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.

How will Fehr explain a missed season (if that happens)?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 12:32 PM
  #76
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Why arent't the players sharing their pay-checks with each other then?

Because the owners aren't sharing their revenues with each other.


How many rounds of this inane commentary would you like to go. Do you share your paycheck with your neighbors? Or when you sell your house, and have a gain... goes right to community kitty? Please.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:33 PM
  #77
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post




They've screwed up three CBAs now necessitating three lockouts.

Why on god's green earth would we let them dictate any more CBAs?
And the players were making 74% of the revenue when they were allowed to create a CBA. I guess the players want to go back to a 20 team league and lose hundreds of jobs. Guess which players would be out of work? The "middle class", the very people they are fighting for!

There isn't a fat national TV contract to prop up the NHL like the other sports. Let the HRR grow and the players salaries will grow with it. Players should be trying to share in the success instead of grabbing what they can right now.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...s_in_jeopardy/

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:35 PM
  #78
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,394
vCash: 500
John Shannon has a pretty good article out, I liked this comment b/c i think it applies here to both sides.

"Looking to have the players fix the financial woes of the league is wrong. Looking to have the players help fix the financial woes of the league in imperative."

At this point, "drawing a line in the sand" and having a "hill we will die on" is not helping anything. Players are helping, owners want more and eventually players will need to give more. Owners demands need to come down though. They were sky high at one point, now they're just slightly out of sight.

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:36 PM
  #79
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Because the owners aren't sharing their revenues with each other.

How many rounds of this inane commentary would you like to go. Do you share your paycheck with your neighbors? Or when you sell your house, and have a gain... goes right to community kitty? Please.
What?

They may not be sharing enough in your eyes (and the NHL has raised the amount and eliminated the restrictions in the next CBA), but they are certainly sharing more than the players are. The players shouldn't complain about the "middle class" if they don't want to fix it themselves. 50% of HRR is 50% of HRR, distribution can be left up the NHLPA if they want.

Why isn't the NHLPA still crying about revenue sharing? It was a huge topic in July/August.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:38 PM
  #80
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Fehr would tell the players that the revenue disparity is so massive and that owners don't want to foot the bill for fixing their own mistakes (expansion, CBAs, bad contracts), so they just want to take it out of the players' share; while restricting player mobility to the point where the majority of them are locked in for the duration of their short careers.
You keep thinking that players are entitled to certain (57%) share of the revenues and you base all your claims on that. Newsflash, players will get whatever they agree on in CBA negotiatios. Whether that's 55, 50 or 45 percent.

Players are NOT funding anything, the owners are. Everything players get is what OWNERS are giving them.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:42 PM
  #81
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
You keep thinking that players are entitled to certain (57%) share of the revenues and you base all your claims on that. Newsflash, players will get whatever they agree on in CBA negotiatios. Whether that's 55, 50 or 45 percent.

Players are NOT funding anything, the owners are. Everything players get is what OWNERS are giving them.

Have you actually read any of my posts on the matter?

I do NOT think the players deserve any set amount. Nor the owners.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:42 PM
  #82
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Because the owners aren't sharing their revenues with each other.
Youre 100% factually wrong. Owners shared part of their revenues in the previous CBA and they have agreed to share more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
How many rounds of this inane commentary would you like to go. Do you share your paycheck with your neighbors? Or when you sell your house, and have a gain... goes right to community kitty? Please.
Oh so owners have to share their revenues but players don't have to share anything?

Please do explain.

Inane? Can I laugh here?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:43 PM
  #83
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
You keep thinking that players are entitled to certain (57%) share of the revenues and you base all your claims on that. Newsflash, players will get whatever they agree on in CBA negotiatios. Whether that's 55, 50 or 45 percent.

Players are NOT funding anything, the owners are. Everything players get is what OWNERS are giving them.
I agree 100%. No salary cap, no salary floor.

ScottyBowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:44 PM
  #84
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
What?

They may not be sharing enough in your eyes (and the NHL has raised the amount and eliminated the restrictions in the next CBA), but they are certainly sharing more than the players are. The players shouldn't complain about the "middle class" if they don't want to fix it themselves. 50% of HRR is 50% of HRR, distribution can be left up the NHLPA if they want.

Why isn't the NHLPA still crying about revenue sharing? It was a huge topic in July/August.
It was sarcasm.


However, it's not enough. The cap range system will screw the small teams yet again. We can come back here in 5-6 yrs and discuss, okay?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:44 PM
  #85
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
You keep thinking that players are entitled to certain (57%) share of the revenues and you base all your claims on that. Newsflash, players will get whatever they agree on in CBA negotiatios. Whether that's 55, 50 or 45 percent.

Players are NOT funding anything, the owners are. Everything players get is what OWNERS are giving them.
Actually, it is what FANS are giving them. If we really want to hurt both sides, the fans need to stay away from the arenas when the lockout is settled.

I just don't see it happening because the NHL fans are mostly diehards and can't stay away. There aren't enough casual fans of the NHL that will stay away in high enough numbers to hurt HRR for 3-5 years. Maybe 1 year will be damaged, but most will be back by year 2.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:45 PM
  #86
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Have you actually read any of my posts on the matter?

I do NOT think the players deserve any set amount. Nor the owners.
Come on Fugu, it's not up to me to search your previous posts.

You keep telling that players have to fund something when 100% of players' revenues come from the owners.

What gives??

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:45 PM
  #87
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Youre 100% factually wrong. Owners shared part of their revenues in the previous CBA and they have agreed to share more.



Oh so owners have to share their revenues but players don't have to share anything?

Please do explain.

Inane? Can I laugh here?
How about you take a deep breath, count to ten.... now go back and read the post that I responded to...... you will figure it out if you want to.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:46 PM
  #88
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
And the players were making 74% of the revenue when they were allowed to create a CBA. I guess the players want to go back to a 20 team league and lose hundreds of jobs. Guess which players would be out of work? The "middle class", the very people they are fighting for!

There isn't a fat national TV contract to prop up the NHL like the other sports. Let the HRR grow and the players salaries will grow with it. Players should be trying to share in the success instead of grabbing what they can right now.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...s_in_jeopardy/

I don't like artificial economies, especially overly complex ones that just create more and more disparity and messes that need fixing every few years because they got it wrong the time before.

End the insanity.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:48 PM
  #89
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
It was sarcasm.


However, it's not enough. The cap range system will screw the small teams yet again. We can come back here in 5-6 yrs and discuss, okay?
Sure, but if the CBA is for 10 years, maybe enough sponsors will get back into the NHL to make another lockout too painful and costly for the owners.

If enough sponsors put a poison pill in their deal, like the NHL only receives 50% if 10 games are missed, then the lockouts will be shorter or non-existent.

Since the NHL is getting 75% of their sponsorship money for half of a season, then the lockout isn't hurting the owners as much as the players.

The players did what they could at the last minute to hurt the owners with signing bonuses to be paid even if there is a lockout, but only a few owners signed those deals. It doesn't hurt the collective enough to discourage a lockout.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:49 PM
  #90
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Come on Fugu, it's not up to me to search your previous posts.

You keep telling that players have to fund something when 100% of players' revenues come from the owners.

What gives??
No one deserves anything. The players don't deserve any fixed percentage. The owners, especially the ones who are inept, don't deserve a profit. The real world doesn't work like this, and when you design systems to try to fix it, you will invariably screw it up. Supply and demand cannot be ignored.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:49 PM
  #91
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
How about you take a deep breath, count to ten.... now go back and read the post that I responded to...... you will figure it out if you want to.
Sorry Fugu, if you have some hidden message I didn't notice, please tell us what that was.

In case I didn't miss anything, please explain how players fund something given that 100% of the money players get comes from the owners?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:54 PM
  #92
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I don't like artificial economies, especially overly complex ones that just create more and more disparity and messes that need fixing every few years because they got it wrong the time before.

End the insanity.
The NFL was able to solve their issues without missing any games. Why? Because the cost of missing games was greater than playing them. Doesn't have anything to do with the complexities of the economics.

Even the uber-rich NFL messed around with replacement refs for no good reason. Billionaires are used to getting what they want and will fight over petty things. It's only when there is damage to their product that they "come to their senses". If the replacement refs were doing a decent job, they officials would probably still be out of work or would have signed a worse deal to get back to work.


I used to follow Leeds in the EPL until they lost all of their good young talent to the uber-rich teams and were relegated to the lower leagues. Now I follow Manchester United because I know they will always be competitive and won't just be a feeder team. Plus most of their games are shown in the US. The EPL sounds like the league you want he NHL to emulate.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:55 PM
  #93
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Sorry Fugu, if you have some hidden message I didn't notice, please tell us what that was.

In case I didn't miss anything, please explain how players fund something given that 100% of the money players get comes from the owners?

It was in response to a post that said players were greedy for not equally sharing their entire pay with each other. Neither response had anything to do with reality.

I don't have time to play today, so to answer your OP, I'll add this again:

What would Fehr tell players?

HRR & linkage are actually at the root of the "problems."

Revenue disparity.


Fehr would tell the players that the revenue disparity is so massive and that owners don't want to foot the bill for fixing their own mistakes (expansion, CBAs, bad contracts), so they just want to take it out of the players' share; while restricting player mobility to the point where the majority of them are locked in for the duration of their short careers.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:55 PM
  #94
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No one deserves anything. The players don't deserve any fixed percentage. The owners, especially the ones who are inept, don't deserve a profit. The real world doesn't work like this, and when you design systems to try to fix it, you will invariably screw it up. Supply and demand cannot be ignored.
The world of professional sports is not a typical/normal real world business. I don't know why you would try and apply supply/demand here.

It's entertainment/sports with a union.......negotiating for how many people are going to sleep in a 4 or 5 star hotel when they travel out of town and get a stipend for meals.... yada,yada, yada.

sorry.........it's not real world economics. I don't get a tax payer subsidized place of employment, do you?

predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:57 PM
  #95
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
The NFL was able to solve their issues without missing any games. Why? Because the cost of missing games was greater than playing them. Doesn't have anything to do with the complexities of the economics.

Even the uber-rich NFL messed around with replacement refs for no good reason. Billionaires are used to getting what they want and will fight over petty things. It's only when there is damage to their product that they "come to their senses". If the replacement refs were doing a decent job, they officials would probably still be out of work or would have signed a worse deal to get back to work.


I used to follow Leeds in the EPL until they lost all of their good young talent to the uber-rich teams and were relegated to the lower leagues. Now I follow Manchester United because I know they will always be competitive and won't just be a feeder team. Plus most of their games are shown in the US. The EPL sounds like the league you want he NHL to emulate.
sounds like MLB to me.............if the NHL goes that way, I'm gone.

I agree with you

predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:57 PM
  #96
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
The world of professional sports is not a typical/normal real world business. I don't know why you would try and apply supply/demand here.

It's entertainment/sports with a union.......negotiating for how many people are going to sleep in a 4 or 5 star hotel when they travel out of town and get a stipend for meals.... yada,yada, yada.

sorry.........it's not real world economics. I don't get a tax payer subsidized place of employment, do you?
I do. I work in government.

ScottyBowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:57 PM
  #97
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
The world of professional sports is not a typical/normal real world business. I don't know why you would try and apply supply/demand here.

It's entertainment/sports with a union.......negotiating for how many people are going to sleep in a 4 or 5 star hotel when they travel out of town and get a stipend for meals.... yada,yada, yada.

sorry.........it's not real world economics. I don't get a tax payer subsidized place of employment, do you?

The NFL has figured it out, which is why they've always had significant revenue sharing--- qualify that by saying--- if you want to be a BIG league in the US with 30+ teams, you have widely disparate market potentials. The only way these teams can compete with each other on a level footing is if revenue is redistributed and shared.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 01:00 PM
  #98
oilexport
Registered User
 
oilexport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 884
vCash: 500
Everybody and thier dog wants a 10 year deal so that this mess does not come up for awhile, everybody but Fehr. He says future players will want to have a say and not be stuck with a long term deal. Everything is a problem for him. Nothing will get done with this man. He is bad for sport.

How come most say the NHL proposal is better then most of the other BIGGER Leagues Agreements yet Gary B. and Owners are unrealistic ???

Go to Europe Crosby, and every other player that agrees with him.

"Owners locked us out, we would be playing otherwise" sorry Donald, the Owners must fix some things so that you don't whine about the big, long contracts that are all the fault of Ownership. If you agree to the Owner Proposal, these contracts don't happen dummy.

oilexport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 01:00 PM
  #99
RC51
Registered User
 
RC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,694
vCash: 500
It is a fact that some teams lose money even if they sell tickets at $30-$40 in order to get people in the stands. The players view on this is DON'T touch my money, have the rich teams simply put more money in the pot or since the Canadian fans love the game so much have them pay twice as much as right now so this will solve ALL league problems.
This entire thing is an owner problem not ours. it's the owners that offer us all these long term contracts, we did not hold a gun to their heads.
We don't want the league to close this loophole it's been the best thing for the players since sliced bread. But if the owners try to stop this loophole we will accuse then of colution. Let the Owners care about the game, let the players care about the players.
Now for the other side, only at the end of a CBA can the owners rebalance the books and close loopholes and such. The players are giving up a ton of money? well yes they are being asked to give up overpayments they have received over the last 6 years. Overpayment that they would never have received if that loophole did not exist. ( super high front loaded contracts that completely get around the CAP to the advantage of the players.) Yes you can say why did the NHL go to these US cities in the first place and maybe you would be right but don't forget if the NHL just moves these 6-8 teams or just closes them down the players might lose their jobs. Dead contracts all over the place. Their are two side in everything. Did the NHL stop paying these players that got HUGE contracts due to the loophole? NO The NHL had to wait until the CBA was over. Well it's NOW. live with it.

RC51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 01:02 PM
  #100
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
I do. I work in government.
well, you don't live in a supply and demand workplace , do you?


nothing personal, the comment was made that supply and demand applied to the nhl like real world economics......

government is another where it doesn't apply either.

predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:58 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.