HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

The Lockout Thread UPD 1/6 - framework of new CBA agreed to

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-22-2012, 02:27 PM
  #451
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
That's not how it works. If the business is in jeopardy (any business) you don't simply base your negotiating position on what happened last time. You base it on what the business needs to be survive and successful (which benefits the players as well). I'm not saying the owners are angels, I am saying the NHL is broken. They have ever increasing revenues but decreasing profit margins (only a small portion of teams are making money), that's a sign of a serious issue.

The owners are looking at the business and saying "This is what needs to happen for the business to be viable". The players seem to be saying "But it's our turn to win the negotiations, we don't care about the business, we just want to win the fight".
So the state of the NHL isn't on the owners... How dare those players sign contracts they were offered. Is the NHL really willing to die on 5 year contracts?

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 02:28 PM
  #452
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
But hey guys I guess the players should have just readily accepted a 43% at the start and then happily accept 30% eight years later.

I'm sure all of you would eagerly do the same in your profession.

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 02:28 PM
  #453
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
How about the owners honor the contracts they signed without a roll back.
They absolutely should, and the teams that signed those stupid contracts should have to pay them out just as planned to their own detriment. What I might give is a one time 'free' buy out option where the team can basically pay out the player some percentage up front and not have to obey the standard buy out rules. Say they have to eat half the cap hit for the full contract length, but no longer, something like that.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 02:35 PM
  #454
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,563
vCash: 500
My "Sharks Goal Song Live" Youtube post still lives




stephenyesavage has made a comment on Sharks Goal Song Live
To reply to this comment click here. To see all comments on this video click here.


so this is what no nhl season has brought me to…

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 07:46 PM
  #455
CrazedZooChimp
Not enough guts
 
CrazedZooChimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,734
vCash: 1875
Send a message via AIM to CrazedZooChimp
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
But hey guys I guess the players should have just readily accepted a 43% at the start and then happily accept 30% eight years later.

I'm sure all of you would eagerly do the same in your profession.
I kind of do, my stock options get diluted every time we have to raise more money And I might accept that if it came with a guaranteed contract paying a minimum of $500k a year. Also, I think most professions don't have salary tied to revenue, so it probably isn't uncommon for a salary as a percentage of revenue to go down for a lot for people who work a companies that have growth (like I would if my company ever made money...).

I view it kind of this way. The players could get what they want, and in turn the league could contract several teams that aren't viable. So, what percentage of jobs in the NHL are worth it to get a higher revenue stream? Would losing ~100 contracts be worth it? Maybe for the rich guys, but not for the 4th liners who bounce around the league. In a normal business, if you a union won't renegotiate a contract that is unaffordable for the employer, people get laid off. It's like a city laying off police officers if they can't afford to pay them an the union won't reduce their pensions. Or like a manufacturer closing a plant because it doesn't make enough money to be profitable. That's the concession the owners are offering them. Of course, if the players sign a deal that should keep everyone afloat and then the league contracts that's sort of ********, but ideally that wouldn't happen.

CrazedZooChimp is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 07:58 PM
  #456
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
All you guys who are so hung up on the 'owners should pay the contracts they signed', you do realize that the amount they owe is a) subject to the total amount of HRR and b) is subject to whatever CBA is in place at the time the payments are actually earned and due, right? And that the current CBA expiration date was not a secret, right? Every contract that was signed this summer was signed with both parties fully aware that the actual contract value was dependent upon the terms of negotiated in the new CBA. If the players weren't aware of that, they have incompetent agents; if they just chose to ignore that important fact, they were delusional.

Stickmata is offline  
Old
12-22-2012, 11:56 PM
  #457
RainbowDash
20% Cooler
 
RainbowDash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Equestria
Posts: 2,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
But hey guys I guess the players should have just readily accepted a 43% at the start and then happily accept 30% eight years later.

I'm sure all of you would eagerly do the same in your profession.
You don't know this but in pretty much ANY normal profession that you and I commonly work in, the payroll does NOT even come close to approaching 50% of the revenue the business makes.

If my work was offering to pay all the employees 50% of ALL revenue, I would be VERY damn happy to have that offer instead of our boss locking us out of the building.

RainbowDash is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:13 AM
  #458
CrazedZooChimp
Not enough guts
 
CrazedZooChimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,734
vCash: 1875
Send a message via AIM to CrazedZooChimp
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniversalRemonster View Post
You don't know this but in pretty much ANY normal profession that you and I commonly work in, the payroll does NOT even come close to approaching 50% of the revenue the business makes.

If my work was offering to pay all the employees 50% of ALL revenue, I would be VERY damn happy to have that offer instead of our boss locking us out of the building.
Not to mention the fact that in the NHL the 50% isn't even going to ALL employees, just the players. The equipment staff, coaches, medical staff, arena staff, transportation staff, admins, etc. are all on top of that.

CrazedZooChimp is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 11:52 AM
  #459
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,563
vCash: 500
I am willing to bet that the pool of CEO's is a bit larger than the star athletes of the NHL.


Led Zappa is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 12:05 PM
  #460
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
I am willing to bet that the pool of CEO's is a bit larger than the star athletes of the NHL.

Not sure of the relevance here, and I don't mean that snidely, I really don't see what you are trying to say.

This implies the owners are getting a payroll which they are not, they are not CEO's, they are owners. This might apply more to someone like Doug Wilson, but not the actual owners.

From the financial reports more than half of the owners are not profitable and thus are not receiving 'pay' (or dividends).

hockeyball is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 12:10 PM
  #461
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Not sure of the relevance here, and I don't mean that snidely, I really don't see what you are trying to say.

This implies the owners are getting a payroll which they are not, they are not CEO's, they are owners. This might apply more to someone like Doug Wilson, but not the actual owners.

From the financial reports more than half of the owners are not profitable and thus are not receiving 'pay' (or dividends).
The posts above referenced out of whack salaries and said they wished they got 50% of the revenue or something like that. I'm saying it's a stupid comparison. But if there is a comparison to be made it would be CEO Pay vs Worker Pay / NHL Players vs NHL Worker pay.

The CEO's are the high end talent of their companies and the players are the high end talent of hockey and only reason there is a league at all. The talent pool is ridiculously low and if you think they're over paid then go spend your money on AHL or ECHL season tickets.

Again, I have a lot of problems with the framework of pro sports in general and blame the players and owners. But let's not pretend that most owners didn't used to buy teams for their ego and to win championships, not to make money.

While that has changed to some degree that's only because there became money to be made and others jumped in. Now we're somewhere in the middle.

EDIT: I believe there have even been owners who bought teams for love of the game.


Last edited by Led Zappa: 12-23-2012 at 12:50 PM.
Led Zappa is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 02:08 PM
  #462
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazedZooChimp View Post
I kind of do, my stock options get diluted every time we have to raise more money And I might accept that if it came with a guaranteed contract paying a minimum of $500k a year. Also, I think most professions don't have salary tied to revenue, so it probably isn't uncommon for a salary as a percentage of revenue to go down for a lot for people who work a companies that have growth (like I would if my company ever made money...).

I view it kind of this way. The players could get what they want, and in turn the league could contract several teams that aren't viable. So, what percentage of jobs in the NHL are worth it to get a higher revenue stream? Would losing ~100 contracts be worth it? Maybe for the rich guys, but not for the 4th liners who bounce around the league. In a normal business, if you a union won't renegotiate a contract that is unaffordable for the employer, people get laid off. It's like a city laying off police officers if they can't afford to pay them an the union won't reduce their pensions. Or like a manufacturer closing a plant because it doesn't make enough money to be profitable. That's the concession the owners are offering them. Of course, if the players sign a deal that should keep everyone afloat and then the league contracts that's sort of ********, but ideally that wouldn't happen.
I'm not sure what you do, but odds are you would be more easily replaced than the NHL players. This gives the players economic power. So during 2004 the owners enacted a plan that was designed to save the NHL and the players made large concessions in that bargain. Since that time the NHL has bragged about record revenue and has expanded rapidly. Eight years later all of sudden the Owners claim that the deal they forced the players into doesn't work and now the players will have to take more cuts, but not us for goodness sakes we take no responsibility in this. Revenue sharing? How dare you!
Also your police officer analogy was foolish. In the typical municipality police and fire make up about 1/3 of the work force and yet they make 2/3s of all compensation.

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 02:10 PM
  #463
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
All you guys who are so hung up on the 'owners should pay the contracts they signed', you do realize that the amount they owe is a) subject to the total amount of HRR and b) is subject to whatever CBA is in place at the time the payments are actually earned and due, right? And that the current CBA expiration date was not a secret, right? Every contract that was signed this summer was signed with both parties fully aware that the actual contract value was dependent upon the terms of negotiated in the new CBA. If the players weren't aware of that, they have incompetent agents; if they just chose to ignore that important fact, they were delusional.
One of the big issues that is reportedly hanging out there is the five year contract limit. How dare those players accept contracts that were offered to them! Weber for example accepted a contract that was worth in total value about as much as the preds franchise, but this all the players fault.

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 02:17 PM
  #464
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
How many labor disputes is it going to take for some of you to question Bettmans management. When is he going to be able to come up with something that works for the long term?

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 02:38 PM
  #465
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
One of the big issues that is reportedly hanging out there is the five year contract limit. How dare those players accept contracts that were offered to them! Weber for example accepted a contract that was worth in total value about as much as the preds franchise, but this all the players fault.
The five year contract limit would only apply to new contracts. The problem for the players with the long term contracts is related to the lower proposed share of HRR, which would lower the annual value of their contracts. That's what the 'make whole' money was earmarked for; to make up part of that loss.

Stickmata is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 02:39 PM
  #466
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
How many labor disputes is it going to take for some of you to question Bettmans management. When is he going to be able to come up with something that works for the long term?
I dunno, maybe when the players wise up about the real economics of professional hockey in North America?

Stickmata is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 03:49 PM
  #467
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
I dunno, maybe when the players wise up about the real economics of professional hockey in North America?
When will Bettmen? How can you expect the NHLPA to negotiate with him in good faith? His next NHL saving plan will be in eight years.... But hey they are partners... what a joke

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 03:52 PM
  #468
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
The five year contract limit would only apply to new contracts. The problem for the players with the long term contracts is related to the lower proposed share of HRR, which would lower the annual value of their contracts. That's what the 'make whole' money was earmarked for; to make up part of that loss.
Punish the players for poor management... how typical

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:17 PM
  #469
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
The posts above referenced out of whack salaries and said they wished they got 50% of the revenue or something like that. I'm saying it's a stupid comparison. But if there is a comparison to be made it would be CEO Pay vs Worker Pay / NHL Players vs NHL Worker pay.

The CEO's are the high end talent of their companies and the players are the high end talent of hockey and only reason there is a league at all. The talent pool is ridiculously low and if you think they're over paid then go spend your money on AHL or ECHL season tickets.

Again, I have a lot of problems with the framework of pro sports in general and blame the players and owners. But let's not pretend that most owners didn't used to buy teams for their ego and to win championships, not to make money.

While that has changed to some degree that's only because there became money to be made and others jumped in. Now we're somewhere in the middle.

EDIT: I believe there have even been owners who bought teams for love of the game.
You have Pegula, Illitch, Karmanos and Chipman for love of the game. Maybe Snider and Jacobs.

I agree with a lot of your post and love the graph. I was aware of the trends represented by the graph. I think that attributing talent to CEO's is misplaced. They get paid whether their performance is bad or good. In a sense they are paid for the risk, because it is incredibly difficult to get another CEO job if the performance is bad, generally early retirement although they have wonderful golden parachutes for the most part. Those golden parachutes are part of the compensation. And if I look at CEO performance, their goals are misplaced; they are too short term and narrowminded. They do not aim for the good of the American economy as a whole and some of their actions are extremely detrimental to that goal.

LS had an excellent link to an article which broke down labor into three categories, executives, talent and production. The upshot is that players tend to fall into the talent category; more like researchers into new directions for production which is well compensated. They aren't executives and they aren't production workers.

IMO, the trend in sports ownership is changing. It is no longer an expensive hobby. In part, I think it was brought in by the repeated collapses of the market which had sold itself on capital appreciation. Full speed ahead, appreciate that capital and disregard the cash losses. Eventually the losses catch up. Investors are significantly more wary of pie in the sky projections and this has trickled down to pro sports. The other trend is in pro sports itself, starting with the advent of free agency. Agents have been playing the capital appreciation card on star players and escalating salaries under the protections that free movement (somewhat free movement depending on CBA agreements) has provided, garnering compensation that is not justified immediately by production in most cases (butts in seats). What we are seeing now is the backlash to the oversale of those projections. It is a cycle and the owners are curbing their irrational exuberance. The last few CBAs across all leagues have favored ownership. I do think it will be a while before the system hits equilibrium.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:21 PM
  #470
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Punish the players for poor management... how typical
How is it poor management? They signed contracts that are subject to the new CBA. I think you guys are missing that second part. Surely the players and their agents didn't miss that. The players signed their contracts knowing full well the actual cash they were going to get was likely to be much lower than the total $ amount indicated. And the owners knew that they were going to be negotiating a more favorable CBA.

Stickmata is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:29 PM
  #471
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
When will Bettmen? How can you expect the NHLPA to negotiate with him in good faith? His next NHL saving plan will be in eight years.... But hey they are partners... what a joke
It's not about faith and it's not about fair and its not about Bettman. It's about a party to a negotiation understanding how much leverage they have and what the best deal possible they can get is. If you want to maximize value to yourself in any negotiation, you have to have as accurate as possible of a view of those two things, both of which are significantly impacted in this case by a) the economic reality of the NHL and b) the relative bargaining power of each party.

The players have either a) misread both of these things horribly or b) intended from the very start to blow this whole thing up and let it play out in the courts. Why I fault the players is because I don't see how either of those options provides anything but a very remote possibility that things work out better for them than just accepting Management's offer. I don't fault the players for wanting to maximize their share of the pie; I fault them for not realizing what the share really is and dragging out the inevitable. All for an incredibly slim chance at a windfall of damages under anti-trust litigation. Which, if it happened, would only enrich them at the expense of future players.

Stickmata is offline  
Old
12-23-2012, 04:55 PM
  #472
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
You have Pegula, Illitch, Karmanos and Chipman for love of the game. Maybe Snider and Jacobs.

I agree with a lot of your post and love the graph. I was aware of the trends represented by the graph. I think that attributing talent to CEO's is misplaced. They get paid whether their performance is bad or good. In a sense they are paid for the risk, because it is incredibly difficult to get another CEO job if the performance is bad, generally early retirement although they have wonderful golden parachutes for the most part. Those golden parachutes are part of the compensation. And if I look at CEO performance, their goals are misplaced; they are too short term and narrowminded. They do not aim for the good of the American economy as a whole and some of their actions are extremely detrimental to that goal.

LS had an excellent link to an article which broke down labor into three categories, executives, talent and production. The upshot is that players tend to fall into the talent category; more like researchers into new directions for production which is well compensated. They aren't executives and they aren't production workers.

IMO, the trend in sports ownership is changing. It is no longer an expensive hobby. In part, I think it was brought in by the repeated collapses of the market which had sold itself on capital appreciation. Full speed ahead, appreciate that capital and disregard the cash losses. Eventually the losses catch up. Investors are significantly more wary of pie in the sky projections and this has trickled down to pro sports. The other trend is in pro sports itself, starting with the advent of free agency. Agents have been playing the capital appreciation card on star players and escalating salaries under the protections that free movement (somewhat free movement depending on CBA agreements) has provided, garnering compensation that is not justified immediately by production in most cases (butts in seats). What we are seeing now is the backlash to the oversale of those projections. It is a cycle and the owners are curbing their irrational exuberance. The last few CBAs across all leagues have favored ownership. I do think it will be a while before the system hits equilibrium.
I agree that it's not a perfect comparison. There really isn't one considering pro sports operate under a unique economic model, but I believe Gomez still got paid


Last edited by Led Zappa: 12-23-2012 at 05:02 PM.
Led Zappa is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 12:17 AM
  #473
SJSharksfan39
Registered User
 
SJSharksfan39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,049
vCash: 797
Well, you guys wanted me to provide examples of some of Logan Couture's comments and other than the whole behind Fehr thing I couldn't. However, the player I've lost a ton of respect for this week is Evander Kane. I didn't know about his exploits of Winnipeg restaurants, but his photo this week holding up thousands of dollars in Vegas really does make me think there are some players who are so out of touch with reality they have the right to do whatever they want. We have a lockout, the fans are pissed (And getting ignored) and this guy posts a photo of himself in Vegas calling out Floyd Mayweather. Screw that.

SJSharksfan39 is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 12:32 AM
  #474
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkie551 View Post
Well, you guys wanted me to provide examples of some of Logan Couture's comments and other than the whole behind Fehr thing I couldn't. However, the player I've lost a ton of respect for this week is Evander Kane. I didn't know about his exploits of Winnipeg restaurants, but his photo this week holding up thousands of dollars in Vegas really does make me think there are some players who are so out of touch with reality they have the right to do whatever they want. We have a lockout, the fans are pissed (And getting ignored) and this guy posts a photo of himself in Vegas calling out Floyd Mayweather. Screw that.
Still sounds like overreacting to me. I don't really see anything wrong with what he's doing either. What would you like him to do, sit around and mope? It's his money, he does have the right do do whatever he wants with it.

WTFetus is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 12:33 AM
  #475
SJSharksfan39
Registered User
 
SJSharksfan39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,049
vCash: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Still sounds like overreacting to me. I don't really see anything wrong with what he's doing either. What would you like him to do, sit around and mope?
Not post that photo online would have been a start

SJSharksfan39 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 06:59 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.