HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2012, 09:33 AM
  #276
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Did you miss the 90s/00s part of what you are laughing at? You do know we are not in the 90s anymore, right?
The 90s and 00s were no different than they are today... rich and poor teams. The leagues says this is a problem and I don't think anyone disagrees. The question is how to fix it and the answer is to either contract (which nobody wants), move teams (which might or might not make sense) or have a better revenue sharing system.

If the owners were to split revenues across the board equally (never going to happen for various legitimate reasons) you'd have a great product. All teams would be on equal footing financially and have an equal opportunity to win.

Unfortunately 100% revenue sharing isn't going to happen but we've seen that the way they're doing things isn't really working. The question is where to cut the pie and who pays. It seems to me that the owners are asking the players to foot the bill for this while teams like the Leafs make stupid money perpetually... that doesn't make sense to me. If the league wants to fix the problems they should look internally at the problem and take some responsibility here. It doesn't have to be 100% revenue sharing but it's got to be a lot better than it is if they want to fix the issue. Clawing back on the players doesn't address this problem. It just makes the richer teams that much richer, the inequities are NOT addressed.

And like I said, players actually agreed to limit contracts. It may not be as short as the owners like but it's a victory. They should've just accepted it and next time around work on shortening it. That's what negotiating is all about. You don't sit there and keep saying 'take it or leave it' or else you wind up in the situation we're in now.

I think the players have been reasonable here. They are the ones who are continuing to give things up. The league has already won major concessions from them. Take it and move on.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:25 AM
  #277
e46330ivs*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Not as simple as revenues - players salaries = profits. there's other operating costs.
exactly- most people on here with their calculators coming up with fictitious numbers, one thing we know for sure the players get there salary minus taxes, the rest from an ownership standpoint we dont know, who knows what the electricity bill at an arena is, how much do they pay contractors to plow the parking lots, how much did the new sign cost they installed on the arena, yes i understand its the cost of doing business, but nobody here can claim to know their business expenses, and thats the problem.

e46330ivs* is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:27 AM
  #278
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Are you telling me it isnt true, that they dont have to sacrifice school when playing 70+ games in the Q while riding the bus countless hours per months in a season that goes from September to April (and maybe more with PO and Mem. Cup) ?

I suggest you re-read what you type before submitting your posts. You're proud of your hard work and all but when it comes to hockey players who both play and go to school, you act as if it's something common, as if everybody was doing something similar...

Doing what MANY can do is not an accomplishment.
You are comical. Let me deal with your last "statement" first. "Doing what MANY can do is not an accomplishment". That is your argument, now? Graduating high school=meaningless, I guess. Graduating college=meaningless. Graduating university=meaningless. Working hard throughout your life to achieve your goals=meaningless. All because "MANY" people can do all of those things??? I guess your life is full of failures and you have accomplished nothing. Luckily for you, MANY people (actually MOST) feel that it is quite possible for MANY people to do the same thing and feel it is an accomplishment. I really hope you learn something valuable from this, at least.

Now, I NEVER once said "they don't have to sacrifice school when playing 70+ games in the Q while riding the bus countless hours per months". You keep missing what I am writing even though it is clear as sunlight on a cloudless day. Yes, hockey players can choose to sacrifice their education in favour of playing hockey. There are people who sacrifice playing a sport to pursue an education, too. My point is that sacrificing your education to play a sport does not make you any more special, it does NOT mean you take any MORE risk, than any other person who chooses to go to university (as ONE example) in a specialized field.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 11:40 AM
  #279
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
You are comical. Let me deal with your last "statement" first. "Doing what MANY can do is not an accomplishment". That is your argument, now? Graduating high school=meaningless, I guess. Graduating college=meaningless. Graduating university=meaningless. Working hard throughout your life to achieve your goals=meaningless. All because "MANY" people can do all of those things??? I guess your life is full of failures and you have accomplished nothing. Luckily for you, MANY people (actually MOST) feel that it is quite possible for MANY people to do the same thing and feel it is an accomplishment. I really hope you learn something valuable from this, at least.

Now, I NEVER once said "they don't have to sacrifice school when playing 70+ games in the Q while riding the bus countless hours per months". You keep missing what I am writing even though it is clear as sunlight on a cloudless day. Yes, hockey players can choose to sacrifice their education in favour of playing hockey. There are people who sacrifice playing a sport to pursue an education, too. My point is that sacrificing your education to play a sport does not make you any more special, it does NOT mean you take any MORE risk, than any other person who chooses to go to university (as ONE example) in a specialized field.
While in principle this is true, the only thing I'll say is that if you attribute risk to the likelihood of success, then I think we can agree that there is more risk in trying to get to the NHL than there is to become a doctor, lawyer, engineer...ect. I only say this because the ultimate goal of becoming an NHLer offers less opportunity of success against the opportunity to get to be a professional in another field, and so the risk of failure to becoming an NHLer is higher, right?

Reiher is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:43 PM
  #280
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
While in principle this is true, the only thing I'll say is that if you attribute risk to the likelihood of success, then I think we can agree that there is more risk in trying to get to the NHL than there is to become a doctor, lawyer, engineer...ect. I only say this because the ultimate goal of becoming an NHLer offers less opportunity of success against the opportunity to get to be a professional in another field, and so the risk of failure to becoming an NHLer is higher, right?
The odds are different for each and every player. Take McDavid, a 15 year old, he has better odds to make the NHL then he does to become a doctor.

I would say as a rule of thumb that by the time a player is drafted by the CHL, he has a good idea if he has the potential to play in the NHL or not and if the potential isn't there by then, then the odds go way, way down.

Same thing with becoming a doctor or engineer. If you're good at doing well at school, well enough to be admitted to the university major of you're choice, the odds are pretty good of you being able to successfully complete the course, as long as you have the means and the desire to see it through. Friends of mine went to university when they were 15, so if a 15 year can do that, how hard can it be?

Frozenice is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:54 PM
  #281
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiher View Post
While in principle this is true, the only thing I'll say is that if you attribute risk to the likelihood of success, then I think we can agree that there is more risk in trying to get to the NHL than there is to become a doctor, lawyer, engineer...ect. I only say this because the ultimate goal of becoming an NHLer offers less opportunity of success against the opportunity to get to be a professional in another field, and so the risk of failure to becoming an NHLer is higher, right?
Sure, the chance to make the NHL is smaller than many other jobs. However, perspective is important. Follow me for a second, please.

The NHL is not the ONLY hockey league where players can earn a living. It is the league where they earn the BEST living, but not the league where they earn the ONLY living. Everybody seems to forget that there are a lot more than just 700 jobs in the field of playing hockey. There are a lot of european teams, there are AHL and ECHL, and other PAYING North American leagues. Just like some people will graduate University and work at Harvard where they get paid quite well, does not mean that those people who graduate from the same University but work at a community college are not also successful. The financials are different, but both have achieved a measure of success. Unless people are trying to argue that only money=success. At that point, there are far more people in the world lacking success by that definition than there will ever be who are successful. In that kind of world, Hockey players should feel less than successful since their sports brethren in the NBA, MLB, and NFL make much more money than them. Do you see the problem?

If we are saying that someone who strives to reach the NHL, but simply has a long minor league career where he earns a salary, pays his mortgage, puts his kids through school, etc...while not making millions of dollars is a failure doesn't that diminish the lives of all those players that have managed to make a career out of minor league hockey? Why is playing in the NHL the ONLY success? Just because it pays the most? Are we really saying that only by making millions of dollars can one feel like a success? I really hope not.

Here is a parallel. I work in the public sector in teaching (at a high school). Some people have said that I should go to the private sector because I would make more money and get paid better. I had offers to work at the college level (College is not the same as University in Quebec, it is an intermediate step between High School and University). I could even get a job at McGill University, if I truly wanted to. I have also been offered the opportunity to become a Vice Principal. All of these are great opportunities I could take advantage of if I wanted to. However, I love what I do and do not want to do anything else at the moment. So, does it mean I am less successful because I could get paid more doing something else? I truly hope not. The same thing for a hockey player who doesn't make the NHL but finds success and happiness playing in whatever other league in the world will pay him a salary he feels he can live his life with. I don't see the guy who plays 12 years in the AHL as a loser, I see him as someone who is doing what he loves for a living. It is an accomplishment, not a failure.

Perspective is important, I believe.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:08 PM
  #282
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,784
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The 90s and 00s were no different than they are today... rich and poor teams. The leagues says this is a problem and I don't think anyone disagrees. The question is how to fix it and the answer is to either contract (which nobody wants), move teams (which might or might not make sense) or have a better revenue sharing system.

If the owners were to split revenues across the board equally (never going to happen for various legitimate reasons) you'd have a great product. All teams would be on equal footing financially and have an equal opportunity to win.

Unfortunately 100% revenue sharing isn't going to happen but we've seen that the way they're doing things isn't really working. The question is where to cut the pie and who pays. It seems to me that the owners are asking the players to foot the bill for this while teams like the Leafs make stupid money perpetually... that doesn't make sense to me. If the league wants to fix the problems they should look internally at the problem and take some responsibility here. It doesn't have to be 100% revenue sharing but it's got to be a lot better than it is if they want to fix the issue. Clawing back on the players doesn't address this problem. It just makes the richer teams that much richer, the inequities are NOT addressed.

And like I said, players actually agreed to limit contracts. It may not be as short as the owners like but it's a victory. They should've just accepted it and next time around work on shortening it. That's what negotiating is all about. You don't sit there and keep saying 'take it or leave it' or else you wind up in the situation we're in now.

I think the players have been reasonable here. They are the ones who are continuing to give things up. The league has already won major concessions from them. Take it and move on.
Costs in 90's/00's were much lower and in places like Dallas you had thriving market pulling in money

Also Panthers were in a hell of a lot better shape fanbase wise and profit wise

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:31 PM
  #283
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The 90s and 00s were no different than they are today... rich and poor teams. Seriously? What are you trying to argue here? You replied to a post incorrectly and are actually trying to justify how wrong your reply was? You were told that some teams in the 90s/00s were doing well in attendance and you snidely commented that the league doesn't need more revenue. It was pointed out that you missed the point and you come back with the above???

The leagues says this is a problem and I don't think anyone disagrees. The question is how to fix it and the answer is to either contract (which nobody wants), move teams (which might or might not make sense) or have a better revenue sharing system.

Actually, there is no single, simple, answer. Revenue sharing is definitely part of the answer. We agree. Letting the owners keep 50% of the HRR is also part of the answer.

If the owners were to split revenues across the board equally (never going to happen for various legitimate reasons) you'd have a great product. All teams would be on equal footing financially and have an equal opportunity to win.

I agree with revenue sharing. I do not think an equal split of the HRR between all of the owners is fair. Just like I do not think anyone would ask all of the players to put all of their salaries into one big pot and distribute it evenly.

Unfortunately 100% revenue sharing isn't going to happen but we've seen that the way they're doing things isn't really working. The question is where to cut the pie and who pays. It seems to me that the owners are asking the players to foot the bill for this while teams like the Leafs make stupid money perpetually... that doesn't make sense to me. If the league wants to fix the problems they should look internally at the problem and take some responsibility here. It doesn't have to be 100% revenue sharing but it's got to be a lot better than it is if they want to fix the issue. Clawing back on the players doesn't address this problem. It just makes the richer teams that much richer, the inequities are NOT addressed.

The players aren't "footing" ANY bill. The players do not pay one single penny into running, operating, owning, any aspect of an NHL team. The players do not even pay for their own transportation, food, sleeping arrangement or equipment. THe players do not pay the Zamboni driver, the ticket salesperson, the security guards, the taxes on the arenas, or anything else related to hockey. The payers foot the bill for absolutely nothing. That is what the owners do. That is the part of the hockey business the owners take care of and is partially why they should get 50% of the HRR. The players deserve their 50% because they do work very hard (most, not all) at their jobs, they do put fans into the seats (to some degree), and they do contribute to the financial success of the franchises (to some degree). Both the owners and the players are equally necessary for the continued success of the NHL and once everyone can acknowledge that simple FACT, it will be easier for both sides to come to terms, both at the professional level and on HFBoards(come on, I had to find some way to make us equal to the players and owners, no?)

And like I said, players actually agreed to limit contracts. It may not be as short as the owners like but it's a victory. They should've just accepted it and next time around work on shortening it. That's what negotiating is all about. You don't sit there and keep saying 'take it or leave it' or else you wind up in the situation we're in now.

I think the players have been reasonable here. They are the ones who are continuing to give things up. The league has already won major concessions from them. Take it and move on.
Here is the rub. You and the players feel the players have been reasonbale. I and the owners (simply using you and I as proxies for everyone on either side of the argument) feel the owners have been reasonable. Let's hope someone comes alopng who can bring some common sense and ground to the overall discussion and debate so we can have hockey this season. Agreed?

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:58 PM
  #284
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Sure, the chance to make the NHL is smaller than many other jobs. However, perspective is important. Follow me for a second, please.

The NHL is not the ONLY hockey league where players can earn a living. It is the league where they earn the BEST living, but not the league where they earn the ONLY living. Everybody seems to forget that there are a lot more than just 700 jobs in the field of playing hockey. There are a lot of european teams, there are AHL and ECHL, and other PAYING North American leagues. Just like some people will graduate University and work at Harvard where they get paid quite well, does not mean that those people who graduate from the same University but work at a community college are not also successful. The financials are different, but both have achieved a measure of success. Unless people are trying to argue that only money=success. At that point, there are far more people in the world lacking success by that definition than there will ever be who are successful. In that kind of world, Hockey players should feel less than successful since their sports brethren in the NBA, MLB, and NFL make much more money than them. Do you see the problem?

If we are saying that someone who strives to reach the NHL, but simply has a long minor league career where he earns a salary, pays his mortgage, puts his kids through school, etc...while not making millions of dollars is a failure doesn't that diminish the lives of all those players that have managed to make a career out of minor league hockey? Why is playing in the NHL the ONLY success? Just because it pays the most? Are we really saying that only by making millions of dollars can one feel like a success? I really hope not.

Here is a parallel. I work in the public sector in teaching (at a high school). Some people have said that I should go to the private sector because I would make more money and get paid better. I had offers to work at the college level (College is not the same as University in Quebec, it is an intermediate step between High School and University). I could even get a job at McGill University, if I truly wanted to. I have also been offered the opportunity to become a Vice Principal. All of these are great opportunities I could take advantage of if I wanted to. However, I love what I do and do not want to do anything else at the moment. So, does it mean I am less successful because I could get paid more doing something else? I truly hope not. The same thing for a hockey player who doesn't make the NHL but finds success and happiness playing in whatever other league in the world will pay him a salary he feels he can live his life with. I don't see the guy who plays 12 years in the AHL as a loser, I see him as someone who is doing what he loves for a living. It is an accomplishment, not a failure.

Perspective is important, I believe.
Every long term AHL player isn't playing in the league because of pure love for the game, in most cases it is because it is the best paying job available to him.

Add to this, with the physical risks there is little likelihood a majority of these players are employed in hockey for over a 10 year span. I wonder what wonderful life choices they have then?

So while you are contemplating your next career choice, each offering more money, consider the AHL veteran at 30 years old doing the exact opposite.

Now that's perspective for you.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:14 PM
  #285
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
Every long term AHL player isn't playing in the league because of pure love for the game, in most cases it is because it is the best paying job available to him.

Add to this, with the physical risks there is little likelihood a majority of these players are employed in hockey for over a 10 year span. I wonder what wonderful life choices they have then?

So while you are contemplating your next career choice, each offering more money, consider the AHL veteran at 30 years old doing the exact opposite.

Now that's perspective for you.
When the guy realizes, long before he is 30, that he is not going to make the NHL, he can CHOOSE to find another career. Heck, even at 30 there are plenty of people who go back to school to change careers.

You also missed the point: playing hockey in the NHL is NOT the only form of success in regards to playing hockey for a living. When you consider the salaries players can get even in the AHL, there is no reaon to feel like they have not succeeded. A $60 000 -6 digit salary is not something to pity someone for. Especially if somepone CHOOSES to continue that career.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:18 PM
  #286
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by e46330ivs View Post
exactly- most people on here with their calculators coming up with fictitious numbers, one thing we know for sure the players get there salary minus taxes, the rest from an ownership standpoint we dont know, who knows what the electricity bill at an arena is, how much do they pay contractors to plow the parking lots, how much did the new sign cost they installed on the arena, yes i understand its the cost of doing business, but nobody here can claim to know their business expenses, and thats the problem.
[mod]

Are you also going to tell me the value of 2+2

The question is why the Dallas Stars have higher operating costs than other teams. That was implied by the post. From the same numbers, Washigton, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, among teams I checked each spent 5-10 million less on non-player operating costs.

As for the "fictitious numbers", they're from Forbes, they include operating costs.


Last edited by Hammer Slammer: 12-14-2012 at 08:21 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:27 PM
  #287
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 18,019
vCash: 500
NHL pre-emptively files class action suit in NY federal court -- a place believed to be favorable to pro leagues -- to affirm lockout

NHL also files an Unfair Labor Practice Charge with the NLRB, alleging that NHLPA's threat to disclaim interest is bad faith bargaining


Things are going to the courts, and the NHL ensured it'll be played on their own turf. The players are about to get crushed.

Et le But is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:33 PM
  #288
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
When the guy realizes, long before he is 30, that he is not going to make the NHL, he can CHOOSE to find another career. Heck, even at 30 there are plenty of people who go back to school to change careers.

You also missed the point: playing hockey in the NHL is NOT the only form of success in regards to playing hockey for a living. When you consider the salaries players can get even in the AHL, there is no reaon to feel like they have not succeeded. A $60 000 -6 digit salary is not something to pity someone for. Especially if somepone CHOOSES to continue that career.
Unless he's had many concussions or other injuries, a players' life is not over when he's 25 and has failed. It's almost like you're arguing against the idea that players need to make a lot of money because nothing follows. I don't know that anybody said such an idea.

Similarly, an owners' life is not over when he walks away with 250 million following a 300 million dollar investment.

And we're right back to square one. Both players and owners take risks by pouring resources into the system. The only difference between the two is that owners are much less likely to fail.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:36 PM
  #289
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
NHL pre-emptively files class action suit in NY federal court -- a place believed to be favorable to pro leagues -- to affirm lockout

NHL also files an Unfair Labor Practice Charge with the NLRB, alleging that NHLPA's threat to disclaim interest is bad faith bargaining


Things are going to the courts, and the NHL ensured it'll be played on their own turf. The players are about to get crushed.


Quote:
If the membership allows the authorization, the NHLPA would have the authority to terminate its right to represent the players could potentially inform the National Hockey League with a declaration that the union no longer represents the players as a bargaining agent. Players could then file their own lawsuits seeking to have the lockout deemed illegal, something that could see them paid triple their lost salary in damages if successful.
There is no indication on if or when such a vote on the authorization would occur.

NBA players filed a disclaimer of interest while they were locked out last season, but ended up agreeing to a new CBA 12 days later and the union quickly reformed.

More to follow.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411653


Care to explain how the players are being crushed? all i see is that NHL running to courts trying to legally prevent what would possibly ruin the NHL.
if NHL does suceed, then they would just go back to pre-court "era" (aka yesterday) and back at trying to get deal done. don't really see how they are being crushed, unless i might of missed something, which is fairly possible

Either that, or the Players are just trying to get a deal done without Fher, like the NBA did? didn't really understand that part.


Anyways, this is getting real juicy
no matter my love for the game, seeing such a non essential industry implode itself upon greed is music to my ears. As much as i side with the players, i really don't care much for the players in the greater scheme, comparatively speaking to more essential industries. (ps. i work at the bell center part time while in school, so im a casualty of this mess, so to speak)


Last edited by uiCk: 12-14-2012 at 05:57 PM.
uiCk is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:56 PM
  #290
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Costs in 90's/00's were much lower and in places like Dallas you had thriving market pulling in money

Also Panthers were in a hell of a lot better shape fanbase wise and profit wise
The causes may have been different but there were still poor and rich teams.

Taking money from the players doesn't really solve this. The Leafs spending less on salaries just means they'll make 3 trillion instead of 2. It doesn't address the inequity problem.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:01 PM
  #291
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Unless he's had many concussions or other injuries, a players' life is not over when he's 25 and has failed. It's almost like you're arguing against the idea that players need to make a lot of money because nothing follows. I don't know that anybody said such an idea.

Similarly, an owners' life is not over when he walks away with 250 million following a 300 million dollar investment.

And we're right back to square one. Both players and owners take risks by pouring resources into the system. The only difference between the two is that owners are much less likely to fail.

10$ he comes back with "yeah but owners take FINANCIAL risks, players dont" or something similar...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:06 PM
  #292
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
The players aren't "footing" ANY bill. The players do not pay one single penny into running, operating, owning, any aspect of an NHL team. The players do not even pay for their own transportation, food, sleeping arrangement or equipment. THe players do not pay the Zamboni driver, the ticket salesperson, the security guards, the taxes on the arenas, or anything else related to hockey. The payers foot the bill for absolutely nothing. That is what the owners do. That is the part of the hockey business the owners take care of and is partially why they should get 50% of the HRR. The players deserve their 50% because they do work very hard (most, not all) at their jobs, they do put fans into the seats (to some degree), and they do contribute to the financial success of the franchises (to some degree). Both the owners and the players are equally necessary for the continued success of the NHL and once everyone can acknowledge that simple FACT, it will be easier for both sides to come to terms, both at the professional level and on HFBoards(come on, I had to find some way to make us equal to the players and owners, no?)
This is the only part of your post that I'm going to reply to...

Why do you think there's a cap? The owners have justified it by saying that some clubs are in trouble and the league has to get costs under control. If there was just the original six clubs you think they could've justified the cap? Of course not. It would be a free market with players going to the highest bidder.

But some teams are struggling and losing money. So YES somebody has to foot the bill. The question is - where does it come from? The NHL has deemed that the players should do it. I say that's somewhat reasonable and that's why I supported the owners last time around. I was for a cap and as much as I could understand the players' position I felt like it made sense. I ALSO felt that revenue sharing should be a BIG part of that equation and basically it was a pittance.

Fast forward to now and the owners want to claw more back... the players have agreed. The owners want term limits on contracts (the players surprisingly agreed to ten years.) And the justification for this is the poorest teams in the league are losing money.

Well, what about the richest teams in the league? Do the Toronto Maple Leafs need a cap in place?

??????

Think about it, this club is making gobs of money no matter what and now they're operating costs are being cut drastically? Why?

And you haven't ANSWERED THIS QUESTION - How does cutting the players salaries address the inequities of the league? It doesn't. Only revenue sharing would do this. Why should the cap be low enough that only the worst money makers in the league be able to compete? Why wouldn't there be some legitimate levels of revenue sharing here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Here is the rub. You and the players feel the players have been reasonbale. I and the owners (simply using you and I as proxies for everyone on either side of the argument) feel the owners have been reasonable. Let's hope someone comes alopng who can bring some common sense and ground to the overall discussion and debate so we can have hockey this season. Agreed?
Sure.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:20 PM
  #293
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,608
vCash: 500
Lafleurs,

It doesn't deal with the inequities.

Whatever money the owners save from these salary cutbacks will disporportionately go to teams spending near the cap and will soon be converted to new operating costs regardless. We'll be right back to square one.

The lower the revenue sharing, the greater the likelihood of another lockout in 2020 or so.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:32 PM
  #294
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Lafleurs,

It doesn't deal with the inequities.

Whatever money the owners save from these salary cutbacks will disporportionately go to teams spending near the cap and will soon be converted to new operating costs regardless. We'll be right back to square one.

The lower the revenue sharing, the greater the likelihood of another lockout in 2020 or so.
Correct.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:53 PM
  #295
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,478
vCash: 500
Meanwhile the players from generations gone by are shaking their heads in disbelief.

Habs is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:23 PM
  #296
vokiel
I hate blind passes
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 7,247
vCash: 500
**** revenue sharing... Decertification here we come!

And **** the Florida Panthers as well..

vokiel is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:24 PM
  #297
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 18,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411653
Care to explain how the players are being crushed? all i see is that NHL running to courts trying to legally prevent what would possibly ruin the NHL.
if NHL does suceed, then they would just go back to pre-court "era" (aka yesterday) and back at trying to get deal done. don't really see how they are being crushed, unless i might of missed something, which is fairly possible

Either that, or the Players are just trying to get a deal done without Fher, like the NBA did? didn't really understand that part.
Basically by taking the first move the NHL is trying to pick a jurisdiction they know is favorable to them - the business-friendly NY federal court that has a history of taking league sides.

Besides that, if they can get a declaration that the lockout is legal and in good faith, the NHLPA will have a more difficult time dissolving itself, and will need to take a vote to decertify. And if the league can postpone any decertification and take legal action against the NHLPA for not negotiating in good faith by trying to disclaim without decertification, the courts will take away that threat leaving the NHLPA with no leverage

If there is anything Bettman isn't going to lose it's a legal fight.

And the best part?
Quote:
Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
The NHL complaint also cites tweets supportive of Fehr from @Logancouture, @mattcarle25 and @ScottieUpshall.
The players own stupidity is going to come back to haunt them.

Et le But is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:27 PM
  #298
vokiel
I hate blind passes
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 7,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
Basically by taking the first move the NHL is trying to pick a jurisdiction they know is favorable to them - the business-friendly NY federal court that has a history of taking league sides.

Besides that, if they can get a declaration that the lockout is legal and in good faith, the NHLPA will have a more difficult time dissolving itself, and will need to take a vote to decertify.

If there is anything Bettman isn't going to lose it's a legal fight.
They filled in a federal court, I don't think favoritism matters. This isn't a patent troll filling in Texas.

Edit: Actually federal court might not mean what I think it means.. oh well whatever.

vokiel is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:28 PM
  #299
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
Meanwhile the players from generations gone by are shaking their heads in disbelief.
Now there's a statement that puts things in perspective!

The old school owners dictated, today's owners not at all.
This whole situation is due in part to the fact that the leaders on both sides do not know what it feels like to lace em up and go for a skate on an outdoor rink, river or pond.

AntonCH is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:35 PM
  #300
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 18,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
They filled in a federal court, I don't think favoritism matters. This isn't a patent troll filling in Texas.

Edit: Actually federal court might not mean what I think it means.. oh well whatever.
The federal courts in NY are very pro-business - these are the same guys who recently ruled that Argentina can't default on its national debt any longer and have to pay it all back.

As TSN's legal analyst Eric Macramalla said,
Quote:
Why did NHL file lawsuit first? To get case in front of league friendly court that is more likely to keep lockout in place - and thats NY

Et le But 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 06:06 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.