HFBoards

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

So Who Is Bummed About The Lockout III ---> Season likely to start on Jan. 19th

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-15-2012, 11:32 AM
  #76
Vashanesh
Nope.
 
Vashanesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 2,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
Bettman also just made a very very good case to be offered a **** tone of money by any other league who wants to get a Hard Cap, seriously at this point of the battle its like that scene in Two Towers where they are backed up all the way into the fortress and the enemy is knocking down the door, except there is no Gandalf to bail them out.

Players just need to realize that the fight is over, take your 5 year max (which is better for them anyways, seriously say that a guy plays at 18, his next contract is 21 at 5 year max that takes him to 26 and he can sign his big money deal, then at 31 still get a chance to sign another big deal)

time is running out, players have already lost tone of revenue, do they need to commit sepuku as well?
No, but that doesn't mean they can't still cut off their nose to spite their face... As if they haven't already been doing this for weeks, that is...

Both sides lose, fans lose the most. It is exactly what we knew it would be when this whole bag of ******** started.

Vashanesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 11:53 AM
  #77
Jarick
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 25,032
vCash: 500
NHL Lawsuit Seeks to Void Contracts

If that goes through, it's the end of the league. Voiding existing contracts would tank so many franchise values that many teams would collapse.

Be careful what you wish for...

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 12:11 PM
  #78
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,966
vCash: 500
There's a lot of franchises that would LOVE to see a smaller league that would form from that. From a player perspective, a bulk of their membership is now without a job. Like many are currently.

Regardless, if and when these league does come back there's a lot of fringe players who have seen their last days in this league already.

__________________

After Meaningless Win - 3/29/12 - Game 77 | SoH-"Who knows, that could have cost us a Cup tonight." | Dooohkay
this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 12:31 PM
  #79
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
NHL Lawsuit Seeks to Void Contracts

If that goes through, it's the end of the league. Voiding existing contracts would tank so many franchise values that many teams would collapse.

Be careful what you wish for...
Have you ever played a PvP RTS or TBS game online?

That is the NHL's nuclear deterrent.

When playing a PvP strategy game, the first person to nukes generally wins. The first person to *use* the nuke, however, typically loses. Every single other player that sees the usage of the nuke allies against that player and they are wiped out quickly. then it is back to normal for the remaining players.

The more I read about this and the more that i think about it, I am really back to thinking that Fehr has completely mis-managed this entire process. From doing nothing but thumbing his nose at the 04-05 lockout by putting de-linked proposals together and now basically broadcasting his next move before his opponent has made their move... Is just dumb.

it is so dumb, that it confuses me.

basic timeline...
NHL puts a (bad, but not as bad as the NBA) proposal on the table.
Fans react like WTF.
NHLPA ignores it.
NHL puts another proposal together, still bad, but gives a bit. (still takes a lot back)
NHLPA puts together a list of suggestions.
NHL puts another proposal together, gives a bit more. (still takes a lot back)
NHLPA re-arranges their list...
Rinse Repeat about three more times.
NHLPA finally puts a de-linked proposal together.
NHL walks out.
NHL puts yet another proposal together... (still takes a lot back)
NHLPA plays delaying tactics.
Moderate voices enter...
Both sides leave even more venomous than before...
NHL puts their best offer on the table. (still takes a lot back)
NHLPA (finally linked) fires back with another proposal.
NHL walks.
Both sides play PR war with the Media. NHLPA loses because of Fehr's BS.
NHLPA starts mentioning disclaimer of interest as their "next move".
NHL counters before that move is even made.
NHLPA persists with the allowance vote.
NHL waits...

Meanwhile... the NHL has their drop dead date in mind and has already shown a willingness to put their last offer back in for discussion.

Players need to realize that at this point...

Donald Fehr has no Plan B.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 01:12 PM
  #80
Vashanesh
Nope.
 
Vashanesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 2,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
Have you ever played a PvP RTS or TBS game online?

That is the NHL's nuclear deterrent.

When playing a PvP strategy game, the first person to nukes generally wins. The first person to *use* the nuke, however, typically loses. Every single other player that sees the usage of the nuke allies against that player and they are wiped out quickly. then it is back to normal for the remaining players.

The more I read about this and the more that i think about it, I am really back to thinking that Fehr has completely mis-managed this entire process. From doing nothing but thumbing his nose at the 04-05 lockout by putting de-linked proposals together and now basically broadcasting his next move before his opponent has made their move... Is just dumb.

it is so dumb, that it confuses me.

basic timeline...
NHL puts a (bad, but not as bad as the NBA) proposal on the table.
Fans react like WTF.
NHLPA ignores it.
NHL puts another proposal together, still bad, but gives a bit. (still takes a lot back)
NHLPA puts together a list of suggestions.
NHL puts another proposal together, gives a bit more. (still takes a lot back)
NHLPA re-arranges their list...
Rinse Repeat about three more times.
NHLPA finally puts a de-linked proposal together.
NHL walks out.
NHL puts yet another proposal together... (still takes a lot back)
NHLPA plays delaying tactics.
Moderate voices enter...
Both sides leave even more venomous than before...
NHL puts their best offer on the table. (still takes a lot back)
NHLPA (finally linked) fires back with another proposal.
NHL walks.
Both sides play PR war with the Media. NHLPA loses because of Fehr's BS.
NHLPA starts mentioning disclaimer of interest as their "next move".
NHL counters before that move is even made.
NHLPA persists with the allowance vote.
NHL waits...

Meanwhile... the NHL has their drop dead date in mind and has already shown a willingness to put their last offer back in for discussion.

Players need to realize that at this point...

[doublebold]Donald Fehr has no Plan B.[/doublebold]
Bingo... It seems like he blew his load, and the NHL called him on it.

Vashanesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 06:25 PM
  #81
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,855
vCash: 500
FSN has "NHL Hockey/To Be Announced" coming up. Bummer.

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 06:41 PM
  #82
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,818
vCash: 500
I think the Donald did have a plan B i just think his plan B backfired, his plan B was to sue the league but Bettman called his bluff.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 02:55 AM
  #83
W75
Wegistewed Usew
 
W75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 4,672
vCash: 626
I know it's only "tactics" and "legal" stuff but.. It's kind of funny, should I say silly. When Fehr can't negotiate the deal they want. They don't fire Fehr but they break up the whole union instead?

Similar like when a hockey team doesn't perform as good as they should. You sack every player but not the coach? Wow, and to this day I thought that you can't change the whole team, that's why coach has to go.. even it wasn't fully his fault. But sometimes it is.

And because Fehr can't deliver it, let the union go. It sounds very rational argument to my ear.. if I was a judge..

W75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 03:46 AM
  #84
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiFi75 View Post
I know it's only "tactics" and "legal" stuff but.. It's kind of funny, should I say silly. When Fehr can't negotiate the deal they want. They don't fire Fehr but they break up the whole union instead?

Similar like when a hockey team doesn't perform as good as they should. You sack every player but not the coach? Wow, and to this day I thought that you can't change the whole team, that's why coach has to go.. even it wasn't fully his fault. But sometimes it is.

And because Fehr can't deliver it, let the union go. It sounds very rational argument to my ear.. if I was a judge..
yup as russo said, players hired Fehr to help them and in the end they are going to end up disbanding the union, causing massive revenue loss for the league which affects their pay and still not gain ****.

man the players ****ed up this time, they ****ed the pooch so hard.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 11:16 AM
  #85
00xtremeninja
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
 
00xtremeninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Source Comic & Games
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,647
vCash: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
yup as russo said, players hired Fehr to help them and in the end they are going to end up disbanding the union, causing massive revenue loss for the league which affects their pay and still not gain ****.

man the players ****ed up this time, they ****ed the pooch so hard.
doesn't surprise me with reading some of their tweets. Many are not the brightest bulbs in the box, and those who don't speak out via social media means have half a brain in their head to bide their time and play their cards right when the moment calls for it.

00xtremeninja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 08:30 AM
  #86
HobeyBroten
Registered User
 
HobeyBroten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Location: Location:
Country: United States
Posts: 380
vCash: 500
For those of us who are too young to remember, a little story on D. Fehr.

HobeyBroten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 09:27 AM
  #87
HobeyBroten
Registered User
 
HobeyBroten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Location: Location:
Country: United States
Posts: 380
vCash: 500
So if the union does dissolve and the players form a trade association, would contracts be void based on the legality of them vs. what NHL would try to do in court room?

HobeyBroten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 10:47 AM
  #88
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeyBroten View Post
So if the union does dissolve and the players form a trade association, would contracts be void based on the legality of them vs. what NHL would try to do in court room?
Honestly, without having access to copies of the SPCs that exist, I think the only people that can answer those questions are the teams and the players and their agents.

Wut does that mean?

Basically, if the SPC contains wording that it is governed under the agreed upon rules of a Collectively Bargained Agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA, then forming a trade association would nullify the contract. Before anyone says, "no", those clauses are in SPCs to protect against lockouts that drag into court.

The courts will not approve the motion by the NHL to nullify all contracts, unless specifically worded to only be governed by the Collectively Bargained agreement. Without an agreed upon CBA, the rules by which the contracts were drawn up are null and void, therefore, the contract is non-enforcible.

A smart team will have included this sort of language in only a few of their SPCs. Again, the smart teams will have intentionally excluded such clauses for their star players. This is one of the core aspects of the difference between Labor Law and Contract Law. The grey area that these sorts of “do they have” or “was it excluded” contracts will determine which set of laws apply to said contract.

A simpler summary would be;
If the SPC contains wording that applies the rules of the CBA, then it falls under Labor Law guidelines.
If the SPC does not contain wording that applies the CBA rules, then it may potentially fall under Contract Law.

In sorting these things out, at the end of the 100% dirty mess, lawyers will be able to buy their new boats. Looking at each individual SPC will take a lot of billable man-hours to complete. Estimate roughly (2-4 hours per, multiplied by 700)*2 (plaintiffs/defendants) and you see the Ponzi-scheme in action here.

Thankfully, our legal system is so simple that this shouldn’t be an issue.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 11:59 AM
  #89
countrygentleman
The Kaptain Says ARR
 
countrygentleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 851
vCash: 500
Anyone given some thought as to whether this could be the end of the NHL and we just don't realize it?

No 'big four' sports league in the US has ever completely dissolved. There have been tons of other small leagues that have be absorbed by the 'big four' league or just shut down completely, but a big four has never been shut down. Could it be we simply don't recognize what the beginning of a big sports league dissolution looks like and this is the beginning of the end?

countrygentleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 12:15 PM
  #90
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygentleman View Post
Anyone given some thought as to whether this could be the end of the NHL and we just don't realize it?

No 'big four' sports league in the US has ever completely dissolved. There have been tons of other small leagues that have be absorbed by the 'big four' league or just shut down completely, but a big four has never been shut down. Could it be we simply don't recognize what the beginning of a big sports league dissolution looks like and this is the beginning of the end?
Too many big name players... too many big name owners... Won't happen.

Even rebel leagues wouldn't work now a days.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:13 PM
  #91
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygentleman View Post
Anyone given some thought as to whether this could be the end of the NHL and we just don't realize it?

No 'big four' sports league in the US has ever completely dissolved. There have been tons of other small leagues that have be absorbed by the 'big four' league or just shut down completely, but a big four has never been shut down. Could it be we simply don't recognize what the beginning of a big sports league dissolution looks like and this is the beginning of the end?
Nah. Worse case scenario is the NHL contracts 4-6 franchises, and the NHL players freak out because there are now 15% less NHL jobs. European players go back to Europe. NHL gets set back a few decades.

I'm just shocked that the NHL players have already lost 12.5% of their earnings over the life of a 8-year CBA, and they are still fighting over scraps. God they are dumb.

nickschultzfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:17 PM
  #92
Generic User
Moderator
From Concentrate.
 
Generic User's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Country: United States
Posts: 8,126
vCash: 500
So... If a resolution isn't reached by ______ __, the season will be cancelled.

Fill in the blank.

Generic User is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:18 PM
  #93
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Generic User View Post
So... If a resolution isn't reached by ______ __, the season will be cancelled.

Fill in the blank.
January 15th, 2013.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:24 PM
  #94
HobeyBroten
Registered User
 
HobeyBroten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Location: Location:
Country: United States
Posts: 380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
Honestly, without having access to copies of the SPCs that exist, I think the only people that can answer those questions are the teams and the players and their agents.

Wut does that mean?

Basically, if the SPC contains wording that it is governed under the agreed upon rules of a Collectively Bargained Agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA, then forming a trade association would nullify the contract. Before anyone says, "no", those clauses are in SPCs to protect against lockouts that drag into court.

The courts will not approve the motion by the NHL to nullify all contracts, unless specifically worded to only be governed by the Collectively Bargained agreement. Without an agreed upon CBA, the rules by which the contracts were drawn up are null and void, therefore, the contract is non-enforcible.

A smart team will have included this sort of language in only a few of their SPCs. Again, the smart teams will have intentionally excluded such clauses for their star players. This is one of the core aspects of the difference between Labor Law and Contract Law. The grey area that these sorts of “do they have” or “was it excluded” contracts will determine which set of laws apply to said contract.

A simpler summary would be;
If the SPC contains wording that applies the rules of the CBA, then it falls under Labor Law guidelines.
If the SPC does not contain wording that applies the CBA rules, then it may potentially fall under Contract Law.

In sorting these things out, at the end of the 100% dirty mess, lawyers will be able to buy their new boats. Looking at each individual SPC will take a lot of billable man-hours to complete. Estimate roughly (2-4 hours per, multiplied by 700)*2 (plaintiffs/defendants) and you see the Ponzi-scheme in action here.

Thankfully, our legal system is so simple that this shouldn’t be an issue.
......so should I hold off in ordering my Suter jersey?

HobeyBroten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:30 PM
  #95
DANOZ28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,170
vCash: 500
still trying to figure the math out. ?4 jarick but all comments welcome. if rev is 3.3 bill and players get 57% the owners are left with 1.5 bill divided by 30 which equals aprox 50 mill each. with a 70 mill cap how can this business model work?

DANOZ28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:35 PM
  #96
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 12,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANOZ28 View Post
still trying to figure the math out. ?4 jarick but all comments welcome. if rev is 3.3 bill and players get 57% the owners are left with 1.5 bill divided by 30 which equals aprox 50 mill each. with a 70 mill cap how can this business model work?
The $70m cap is part of the 57%, not the leftover 43%. In your example, the owners have $50m after paying the players to fund other expenses and/or pocket.

Also, not all revenue qualifies under "Hockey Related Revenue" which is what the 57/43 is based off of. The owners have other streams of revenue that they do not have to share with the players.


Last edited by Dr Jan Itor: 12-18-2012 at 01:40 PM.
Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:50 PM
  #97
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
The $70m cap is part of the 57%, not the leftover 43%. In your example, the owners have $50m after paying the players to fund other expenses and/or pocket.

Also, not all revenue qualifies under "Hockey Related Revenue" which is what the 57/43 is based off of. The owners have other streams of revenue that they do not have to share with the players.
Also of note is that the 70M mark for the ceiling is not simply 57%/30. If you do that math, it comes to a lot less. The mid point was essentially the 57%/30, with the floor/ceiling variance figured from there. Hence, the escrow.

Escrow kicks in if the players share was above mid*30 (often the case) and/or below mid*30.

Also, there is so much that is included in HRR, that the owners really don't have that big of a revenue stream outside of it, at least as it pertains to hockey.

I wrote up a relatively comprehensive post on the topic of HRR a while back:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1258613

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 02:28 PM
  #98
DANOZ28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,170
vCash: 500
next? how can the nhl claim at least 10 teams are "losing money" any thoughts?

DANOZ28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 02:30 PM
  #99
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANOZ28 View Post
next? how can the nhl claim at least 10 teams are "losing money" any thoughts?
How about the fact that only 8 teams made any money instead... Others "broke even" while others lost.

That is easy to explain. See the posts in the thread linked above about "Direct Costs". When Direct Costs sky rocket...

Also, I hope you aren't one of the many that confuse "revenue" for the word "profit".

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 02:49 PM
  #100
Generic User
Moderator
From Concentrate.
 
Generic User's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Country: United States
Posts: 8,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
Also, I hope you aren't one of the many that confuse "revenue" for the word "profit".
Those words mean different things?

Generic User 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 02:26 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.