything is "Off the table."

The owners are trying to break the union, again, and will do so again the next time the cba expires.

I hope not. But maybe. That is the nature of business, always trying to negotiate for the best deal. Oddly, that is also the nature of unions. They have something in common- looking out for their own best interests, imagine that
______

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:13 PM
  #284
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Under a capped and linked system the players ARE entitled to a negotiated upon share. It was the owners that created this system that guaranteed the players this share. The players weren't entitled to certain share for the entire existence of the NHL until the NHL foisted linkage upon them in 2005.

Foisted? It was a part of a negotiation. And in my view, in the end, the players won. Of course they are entitled to a share, based on the negotiation. And that is exactly why the owners are negotiating now.

If the NHL wants a salary cap and linkage, then they have accept that players are entitled to a negotiated upon share of HRR. I'm sure the players would be just fine if they could go back to pre-2004 where they weren't guaranteed a share of anything, but the last time that happened the owners ended up spending 75% of their revenues on salary. The teams simply have no discipline when it comes to spending so they created a system where players were guaranteed a portion of Hockey Related Revenue; no more, no less.

Agreed. In fact, it mirrors society as a whole- we spend more than we earn, and we are all about to pay for that in a real serious way.

Further, you cannot build a system based upon providing a team like Phoenix or Columbus a positive ROI; it's simply impossible. Those teams have gate revenues of $20M or so. Their players could play for free and they'd still probably lose money, absent a lot of revenue sharing. You cannot base employee compensation off of ensuring that the absolute bottom of the barrel team will turn a profit. It's simply not possible in a league with revenues as disparate as the NHL.

Disagree! We must find a system that allows for those franchises to be successful. Or, there will be 150 less jobs in the NHL- at least. And that system must rightly include revenue sharing and a salary structure that allows for a possible ROI for all clubs moving forward. Moving some franchises may be part of the answer, but so is ensuring that salaries are kept under control from overly competitive/wealthy owners and played who wish to squeeze every possible buck out of the system while they can...
_______

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:56 PM
  #285
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
Foisted? It was a part of a negotiation. And in my view, in the end, the players won. Of course they are entitled to a share, based on the negotiation. And that is exactly why the owners are negotiating now.
I would say that's an accurate term to use. The NHLPA spent over a year fighting against linkage, even proposing an unlinked cap in Feb. of 2005. Only when Linden and a few other moderates took it upon themselves to bypass Goodenow did they agree to linkage. The players had zero interest in being guaranteed a share of revenues; it was seen as a concession to the owners, for which they got contract rights in return.

Quote:
Disagree! We must find a system that allows for those franchises to be successful. Or, there will be 150 less jobs in the NHL- at least. And that system must rightly include revenue sharing and a salary structure that allows for a possible ROI for all clubs moving forward. Moving some franchises may be part of the answer, but so is ensuring that salaries are kept under control from overly competitive/wealthy owners and played who wish to squeeze every possible buck out of the system while they can...
I generally agree, but the salary issues are already largely agreed upon by both sides. Contract rights, which have little to do with the viability of low revenue teams, are all that's left and both sides have agreed to do away with retirement deals.

Regardless, teams like Columbus and Phoenix are not going to generate a positive ROI under the next CBA without a whack of revenue sharing. The NHL currently has the most impotent revenue sharing among the big 4 sports and that's a big reason why there are so many teams losing money.

opendoor is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 09:37 PM
  #286
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
One of two things is going to happen here:

1. The majority of the players are behind Fehr and this gets dragged on. Fehr pushes it, because that's what Fehr does. Decertification or disclaimer of interest happen. The owners, who aren't afraid of him, tell him to stick it up his ass. Things go very, very badly.

2. There is a large enough vocal group within the union that pushes Fehr to get back to the table and make a deal next week. Tells him to accept a 10 year CBA, tells him to drop the "transitional issues" (amnesty buyouts and escrow cap...isnt the 'make whole' a transitional method anyway?), tells him to try and push the contract limit as far as he can (6 or 7 years), and gets a deal done.

I don't get the sense that this NHL "final offer" is anything like the last couple. I really believe they're at the end of their rope here. The players need to recognize that and not screw it up, or else they're in for a world of hurt when all the progress they've made (they'd actually save face with a deal similar to what they have on the table now) comes flying off the table.




That's exactly what they want everyone to believe - that they are at the end of their tether. But in reality, they won't reach the end until the season is cancelled and the NHLPA decertifies. No owner wants that. The complete unknown is far more damaging to the owners than it is the players because the players can still bank on the free market.



CBAs have become just another form of allowing owners to flatten costs across the board. It benefits them much more overall. In fact, the NBA recognizes this and took the right action by decertifying early. It's the only chip they had to play.



This is grandstanding at its finest. Fehr said there would "drop dead dates". Bettman denies it, but what happened? The owners increased their prior "best offer", thereby lending credence to Fehr's argument. The owners moved. There is a timeline. There are tactics at play here and I'm not surprised that just when both sides have been closer than they have ever been, the owners pulled the offer and became accusatory... They know the players will question Fehr the next time the owners make a concession.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 12:44 AM
  #287
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Regardless, teams like Columbus and Phoenix are not going to generate a positive ROI under the next CBA without a whack of revenue sharing. The NHL currently has the most impotent revenue sharing among the big 4 sports and that's a big reason why there are so many teams losing money.
NHL remains a gate based league & I doubt any other gate driven league has a revenue sharing plan that could help a team like the Yotes.

Bettman's experiment in Arizona failed. It's time to move on (Quebec City).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 12:57 AM
  #288
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,146
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. Question should be, is the NHLPA asking for too much not whether the league can afford to give anything - they clearly can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
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.
I just want to point something out here regarding team valuations. A business is valued based on the expectations of future profitability, so Forbes's increased estimates of team value is not necessarily a sign that teams have been very profitable in the recent past. In fact, because the new CBA is expected to drastically change the performance of these businesses, Forbes's bullish take on team values does not allow us to infer much at all about past profitability.

No, Forbes does not pull its numbers out of thin air. Its analysts are surely basing their numbers on the boost that teams will get from a more team-friendly CBA.


Last edited by Chubros: 12-08-2012 at 01:27 AM.
Chubros is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 01:26 AM
  #289
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Well, I suppose one could view a demand of 5-year-limits as a return to meritocracy, or it could be viewed as the league attempting to idiot-proof the league. 1) Why would the players go all the way to 5 years from previously having no limit at all? 2) Because the owners can't control themselves? The players were willing to do 10, moderates talked them down to 8, and they will not go lower than that (according to James Mirtle), so they've already moved.
1) Didn't I suggest that the league compromise and go for a limit higher than 5? How is responding with that question at all constructive?

2)It's nothing to do with owners not being able to control themselves. As pointed out many times before, teams have no choice but to pay market rates for talent. Without mechanisms to limit how much players can extract from teams, owners would be well advised never to invest in an NHL team.

If you believe that the salary cap is good for the league, as I do, then its also possible to consider whether or not other measures could have a positive effect on the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
If you want a meritocracy, how about clubs that suck and can't sign good contracts continue to suck and aren't bailed out by a system that creates false competitiveness? That sounds okay to me, anyway.

I also disagree in principle with a system that incentivizes players to stay with the same team: if a team is well managed, players will stay. They don't need built-in term advantages, which will inevitably lead to a spate of contract-swapping sign-and-trade deals like we see in the NBA. Boo-urns.
It's not that simple. No millionaire in his right mind would choose to live in a place like Edmonton or Winnipeg without some added incentive.

It would be easy enough to stop the sign and trade business: treat the bonus years as occurring at the beginning of the contract and attach mandatory NTCs to those portions of contracts.

Chubros is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 12:17 PM
  #290
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
NHL remains a gate based league & I doubt any other gate driven league has a revenue sharing plan that could help a team like the Yotes.

Bettman's experiment in Arizona failed. It's time to move on (Quebec City).
Not necessarily. Over 90% of the Yankees' revenue comes from local sources (ticket sales and regional TV deal) yet they give up 25% of their revenue and over 90% of their operating income to revenue sharing.

opendoor is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:06 PM
  #291
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,246
vCash: 500
It's funny that the owners want a 10 year CBA and the players want a 5 year CBA. You'd think it should be the other way around, everytime there is an expired CBA the owners seem to clean up.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:32 PM
  #292
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 101,061
vCash: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
It's funny that the owners want a 10 year CBA and the players want a 5 year CBA. You'd think it should be the other way around, everytime there is an expired CBA the owners seem to clean up.
^
Bobby Mac said alot of players are fine with 10 yr CBA (bottom 6 F's and bottom 4 dmen feel it would be safety for them going forward to have longterm stablity with no CBA uncertainty)

It was Fehr and top guys who dont want it

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:11 PM
  #293
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
______
Appreciate the response.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:28 PM
  #294
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
It's funny that the owners want a 10 year CBA and the players want a 5 year CBA. You'd think it should be the other way around, everytime there is an expired CBA the owners seem to clean up.
Owners in the U.S. are in position to take advantage of their recession by grinding the players now and locking them in long term to a CBA that was negotiated under those conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
^
Bobby Mac said alot of players are fine with 10 yr CBA (bottom 6 F's and bottom 4 dmen feel it would be safety for them going forward to have longterm stablity with no CBA uncertainty)

It was Fehr and top guys who dont want it
What's a lot? I'm sure some players don't care because they won't be around. For the most part I believe players aren't that selfish or shortsighted.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:11 PM
  #295
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Term Limits

For my point of view, this is where I see the contractual issues that are delaying the CBA agreement.

1) Term length of 5 years. I heard on HockeyCentral that the NHL would allow teams to re-sign their own players to 7 year deals, but a guy like B. Richards moving from Dallas to NYR would have only been allowed to sign for 5 as an example.

NHL - wants to limit term to prevent back diving deals. But, if the NHL gets its way with the variance in ssalary limitation, term length should not be too much of an issue IMO. As a fan however, I'd rather side with the owners on term length. If you look at it, NHLers, have basically signed 5 to 7 year deals after their ELC. Crosby, Malkin, Nash, Kovalchuk, Stamkos, etc. Only a handful like M. Richards, Backstrom, Ovy signed double digit term deals after their ELC.
If the term limit is accepted, then a Player comes into the league at 18-20. 3 yr ELC takes them to 21-23. Sign 2nd contract of 5 years to age 26-28. Sign 3rd contract to age 31 - 33. Sign 4th contract to age 36-38.
Right now, you see players at age 27-30 sign a 3rd contract that takes to them to their retirement, doing deals to 10-13 years in length. Basically combining the 3rd and 4th contract together. Back diving deal allows them to do this.

Personally, I'd rather see a term limit. NBA has a term limit now of 6 years.

2 - Back diving deals. I think most people want to see this eliminated. I personally feel that every dollar a player is paid needs to be applied to the salary cap at some point. If these players like Luongo, Hossa, Crosby, Parise, etc. all retire with 2 or 3 years left on their deals, that's at least $10 million of salary that the player was paid that will never be applied against the salary cap. That needs to be fixed.

CBA Length. I think a longer term deal is better. NHL is going to need to repair the damage it has caused. NBA went through 2 work stoppages in the millennium. Spurs won it during a shortened season a while back and the Heat won it last season. But, there needs to be labour peace for a while.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 06:57 AM
  #296
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
^
Bobby Mac said alot of players are fine with 10 yr CBA (bottom 6 F's and bottom 4 dmen feel it would be safety for them going forward to have longterm stablity with no CBA uncertainty)

It was Fehr and top guys who dont want it
2 reasons IMHO

1. I think the militant players probably want the option to go to war again. 10 years is to long wait.

2. Money, money, money. Eg $300m in make whole over a years cba is about $2m more per term per year for the players, and much easier for Fehr to sell as outsmarting the owners, getting them 53-54%. This feeds into point that the money is paid players can push for greater than 50%. The longer the deal, for the owners it's easier rationalise 300m over 10 years, just 1m per team per year. Gives the players 51-52%.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 07:11 AM
  #297
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Actually that's not what this CBA battle is about. It's a battle over how much the players have to give back vis-a-vis the previous CBA. It's a given the players will get less out of this deal than the previous deal.

Outside of a few people who might have gotten future ultra-long 10+ year contracts the players aren't givng much up. They got capped at 64m last year, 50% + 300m make whole should see them make comfortablely more than than last season, and every year of the new CBA should be more than 64 an improve year by year. Basically raises every year barring a revenue collapse. The players are gaining not losing.

.


Last edited by me2: 12-09-2012 at 07:17 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 07:32 AM
  #298
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,955
vCash: 500
I'd like to know what the real reason is behind the contract length limits, 5 years for new signings, 7 years for re-signing a player. Is it to reduce the player's ability to cash in while they are in their prime? Is it about insuring players contracts? IIRC it's hard to get insurance beyond 7 years on a players contract. On the latter point, I could see the argument.

On the former point, I don't think that the NHL's tactic will work as intended. I just think that the players in their prime will just get larger deals on shorter term, because they were giving volume discounts. ie instead of 13 year $98M for Suter we would have seen a 5 year $55M deal. If Suter can get more than $43M over the next 8, he's still better off.

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 09:11 AM
  #299
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
It's funny that the owners want a 10 year CBA and the players want a 5 year CBA. You'd think it should be the other way around, everytime there is an expired CBA the owners seem to clean up.
I think this is the part where Fehr is making Bettman think the things he wants are actually his idea.

The players will eventually give in on "key" issues and take things they also want in exchange.

DJOpus is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 09:23 AM
  #300
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
I'd like to know what the real reason is behind the contract length limits, 5 years for new signings, 7 years for re-signing a player. Is it to reduce the player's ability to cash in while they are in their prime? Is it about insuring players contracts? IIRC it's hard to get insurance beyond 7 years on a players contract. On the latter point, I could see the argument.

On the former point, I don't think that the NHL's tactic will work as intended. I just think that the players in their prime will just get larger deals on shorter term, because they were giving volume discounts. ie instead of 13 year $98M for Suter we would have seen a 5 year $55M deal. If Suter can get more than $43M over the next 8, he's still better off.
That is what Tyler Dellow (Oilers blogger, generally on statistics) argues here: http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=5098 (good article about possible reasons for the PA to hold out over this issue)

Tiranis is online now  
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 02:24 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.