HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2012, 09:43 AM
  #226
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The one Kriss mentioned is impossible. You cannot be full-time at Bombardier while doing an engineering degree, though of course it is possible for a small portion of the degree. The first, second, and third year courses are only offered at specific times, and those times are not consistent with a full-time job halfway across town. You can try skipping classes and learning from the book in the weekend, but that comes with a limit, you still need to be present during exams, and you still need to be present during labs. Certainly however there may be similar stories that are possible.

Anyhow, I don't see why we should expect the world of potential players but need to cuddle owners.
If you are not a top player in the NHL, and you have spent most of your earnings during your playing career, you can forget any professional degree if you are over age 30 and have a family to support.

bsl is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:55 AM
  #227
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post

You mean the people that are interested in the same thing don't study the same thing?
You think an artist will go into engineering?..
That's called architecture. Trust me, don't do it, if you like sleeping.

bsl is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:59 AM
  #228
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Not for anything but on academic vs athletic debate that's going on. If a kid sacrificies MAJOR parts of his education for a false hope, then he's just stupid, it has nothing to do with time. Unless the kid is really good and will postpone his higher level education to pursue a dream he should get the message at a younger age.

FWIW, I left school at 18 and returned at 22. That 4 year span wasn't because I was becoming a hockey player but for kids who are trying, if you're in a garage league by 22, maybe you should go back to school and trust me, as a person who lost 4 years, you aren't 'doomed' and your life isn't over. People are over-sympathetic. I've seen some people 40 years old going back to school. There is distance education, online courses, etc...It's just never too late so people REALLY not to stop suggesting the players sacrificed education for a dream and won't get compensated. If you're good enough for AHL you'll be making 60-350k per no? That's good compensation while you are chasing a dream. So if you don't make it, then yes, go back to school or stay in AHL, that's all.

If education is important to someone, go the NCAA(or equivalent) route where you can do less games but have schooling.
It is too late when you have a mortgage on a huge house and a useless hockey wife and 3 kids. It is. That is what most NHL players face at age 32. That is the reality.

bsl is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:13 AM
  #229
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,793
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
It is too late when you have a mortgage on a huge house and a useless hockey wife and 3 kids. It is. That is what most NHL players face at age 32. That is the reality.
So you're suggesting this player had say 10 years of NHL salary? Calle crazy but if he's desperate he should liquidate some assets. Not to mention his wife can work or he can go into hockey management related career.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:16 AM
  #230
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
That's called architecture. Trust me, don't do it, if you like sleeping.
That's 2 completely different field that work together. Architecture doesn't have maths or physics courses.

Forsead is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:21 AM
  #231
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
Put in context, the proposal is for a 14% decrease in player salaries, and a 33% increase in revenue sharing.

How would you feel about a 33% increase in union dues?

I can tell you even CAW members groan about their dues. If I were an owner of a financially successful franchise, I would not be looking forward to such a change.
Terrific post! People on the players side think of how horrible that players will "LOSE" 14% of their salaries, but think nothing of taking 33% of the money successful franchises earn to give it to weaker franchises. How would Ovechkin feel if he were asked to give 33% of his salary to help support his team mate Tomas Kundratek? I doubt the union would be happy if such revenue sharing were to be suggested by the owners as a way to ensure all union members get a fair salary that can balance out all players' living conditions.

To be fair, though, I do believe that revenue sharing should increase. The fact that the owners are going to do it is good for the league.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:25 AM
  #232
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
That's called architecture. Trust me, don't do it, if you like sleeping.
EXACTLY! Go into specialized university degrees and you will work just as hard as someone choosing to go into a professional sports career. Go into Architecture and you can give up sleeping for the duration of your degree. Thank you for trying to show that reality to DAChampion who seems to disagree with you on that point.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:32 AM
  #233
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
It is too late when you have a mortgage on a huge house and a useless hockey wife and 3 kids. It is. That is what most NHL players face at age 32. That is the reality.
So, you guys have no problem with owners who might lose money on their franchises, but we should cry for the "poor" players who do not know how to tailor their lifestyles to ensure the phenomenal money they earn lasts long enough for them to at least find another career at the ripe "old" age of 32?? You mean nobody else in the world has ever had to make a career change at 32 with a family and a mortgage? This is why we need to feel sorry for the "poor" players making millions??? Tell me that isn't your argument. Please, tell me that was not serious. Heck, even relatively minor players can still earn lots of money doing signings at card shows, making appearances, going into radio, going into coaching, etc... There are still lots of ways for those poor beleagured ex-players to earn money that can pay for mortgages and lifestyles if the player has any brains. THAT is the reality.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:10 PM
  #234
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,405
vCash: 500
Someone who is 35 can go back to school for 5 years and still have over 20-30 years working in his profession.

If they don't have kids, there is no excuse why they could not.

Sure, kids , mortgage and family complicate things. however, if one truly is driven, i don't see it as being impossible.

coolasprICE is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:56 PM
  #235
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
Someone who is 35 can go back to school for 5 years and still have over 20-30 years working in his profession.

If they don't have kids, there is no excuse why they could not.

Sure, kids , mortgage and family complicate things. however, if one truly is driven, i don't see it as being impossible.
I recently went back to Uni to get Teachers College, I was 45 at the time. There were people there over 50.

A friend of mine said it was the same thing in nursing.

Look at Brian Burke, hockey was over so he went and got a Law degree.

Habbadasher is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:04 PM
  #236
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
That's 2 completely different field that work together. Architecture doesn't have maths or physics courses.
My brother is a physics engineer but he's also very good at drawing and painting. Obviously there was much (much) more to gain for him to pursue engineering but he could have been an artist since he has plenty of natural talent. A lot of people are versatile enough to have talent in unrelated fields.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:19 PM
  #237
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
So, you guys have no problem with owners who might lose money on their franchises, but we should cry for the "poor" players who do not know how to tailor their lifestyles to ensure the phenomenal money they earn lasts long enough for them to at least find another career at the ripe "old" age of 32?? You mean nobody else in the world has ever had to make a career change at 32 with a family and a mortgage? This is why we need to feel sorry for the "poor" players making millions??? Tell me that isn't your argument. Please, tell me that was not serious. Heck, even relatively minor players can still earn lots of money doing signings at card shows, making appearances, going into radio, going into coaching, etc... There are still lots of ways for those poor beleagured ex-players to earn money that can pay for mortgages and lifestyles if the player has any brains. THAT is the reality.
Revenue sharing or moving the franchises could solve that problem. Why does it have to be done on the backs of the players when the Leafs are a billion dollar team?

The rich owners make money year after year after year. The 4th liner who plays a few seasons might make some decent money but not enough to retire off of.

The owners complain about the stupid contracts? They are the ones who sign these checks. They're the ones who were giving out stupid contracts before the cap came. And they're the ones who signed contracts designed to circumvent the very same cap they shoved down the players' throats. Some teams out there are making STUPID money year after year icing crappy teams. The owners have gotten controls in place to protect themselves... There is a cap in place, just stop signing 30 year stupid deals and the problem goes away...

And yes, some of the poor franchises could be subsidised... but why they hell aren't they getting more subsidy from the Leafs? Why do it off the backs of the players?

Like I said, last time around I was on the side of the owners but they got what they wanted last time and rammed a cap down the players throats... Now they're back crying for more while clubs like the Leafs do boffo business while icing a bunch of crap.

Bettman starts negotiating from the standpoint of players going from 57% to 43% and then wonders why we're in the situation that we're in? C'mon man.

It's absolutely ridiculous that we're in this situation... AGAIN. And if the league misses another season back to back with expired contracts it will be a huge embarrassment for the league. Bettman has got to stop being such a dumbass about everything.

And as an aside - wtf was Bettman thinking putting these expansion teams in the Southern US? It's pretty easy to see that this was a mistake (his mistake) and now he's making the players pay for it. The NHL overexpanded in my opinion and would've been doing a lot better otherwise. Maybe it's time to realize that hockey doesn't fly in certain markets and to move them back up North. That alone would solve a ton of problems.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:10 PM
  #238
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Revenue sharing or moving the franchises could solve that problem. Why does it have to be done on the backs of the players when the Leafs are a billion dollar team?

The rich owners make money year after year after year. The 4th liner who plays a few seasons might make some decent money but not enough to retire off of.

The owners complain about the stupid contracts? They are the ones who sign these checks. They're the ones who were giving out stupid contracts before the cap came. And they're the ones who signed contracts designed to circumvent the very same cap they shoved down the players' throats. Some teams out there are making STUPID money year after year icing crappy teams. The owners have gotten controls in place to protect themselves... There is a cap in place, just stop signing 30 year stupid deals and the problem goes away...

And yes, some of the poor franchises could be subsidised... but why they hell aren't they getting more subsidy from the Leafs? Why do it off the backs of the players?

Like I said, last time around I was on the side of the owners but they got what they wanted last time and rammed a cap down the players throats... Now they're back crying for more while clubs like the Leafs do boffo business while icing a bunch of crap.

Bettman starts negotiating from the standpoint of players going from 57% to 43% and then wonders why we're in the situation that we're in? C'mon man.

It's absolutely ridiculous that we're in this situation... AGAIN. And if the league misses another season back to back with expired contracts it will be a huge embarrassment for the league. Bettman has got to stop being such a dumbass about everything.

And as an aside - wtf was Bettman thinking putting these expansion teams in the Southern US? It's pretty easy to see that this was a mistake (his mistake) and now he's making the players pay for it. The NHL overexpanded in my opinion and would've been doing a lot better otherwise. Maybe it's time to realize that hockey doesn't fly in certain markets and to move them back up North. That alone would solve a ton of problems.
You need to be two to dance tango... Fehr is using his passive "NO" tactics to its best.

Both guys deserve severe blames. They are killing NHL hockey.

Habtchum* is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:24 PM
  #239
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Revenue sharing or moving the franchises could solve that problem. Why does it have to be done on the backs of the players when the Leafs are a billion dollar team?

The rich owners make money year after year after year. The 4th liner who plays a few seasons might make some decent money but not enough to retire off of.

The owners complain about the stupid contracts? They are the ones who sign these checks. They're the ones who were giving out stupid contracts before the cap came. And they're the ones who signed contracts designed to circumvent the very same cap they shoved down the players' throats. Some teams out there are making STUPID money year after year icing crappy teams. The owners have gotten controls in place to protect themselves... There is a cap in place, just stop signing 30 year stupid deals and the problem goes away...

And yes, some of the poor franchises could be subsidised... but why they hell aren't they getting more subsidy from the Leafs? Why do it off the backs of the players?

Like I said, last time around I was on the side of the owners but they got what they wanted last time and rammed a cap down the players throats... Now they're back crying for more while clubs like the Leafs do boffo business while icing a bunch of crap.

Bettman starts negotiating from the standpoint of players going from 57% to 43% and then wonders why we're in the situation that we're in? C'mon man.

It's absolutely ridiculous that we're in this situation... AGAIN. And if the league misses another season back to back with expired contracts it will be a huge embarrassment for the league. Bettman has got to stop being such a dumbass about everything.

And as an aside - wtf was Bettman thinking putting these expansion teams in the Southern US? It's pretty easy to see that this was a mistake (his mistake) and now he's making the players pay for it. The NHL overexpanded in my opinion and would've been doing a lot better otherwise. Maybe it's time to realize that hockey doesn't fly in certain markets and to move them back up North. That alone would solve a ton of problems.
Here's the thing, not every owner is making money, matter of fact, wasn't there 13 teams in the negative last year? And I believe only 13 actually made more than 5M.
Really, the revenue sharing among owners is pretty much the only thing that is saving this league. If rich owners wouldn't be flipping the bill for the poor ones, league would have to downside big time.

As for the stupid contracts, I agree on some level. All it takes is one moron to get the ball rolling, I'm sure you know this. And it's not only the owner's fault. The agents are just as guilty. If one agent convinces his client he deserves 80M, and makes him agree that if he doesn't get that much from his current team, he'll get it from some other, then his current owner/gm is faced with a choice, let him walk or give in. Now, if they agree that the asset is too good to let go, they find a solution as to how to give him that much, and so the front loaded-long term deals were born.
Everybody plays a part in it, not just the owners, not just the agents, but the players as well. In the end, the owners are the ones making the decisions and dishing out the cash, but like I said, it only takes one to get it started, after that you either have to adapt or the players will go elsewhere.

As for the expansion, going to the south was a mistake, and I think he should be fired for it. However, the idea of expanding the league was good. More teams also means more players. But I agree, location, location, location. However, franchises were struggling in Canada at the time as well. The idea was to get the States in every part of it involved in this sport. A good idea, and it might have worked if they did better studies and didn't expand as fast, who knows.
According to Forbes, the NHL should have 20 teams in order to truly be profitable, not 30. That's ten times a 23 men roster, 230 players affected.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...0_team_league/

As much as I think the owners have handled it poorly, and are ridiculous at times, I really don't think the players understand how good they have it.


Last edited by Kriss E: 12-13-2012 at 02:32 PM.
Kriss E is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:25 PM
  #240
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Revenue sharing or moving the franchises could solve that problem. Why does it have to be done on the backs of the players when the Leafs are a billion dollar team?

The rich owners make money year after year after year. The 4th liner who plays a few seasons might make some decent money but not enough to retire off of.

The owners complain about the stupid contracts? They are the ones who sign these checks. They're the ones who were giving out stupid contracts before the cap came. And they're the ones who signed contracts designed to circumvent the very same cap they shoved down the players' throats. Some teams out there are making STUPID money year after year icing crappy teams. The owners have gotten controls in place to protect themselves... There is a cap in place, just stop signing 30 year stupid deals and the problem goes away...

And yes, some of the poor franchises could be subsidised... but why they hell aren't they getting more subsidy from the Leafs? Why do it off the backs of the players?

Like I said, last time around I was on the side of the owners but they got what they wanted last time and rammed a cap down the players throats... Now they're back crying for more while clubs like the Leafs do boffo business while icing a bunch of crap.

Bettman starts negotiating from the standpoint of players going from 57% to 43% and then wonders why we're in the situation that we're in? C'mon man.

It's absolutely ridiculous that we're in this situation... AGAIN. And if the league misses another season back to back with expired contracts it will be a huge embarrassment for the league. Bettman has got to stop being such a dumbass about everything.

And as an aside - wtf was Bettman thinking putting these expansion teams in the Southern US? It's pretty easy to see that this was a mistake (his mistake) and now he's making the players pay for it. The NHL overexpanded in my opinion and would've been doing a lot better otherwise. Maybe it's time to realize that hockey doesn't fly in certain markets and to move them back up North. That alone would solve a ton of problems.
I keep hearing this and it's crap. Yes it's the owners that sign ridiculous contracts but the teams signing huge contracs taht are frontloaded and have big bonus money up front are not the ones suffering...they can't get together and not offer big contracts as this would be collusion. Somebody with a baseball avatar should know that MLB was sued and lost big in the 1990's collusion cases.

In terms of Southern US Expansion, in order to expand the footprint you have to expand geographically. It's easy to say move the southern teams up North but where are they going to play? Hamilton and Quebec are not excatly great markets, Quebec has no rink and a small population(relatively speaking) and Hamilton has a 15k rink and ****** fan support for AHL. Seattle also would need a rink.

If you want big US dollars and a major TV deal you have to be further south than Washington St Louis and Detroit.

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:56 PM
  #241
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Revenue sharing or moving the franchises could solve that problem. Why does it have to be done on the backs of the players when the Leafs are a billion dollar team?

The rich owners make money year after year after year. The 4th liner who plays a few seasons might make some decent money but not enough to retire off of.

The owners complain about the stupid contracts? They are the ones who sign these checks. They're the ones who were giving out stupid contracts before the cap came. And they're the ones who signed contracts designed to circumvent the very same cap they shoved down the players' throats. Some teams out there are making STUPID money year after year icing crappy teams. The owners have gotten controls in place to protect themselves... There is a cap in place, just stop signing 30 year stupid deals and the problem goes away...

And yes, some of the poor franchises could be subsidised... but why they hell aren't they getting more subsidy from the Leafs? Why do it off the backs of the players?

Like I said, last time around I was on the side of the owners but they got what they wanted last time and rammed a cap down the players throats... Now they're back crying for more while clubs like the Leafs do boffo business while icing a bunch of crap.

Bettman starts negotiating from the standpoint of players going from 57% to 43% and then wonders why we're in the situation that we're in? C'mon man.

It's absolutely ridiculous that we're in this situation... AGAIN. And if the league misses another season back to back with expired contracts it will be a huge embarrassment for the league. Bettman has got to stop being such a dumbass about everything.

And as an aside - wtf was Bettman thinking putting these expansion teams in the Southern US? It's pretty easy to see that this was a mistake (his mistake) and now he's making the players pay for it. The NHL overexpanded in my opinion and would've been doing a lot better otherwise. Maybe it's time to realize that hockey doesn't fly in certain markets and to move them back up North. That alone would solve a ton of problems.
Did you miss the part where it was pointed out that revenue sharing IS being increased by a larger margin than the rollback players were asked to take? I take it the answer is "yes", so I hope you read this post.

SOME of the rich owners make money year after year. Some of them LOSE money with their franchises, year after year. That 4th liner is getting very well paid to do his job, he is ot getting slave wages. Since when is getting $550 000 a horrible thing deserving of such sympathy? Let that 4th liner recognize that he needs to be intelligent with his funds in order to be able to set himself up in some other career, or even save enough to cover manageable bills so that he CAN go back to school for some degree that will enable him to live a decent life in the real world. Why is it that there are people on here that think these players do so much that they deserve to make enough money to retire comfortably after a 3-12 year career in their chosen profession?

Stopping "dumb" owners from signing stupid contracts it what this negotiation is all about. Just because a couple of GMs are willig to toss their owners' money around like idiots doesn't mean all of them are that stupid. The problem is with the handful who ARE that stupid. If there is nothing in pace in the CBA to prevent such stupidity, the players can sue the league for collusion if suddenly the agent can not find anyone willing to offer a "fair" contract for that player. We saw what collusion charges did to baseball, the NHL owners do not want that problem, so they want to have a contract limitation added to the CBA to prevent stupid GMs from damaging the league with idiotic contracts like we saw Luongo, Yashin, DiPietro, Kovalchuk et al get.

The poor franchises ARE getting subsidized by the owners, and are going to be getting more under the new CBA. The players are being asked to split the HRR pie in a fair 50/50 split to ALSO help those weaker teams since it benefits the players to not have contraction just as much as it benefits the owners.

The cap that was "rammed" down the players' throat has been so devastating that the players' salaries have increased 63.5% over the duration of the last CBA! Man, it must suck to see salaries raise by such a minimal amount...The owners DID get some of wha what they wanted last time, but it is quite clear that they truly believe they are entitled to make 50% of the HRR in the very business that they pay every single related cost in. They each bring as much value to the game as the players, albeit in a different manner, and should be able to get an equal share of the HRR. That is why they are complaining. Heck, the richer owners actually get less than the share they deserve because they have revenue sharing. I don't see Ovechkin sharing his salary with that poor 4th liner who isn't going to make enough to retire. Should the owners ask the players to engage in some revenue sharing so that the poor 4th liner can have an easier opportunity to retire when he can no longer play?

Bettman started nogotiations with the same "insulting" offer that the owners have been living under for 7 years believing the players would make a counter offer. That is what you do in negotiations. The players actually refused to even make a counter offer to the original proposal. THAT is why we are where we are. Heck, even the last offer from the owners to the players seemed to be one that the players were interested in until Fehr came along and said "no" without even bringing the offer to the union to vote on. THAT is why we are where we are.

It IS ridiculous that we are in this situation---AGAIN. It might have been far better for the players to start negotiating with the NHL las year like the owners wanted to do, rather than choosing to wait until this summer to "begin" negotiations.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:31 PM
  #242
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
Put in context, the proposal is for a 14% decrease in player salaries, and a 33% increase in revenue sharing.

How would you feel about a 33% increase in union dues?

I can tell you even CAW members groan about their dues. If I were an owner of a financially successful franchise, I would not be looking forward to such a change.
Yes, but what matters here is cash, don't focus on the numbers that matter less.

The owners are proposing a 230 million annual decrease in player salaries, and a 33 million dollar increase in revenue sharing. Those are the relevant numbers.

That shows that the revenue sharing offer by the owners is insubstantial.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:34 PM
  #243
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Did you miss the part where it was pointed out that revenue sharing IS being increased by a larger margin than the rollback players were asked to take? I take it the answer is "yes", so I hope you read this post.

SOME of the rich owners make money year after year. Some of them LOSE money with their franchises, year after year. That 4th liner is getting very well paid to do his job, he is ot getting slave wages. Since when is getting $550 000 a horrible thing deserving of such sympathy? Let that 4th liner recognize that he needs to be intelligent with his funds in order to be able to set himself up in some other career, or even save enough to cover manageable bills so that he CAN go back to school for some degree that will enable him to live a decent life in the real world. Why is it that there are people on here that think these players do so much that they deserve to make enough money to retire comfortably after a 3-12 year career in their chosen profession?

Stopping "dumb" owners from signing stupid contracts it what this negotiation is all about. Just because a couple of GMs are willig to toss their owners' money around like idiots doesn't mean all of them are that stupid. The problem is with the handful who ARE that stupid. If there is nothing in pace in the CBA to prevent such stupidity, the players can sue the league for collusion if suddenly the agent can not find anyone willing to offer a "fair" contract for that player. We saw what collusion charges did to baseball, the NHL owners do not want that problem, so they want to have a contract limitation added to the CBA to prevent stupid GMs from damaging the league with idiotic contracts like we saw Luongo, Yashin, DiPietro, Kovalchuk et al get.

The poor franchises ARE getting subsidized by the owners, and are going to be getting more under the new CBA. The players are being asked to split the HRR pie in a fair 50/50 split to ALSO help those weaker teams since it benefits the players to not have contraction just as much as it benefits the owners.

The cap that was "rammed" down the players' throat has been so devastating that the players' salaries have increased 63.5% over the duration of the last CBA! Man, it must suck to see salaries raise by such a minimal amount...The owners DID get some of wha what they wanted last time, but it is quite clear that they truly believe they are entitled to make 50% of the HRR in the very business that they pay every single related cost in. They each bring as much value to the game as the players, albeit in a different manner, and should be able to get an equal share of the HRR. That is why they are complaining. Heck, the richer owners actually get less than the share they deserve because they have revenue sharing. I don't see Ovechkin sharing his salary with that poor 4th liner who isn't going to make enough to retire. Should the owners ask the players to engage in some revenue sharing so that the poor 4th liner can have an easier opportunity to retire when he can no longer play?

Bettman started nogotiations with the same "insulting" offer that the owners have been living under for 7 years believing the players would make a counter offer. That is what you do in negotiations. The players actually refused to even make a counter offer to the original proposal. THAT is why we are where we are. Heck, even the last offer from the owners to the players seemed to be one that the players were interested in until Fehr came along and said "no" without even bringing the offer to the union to vote on. THAT is why we are where we are.

It IS ridiculous that we are in this situation---AGAIN. It might have been far better for the players to start negotiating with the NHL las year like the owners wanted to do, rather than choosing to wait until this summer to "begin" negotiations.
Great post and obviously written by someone who knows a thing or two about how a business is run. Kudos to you sir.

Although the owners share some of the blame, I have little to no sympathy for the players in this battle.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:37 PM
  #244
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Terrific post! People on the players side think of how horrible that players will "LOSE" 14% of their salaries, but think nothing of taking 33% of the money successful franchises earn to give it to weaker franchises. How would Ovechkin feel if he were asked to give 33% of his salary to help support his team mate Tomas Kundratek? I doubt the union would be happy if such revenue sharing were to be suggested by the owners as a way to ensure all union members get a fair salary that can balance out all players' living conditions.

To be fair, though, I do believe that revenue sharing should increase. The fact that the owners are going to do it is good for the league.
They're not taking 33% of the more successful franchise's money, you completely misunderstood the post.

Revenue sharing is increasing by 33% in the owners' proposal. It will rise from 140 million to 180 million leaguewide (33%), over 5 years. As we can expect league revenues to rise at the same rate or faster, total revenue sharing will remain at ~4% of league revenue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Did you miss the part where it was pointed out that revenue sharing IS being increased by a larger margin than the rollback players were asked to take?
Incorrect.

Revenue sharing is being increased by 33 million, and player salaries are decreasing by 230 million. The latter also scales with league revenues, i.e. if league revenues double, the latter counts as 460 million, whereas the former is still 33 million.


Last edited by DAChampion: 12-13-2012 at 03:46 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:45 PM
  #245
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
- delete -

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:53 PM
  #246
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 559
vCash: 500
Baseball's collusion was a LOT more overt than what anybody here is suggesting. People are saying "don't be stupid with your money". That's a whole lot different than the open collusion that went on in baseball.

From wikipedia:

* It later emerged that the owners agreed to keep contracts down to three years for position players and two for pitchers. (Obviously they must have talked amongst themselves, no?)

* Only 4 of the 35 free agents changed teams and those four were not wanted by their old team. Star players, such as Kirk Gibson, Tommy John and Phil Niekro, did not receive offers from other teams. (Nothing remotely close to that would happen in hockey. People are saying you can still give offers, just not dumb ones.)

* George Steinbrenner offered Carlton Fisk a contract, then withdrew the offer after getting a call from Chicago White Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf. Teams also reduced team rosters from 25 to 24 players. (There you go - they openly talked, colluded, over a free agent)

* The free agent market following the 1986 season was not much better for the players. Only four free agents switched teams. Andre Dawson took a pay cut and a one-year contract to sign with the Chicago Cubs. Three fourths of the free agents signed one-year contracts... Even as this was happening, Ueberroth ordered the owners to tell him personally if they planned to offer contracts longer than three years. (Again, open communication/collusion)

* They created an "information bank" to share information about what offers were being made to players.

You'd never be able to prove collusion if Zach Parise only got a seven year offer, and not a 13 year offer, or whatever it was, anymore than it would be considered collusion if nobody offered him a 30 year deal. But if NOBODY offered him a deal, as is what happened in baseball, then yes, you would have a case for collusion.

The problem, of course, is that owners can't control themselves. And I said owners, because it's their money, and they get the final say in these things. A GM can come up to them and say "I've got a 13 year deal on the table" and all the owner has to do is say "no." But they didn't, and they won't. Heck, even now they can't. Bill Daly says that the five year term agreement is "the hill they are going to die on" and yet Jeremy Jacobs, the biggest hawk and lead NHL negotiator, signed Tyler Seguin to a SIX year contract extension, right before the lockout was imposed. Let me repeat that; AN EXTENSION. Seguin, wasn't a free agent, RFA or UFA, he was signed for this year. Jacobs didn't have to sign Seguin this year, and he certainly didn't have to sign him to a six year deal. He most certainly didn't have to collude with any other owner to make sure Seguin didn't get a six year deal, because none of the other owners could even talk to Seguin.

Collusion is a red-herring in the NHL, because it doesn't happen, and it won't happen. Those mega-contracts could have been controlled with common sense, not with collusion. But of course that doesn't exist, so the CBA needs to be toughened up to prevent that. Has everything to do with owner stupidity, and nothing to do with collusion, real, perceived or potential.

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:01 PM
  #247
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
I disagree with the argument that the "owners can't control themselves".

Some of the owners are trying to win. That is because winning is fun, and because winning comes with much more playoff revenue. The owners who try to win in a standard way make for a better game.

The kovalchuk contract may look idiotic, but a superstar will put butts in the stands, and he just got them to the stanley cup finals. He's one of the top scorers of the 2000s. It's entirely possible he'll play until age 41.

Quote:
Jeremy Jacobs, the biggest hawk and lead NHL negotiator, signed Tyler Seguin to a SIX year contract extension, right before the lockout was imposed. Let me repeat that; AN EXTENSION. Seguin, wasn't a free agent, RFA or UFA, he was signed for this year. Jacobs didn't have to sign Seguin this year, and he certainly didn't have to sign him to a six year deal. He most certainly didn't have to collude with any other owner to make sure Seguin didn't get a six year deal, because none of the other owners could even talk to Seguin.
He signed him to an extension because he's planning a rollback. That is a different form of collusion. He and some owners among themselves agreed that rollbacks would happen, and thus owners in the know went on a spending orgy this summer.

Once the rollbacks kick in he will keep Seguin, Lucic, etc at major discounts. He didn't have to take a discount on Seguin, but he chose to do so, because it made good business sense.

I think the make-whole might be paid for collectively, in which case other teams will pay for Seguin.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:14 PM
  #248
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,651
vCash: 500
Omg who let this "slow" "retard-sounding" guy host the radio: http://www.tsn.ca/Montreal/listen/

Pierre McGuire is really being patient with him though.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:22 PM
  #249
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
I wonder if Jeremy Jacobs will figure out a way to stop paying Marc Savard?

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:42 PM
  #250
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
No one said you needed to have as many owners, but you do need enough to be willing to pay 100s of millions to buy and then run a franchise. Far, far fewer of those types exist than people capable of playing hockey at a high level.

I do not have to "stop" with the "so do others" stuff because I do know what it is like to do a physical "sport" at a fairly high level, just not hockey. I have been very successful in the Martial Art I have trained in for 27 years and completely understand the difficulties, challenges, and enjoyments involved in doing such. No, I do not fight professionally, but that was my choice, not due to any failing. The FACT that people in OTHER professions train as hard as athletes, but in a DIFFERENT manner seems to hurt your feelings. I am not sure why, but you might want to ratchet back the hero worship and try to understand that there are people who choose to go to university and succeed at it who work as hard as people who become professional athletes. Do I mean everyone who goes to university? No. There are plenty who go and fail, drop out, or skate through with minimal effort. You get the same type of people who choose to try and make a professional career in a sport, as well. The thing is, those are usually the ones who do not succeed. The people who go to university and succeed, have made the same kinds of sacrifices, taken similar types of risk related to whether or not they will succeed in their chosen profession, as any hockey player. I wish you could try, at least TRY, to understand that reality.
there's part of the equation you're missing...

no one is saying people who study arent putting as much effort as those who study and do sports.

the equation is pretty simple actually, aside from the fact they're on the bus instead of a plane, Jr hockey players play/practice at pretty much the same pace as AHLers and NHLers do (70+ games schedules)...

sure they can give all they got when it comes to going to classes and studying, but it's 100% of what's left, so to speak and study+sport sure isnt the same as study+free time, come on now...

the kid who has to travel from Sherbrooke to Rouin Noranda, or Terre Neuve to Gatineau, for games will not have as much free time to study, neither will he have the same energy to put in to his homeworks.

And even if you were training at a very high level, you can't compare your situation with those of Junior players... I mean, what is it in Karate ? provincials once a year, National once a year, PanAm once a year (assuming you're good enough to go), one competition a year within your organisation (if you were in the SKI, JKA or something) and maybe one or two more troughout the year... and you want to compare that to a sport that start/ends at the same time as CEGEP and Universities do ? to kids who have to travel from Boisbriand to PEI, from Rimouski to Gatineau, from Rouin to Sherbrooke on a somewhat regular basis ? to kids who have to play 2 or 3 (and sometimes maybe 4) games a week on top of practices ?

reality, you were attending Karate "classes" 2 or 3 times a week, maybe 4, 2H classes top. Maybe used some of your "free time" to train some more (key word : FREE time).

And there's a reason you could get good grades while you were also training. A simple one. in LOTS of other sports (even at a high level) you will have much more free time to do whatever you feel like, Karate included (really, try me, how many competitions a year you were doing ?).

Get some perspective.

ECWHSWI 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 05:16 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.