HFBoards

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

Lockout VI - Game On! Rejoice! Players to vote Saturday.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-29-2012, 12:52 PM
  #51
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
And the fans get what out of this agreement......Oh Ya!

Attached to another object by an inclined plane wrapped helically around an axis

Budsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 12:54 PM
  #52
trellaine201
Registered User
 
trellaine201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Left coast
Posts: 6,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Nope, they will only get paid for the games they play. The money lost is exactly that....lost.
Good. For some reason i thought the players wanted that money lol

trellaine201 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 01:00 PM
  #53
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trellaine201 View Post
Good. For some reason i thought the players wanted that money lol
Who knows what they will be paid?

I'd say they should be prorated, but what do we know? Escrow has been a contentious issue, they'd have to pay back what they don't earn but that is where the 300 million comes in.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 03:35 PM
  #54
kihei
Registered User
 
kihei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,869
vCash: 0
The way that the schedule would work, 48 games would be pretty intense. I'd take that for sure.

kihei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 04:35 PM
  #55
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
James Mirtle
A look at the NHL’s proposal

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...+Article+Links

Quote:
WILL THIS SAVE THE SEASON?

The short answer is not on its own. The players are unlikely to accept the league’s offer in its current form and will presumably bring a counterproposal into the mix in the coming days.

A vote by the full membership, if there is one, is likely still another week to 10 days off.

What this offer from the league has already done, however, is pushed the two sides to talk again, established a firmer drop-dead date (Jan. 19) for a season to start, and forced the NHLPA to make the next offer.

Given how close the two sides are on the remaining issues, that should be enough to ensure they get back on the ice within a month.

Budsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 04:42 PM
  #56
Hurt
Registered User
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,485
vCash: 500
There would have to be an accepted offer by January 11th, correct?

__________________
Shoot me a PM with your concerns. Also, come visit us in the Science Forum!
Hurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 04:58 PM
  #57
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
There would have to be an accepted offer by January 11th, correct?
I think they would have to accept an offer by the 11th, for a season to start by the 19th, I guess the 8 extra days are for training and preparing for the shortened season.

Budsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 05:36 PM
  #58
Darcy Tucker
Registered User
 
Darcy Tucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vaughan, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,439
vCash: 500
For the Love of God , get something done, im dying here.

Darcy Tucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 05:49 PM
  #59
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budsfan View Post
I think they would have to accept an offer by the 11th, for a season to start by the 19th, I guess the 8 extra days are for training and preparing for the shortened season.
So this is it, ehh?

10 year deal? lol

Bomber0104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 05:59 PM
  #60
Sam Slick*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St John's NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Leafs currently have 22 players under contract of a max roster size of 23 players with a Cap hit of ~$63.5 mil allocated of max $70 mil allowable.

Cody Franson is the only current RFA player without a contract not included in those totals.

It leaves the Leafs with approx $6.5 mil in available cap space for this season in progress.
I think the leafs should use some of that money and lock up Ranger. He does not belong to anyone and makes a great depth D man.

Sam Slick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 06:04 PM
  #61
Sam Slick*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St John's NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kihei View Post
The way that the schedule would work, 48 games would be pretty intense. I'd take that for sure.
They won't be getting money for games they did not play. Because they were locked out, they are allowed to draw from the PA fund.

Sam Slick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 06:07 PM
  #62
Hurt
Registered User
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
So this is it, ehh?

10 year deal? lol
I'm not optimistic. This has happened a couple of times already this lockout. Us fans think "It's right there, we're so close!" and Bettman/Fehr come out and say "It's not close, I'm very disappointed". If hockey comes back, great. If not, well I figured it wouldn't anyways.

Hurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 06:13 PM
  #63
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
I'm not optimistic. This has happened a couple of times already this lockout. Us fans think "It's right there, we're so close!" and Bettman/Fehr come out and say "It's not close, I'm very disappointed". If hockey comes back, great. If not, well I figured it wouldn't anyways.
It's too long of a deal Hurt. Im pessimistic too.

If the NHL has budged even at all, it's very little from their last position which demanded ridiculous concessions from the players who have held up their end of the bargain while watching the game record record revenues.

These deals are publicity stunts by the NHL and nothing more than an attempt to rally the public opinion on their side, in order to villify the players while simultaneously shaking them down.

Sad really. I hope I count you on the players side of the negotiations, as a Leafs fan.

Bomber0104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 06:19 PM
  #64
kihei
Registered User
 
kihei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,869
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by sudsie View Post
They won't be getting money for games they did not play. Because they were locked out, they are allowed to draw from the PA fund.
How will that make the games less intense? Think you meant to quote somebody else.

kihei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 06:55 PM
  #65
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
It's too long of a deal Hurt. Im pessimistic too.

If the NHL has budged even at all, it's very little from their last position which demanded ridiculous concessions from the players who have held up their end of the bargain while watching the game record record revenues.

These deals are publicity stunts by the NHL and nothing more than an attempt to rally the public opinion on their side, in order to villify the players while simultaneously shaking them down.

Sad really. I hope I count you on the players side of the negotiations, as a Leafs fan.
I am only on the side of the fans, I believe this lockout is between two factions of millionaires, fighting over money, without concern for the people who pay the freight

Budsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 06:59 PM
  #66
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budsfan View Post
I am only on the side of the fans, I believe this lockout is between two factions of millionaires, fighting over money, without concern for the people who pay the freight
I can separate further though.

There are:



1. Owners of wealthy franchises that make profit

2. Owners of poor franchises that don't make profit

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Players who make a good income (long-term contracts)

4. Players who don't make a [relative] good income (short-term contracts)





The Leafs owners are in Camp #1 who are after Camp #3.

The NHLPA are focused on satifsying the needs focused on their clients in Camp #3.

The NHL is focused on satisfying the needs of strategic markets in Camp #2 and this comes at the cost of Camp #3.


Who we as Leafs fans should be siding with based on this is an easy question to answer....


Last edited by Bomber0104: 12-29-2012 at 07:06 PM.
Bomber0104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 07:27 PM
  #67
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
I can separate further though.

There are:



1. Owners of wealthy franchises that make profit

2. Owners of poor franchises that don't make profit

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Players who make a good income (long-term contracts)

4. Players who don't make a [relative] good income (short-term contracts)





The Leafs owners are in Camp #1 who are after Camp #3.

The NHLPA is dominated by players in Camp #3.

Who should we be siding with based on this....
Again the fans.

Any owner that has a team, has the money to blow and just to say they own an NHL franchise, in other words a millionaire and some of them want corporate welfare, to continue that illusion and paid for by the fans.

The players want more than the owners when it comes to so call profit sharing, which is also paid for by the fans, I guess one couldn't call it corporate welfare but it does smack of greed.

I realize that hockey players, have a short career time, to make the money they are earning but lets face it, some of the players should be playing in the AHL, at quite a reduced salary but they earn NHL money and want to hold fans hostage for more.

The Solution is 10 less teams and 1/3 less players, then maybe there would be enough money to go around and Leaf fans in particular could watch a game at a reasonable price.

Budsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 07:31 PM
  #68
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budsfan View Post
Again the fans.

Any owner that has a team, has the money to blow and just to say they own an NHL franchise, in other words a millionaire and some of them want corporate welfare, to continue that illusion and paid for by the fans.

The players want more than the owners when it comes to so call profit sharing, which is also paid for by the fans, I guess one couldn't call it corporate welfare but it does smack of greed.

I realize that hockey players, have a short career time, to make the money they are earning but lets face it, some of the players should be playing in the AHL, at quite a reduced salary but they earn NHL money and want to hold fans hostage for more.

The Solution is 10 less teams and 1/3 less players, then maybe there would be enough money to go around and Leaf fans in particular could watch a game at a reasonable price.
No offence but I don't think you understand the economics of the game. I can teach you if you'd like...

Let me first of all just say that there are teams that Gary Bettman as CEO of the NHL cares deeply about, and there's franchises like Toronto, Montreal, New York Rangers for example, where he is let's say "not so worried about".

Do you agree?

Bomber0104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 07:38 PM
  #69
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
No offence but I don't think you understand the economics of the game. I can teach you if you'd like...

Let me first of all just say that there are teams that Gary Bettman as CEO of the NHL cares deeply about, and there's franchises like Toronto, Montreal, New York Rangers for example, where he is let's say "not so worried about".

Do you agree?
Absolutely but Bettman and the NHLPA want to keep all the teams and so care a great deal to keep all the teams intact and would you agree with that.

Budsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 07:44 PM
  #70
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budsfan View Post
Absolutely but Bettman and the NHLPA want to keep all the teams and so care a great deal to keep all the teams intact and would you agree with that.
I do not agree with that. I think Toronto as a franchise begrudgingly goes along with the present format of the league and the Crosby's of the world would rather not see his salary artificially deflated because not all teams can afford him.

Note that these are three parties that are of the extremity. Crosby (best player), Toronto Maple Leafs (best franchise), and Phoenix Coyotes (worst franchise).

Bomber0104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 07:55 PM
  #71
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
I do not agree with that. I think Toronto as a franchise begrudgingly goes along with the present format of the league and the Crosby's of the world would rather not see his salary artificially deflated because not all teams can afford him.
Toronto is no different from any of the teams in the NHL, and go along with this because they are making gobs of money and so support this ridiculous league.

If 10 teams were chopped and 1/3 of the players sent to the AHL and other venues, KHL, SEL and so on, Crosby would still command top dollar in the NHL and probably would not have his salary deflated in any way, as a matter of fact he may even have an increase, he is a great player and will always be a top money earner.

Budsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 08:42 PM
  #72
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budsfan View Post
Toronto is no different from any of the teams in the NHL, and go along with this because they are making gobs of money and so support this ridiculous league.
I think Toronto is very different from other markets in that if that they were actually successful, they would be more successful financially than any other team.


San Jose profit [winning Stanley Cup profit] - $5 [$8]

Toronto profit [winning Stanley Cup profit] - $50 [$80]


Quote:
If 10 teams were chopped and 1/3 of the players sent to the AHL and other venues, KHL, SEL and so on, Crosby would still command top dollar in the NHL and probably would not have his salary deflated in any way, as a matter of fact he may even have an increase, he is a great player and will always be a top money earner.
Yes but I think you'll find that after analyzing the top down economics, that the top wage earners of the NHLPA would prefer if the league would contract.

If the bottom 10 franchises (who are not profitable, in fact, not making any money at all) were eliminated, this would actually INCREASE the amount of money per franchise (and in turn, per player).


Cut out the bottom feeders and you have a league that is just as profitable and wealthy, and with fewer players.


30 team league [$300] - 30 players - [$10/player]

20 team league [$250] - 20 players - [$12.5/player]


See?

Bomber0104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 08:55 PM
  #73
Woodman19
#TeamBernier
 
Woodman19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13,254
vCash: 500
For the sake of argument let's say we contract the top 4 earning teams causing the salary cap to plummet and let the remaining 26 teams to thrive. The rich teams are just as much of the problem as poor teams.

The fundamental issue is calibrating the cap to a level that let's owners make money while allowing the players to take the maximum they can get while allowing all teams to remain viable.

Woodman19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 08:57 PM
  #74
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodman19 View Post
For the sake of argument let's say we contract the top 4 earning teams causing the salary cap to plummet and let the remaining 26 teams to thrive. The rich teams are just as much of the problem as poor teams.

The fundamental issue is calibrating the cap to a level that let's owners make money while allowing the players to take the maximum they can get while allowing all teams to remain viable.
And that fundamental issue would require allowing free markets to overrule artificial anti-competitive activity.

Not every market is capable of bringing in the bacon.

But I disagree wholly with this idea that the rich markets are a problem. The only reason the NHL can fund their own investments in Sunbelt franchises are due to the proceeds from successful NHL teams.

Bomber0104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 09:01 PM
  #75
Woodman19
#TeamBernier
 
Woodman19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
And that fundamental issue would require allowing free markets to overrule artificial anti-competitive activity.

Not every market is capable of bringing in the bacon.

But I disagree wholly with this idea that the rich markets are a problem. The only reason the NHL can fund there own investments in Sunbelt franchises are due to the proceeds from successful NHL teams.
But what about when the top few teams are so top heavy that they drastically boost costs for the remaining 80%. To many people are looking at the issues as Leaf fans and not Hockey fans.

Woodman19 is online now   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 03:59 PM.

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.