HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL Lockout Discussion XXXVII: It's a death trap. It's a suicide trap.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-30-2012, 02:58 PM
  #1
ThirdManIn
Mod Supervisor
 
ThirdManIn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 43,460
vCash: 500
NHL Lockout Discussion XXXVII: It's a death trap. It's a suicide trap.

Continue

__________________
She runs through my veins like a long, black river, and rattles my cage like a thunderstorm.
ThirdManIn is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:44 PM
  #2
IdealisticSniper
Registered User
 
IdealisticSniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,750
vCash: 500
1-3-1?

IdealisticSniper is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:45 PM
  #3
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,729
vCash: 50
Reposting so people see this, because posters often claim that NHLs problem is with revenue sharing.

Revenue sharing isn't the problem. In relation to revenues NHL shares about the same as MLB and NBA.

NHL have agreed to at least $200M/year (it may be $220M) in revenue sharing. Let's say 15 teams get it. That means every team gets $13.3M/year. Realistically some will get less meaning some will get more. Assuming revenue stays the same it's at least 6% of revenue.

Meanwhile in NBA the most a team can get is $16M/year. How is that so different to NHL?

In baseball, $400M is shared from rich to poor teams. Total revenue for the league was $7.5B. That's 5.5% of revenue.

Can we please, with sugar on top, stop with the myth that NHL revenue shares much less than the other leagues? The only league that does revenue share significantly more is the NFL and they have so much in television revenue they can shower the teams in money and still be fine.

There is a reason NHLPA hasn't said a word about revenue sharing in months. They have agreed on revenue sharing on a reasonable level.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:46 PM
  #4
nickyb
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pawtucket, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdealisticSniper View Post
1-3-1?
break it pronger!

nickyb is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:46 PM
  #5
StayFrosy
Registered User
 
StayFrosy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 172
vCash: 500
So what are the chances a deal gets done tomorrow (Monday)?

What are the chances a deal gets done at all?

And is there any chance the NHL is bluffing that the season has to start on the 19th, or be completely cancelled?

StayFrosy is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:47 PM
  #6
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,365
vCash: 500
Reposting this because everyone loved what I was saying and it drew thunderous applause:




Every time I come in here it continues to amaze me how people continue to blame the players for this.

The bulk of the blame here rests with Bettman. His first offer was ridiculous and a clear signal that he wanted a war... well, he got one. He's commandeered us to a strike or a lockout at the end of almost every contract expiration over the course of his career.

And btw, the problem is not how much players are making. The players have already agreed to a 50/50 split anyway... the real problem is revenue sharing. The NHL doesn't have the same kind of revenue sharing that other cap leagues do and it's why the game is in the state that it is. Until every team has the same opportunity to ice a winner you're going to have the imbalance that the owners continue to whine about.

If it were just the Leafs, Habs and Rangers would there be a problem? No. But unfortunately we're saddled with the teams that consistently lose money. Those teams MIGHT be able to get out of the whole if they could compete with the larger market teams if they had the same access to funds that the others do but that's not the case.

The latest contract will NOT solve these problems. These problems will remain until the next contract renewal comes up again and then we'll hear all over again how the Phoenix Coyotes are hemmoraging money season after season. And we'll hear this crap while the Leafs ownership sits there smoking hundred dollar bills.

The Leafs are worth a billion dollars for Pete's sake. What the hell do they need the cap for? They don't. So a cap doesn't make sense unless there's REAL revenue sharing to go along with it.


But the owners... don't want to talk about this. They want to solve this problem on the backs of the players and it's not going to work. Really the only way to solve it is to level the playing field. The players have actually been pretty reasonable and have been the ones giving up everything here. I was against them last time around but this time? I don't understand all the vitriol directed towards them when Bettman is the principal villain in all this.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:50 PM
  #7
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Thread title is wrong - that second "trap" needs to be "rap".

 
Old
12-30-2012, 08:50 PM
  #8
Vladdy84
L-O-Y-A-L-T-Y
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,779
vCash: 500
A lot of these money issues could be resolved if the NHL and NHLPA agreed to contraction. Not gonna happen though.

Vladdy84 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:51 PM
  #9
LeafOfBread
van Dreamsdyk
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mississauga, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 500
Any word on how the players/PA feel about the proposal? Any positivity/negativity? I've only read the TSN article today and haven't kept up with tweets

LeafOfBread is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:52 PM
  #10
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,124
vCash: 500
For those who question how quickly the documet can be written up; the NHL just submitted a entirely complete CBA so even if there needs to be changes and I suspect there will be they will not be drafting a document from scratch as the NHL has already written up the template and filled it in. Lets be honest about 80% of what is to be written in the CBA has already been agreed to by the parties, once they agree on the few outstanding issues it wont take very long for the Lewyers of both parties to edit and update the document.

surixon is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:52 PM
  #11
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,365
vCash: 500
Also, not sure why folks freaked out about this. It seems that people really want to dig their heels in. Not sure why you want to cheer for the owner's side, it's like cheering for Walmart.

Go and read some alternative views on things and open your mind up. Don't just automatically assume it's about greedy players because it's not:

Feel free to read Time Magazine's take on it where they verbatim agreed with what I said: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...e-nhl-lockout/

You folks stating that the NHL is proposing revenue sharing above other leagues [mod: are incorrect, iyo]. You have only the NFL to see how a successful league applies real revenue sharing to prop up it's franchises.

The owners got pretty much everything they wanted last time around, they got the players to turn on their own leadership and yet here we are... again. What makes you think it's going to be different next time?

But no, let's keep the same broken system that leads to a strike or lockout with every renewal...


Last edited by Fugu: 12-30-2012 at 08:57 PM. Reason: ...
Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:53 PM
  #12
CBJBrassard16
Sergei BobTrollsky
 
CBJBrassard16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,759
vCash: 500
S
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafOfBread View Post
Any word on how the players/PA feel about the proposal? Any positivity/negativity? I've only read the TSN article today and haven't kept up with tweets
Some say the players are encouraged but not 'happy' with the proposal. Will find out tomorrow if the nhl really wants a season

CBJBrassard16 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:55 PM
  #13
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,128
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Also, not sure why folks freaked out about this. It seems that people really want to dig their heels in. Not sure why you want to cheer for the owner's side, it's like cheering for Walmart.

Go and read some alternative views on things and open your mind up. Don't just automatically assume it's about greedy players because it's not:

Feel free to read Time Magazine's take on it where they verbatim agreed with what I said: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...e-nhl-lockout/

You folks stating that the NHL is proposing revenue sharing above other leagues have no idea what you're talking about. You have only the NFL to see how a successful league applies real revenue sharing to prop up it's franchises.

The owners got pretty much everything they wanted last time around, they got the players to turn on their own leadership and yet here we are... again. What makes you think it's going to be different next time?

But no, let's keep the same broken system that leads to a strike or lockout with every renewal...
ummmm i hope you do realize that the nfl's tv deal alone covers basically the nhl's entire revenue's right?

Barrie22 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:56 PM
  #14
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
loooooooooool now that would be completely silly to see, nobody would work for the players ever ever ever ever again unless they were completely brain dead.

how silly do you think you sound right now? the players would just turn there backs on the one man they have followed to the edge of a cliff after that one man agreed to a deal he thought was the best deal for his players?

can people get over this paranoid thinking, sheesh it is making you all look crazy.
You do realise that Fehr can only reccomend that his clients take the deal that they have agreed to, the players are free to vote it down if they see fit. I believe something similiar happened early in last years NBA lockout. The owners wont lift the lockout before a positive vote be the PA members.

surixon is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:56 PM
  #15
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 33,925
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Also, not sure why folks freaked out about this. It seems that people really want to dig their heels in. Not sure why you want to cheer for the owner's side, it's like cheering for Walmart.

Go and read some alternative views on things and open your mind up. Don't just automatically assume it's about greedy players because it's not:

Feel free to read Time Magazine's take on it where they verbatim agreed with what I said: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...e-nhl-lockout/

You folks stating that the NHL is proposing revenue sharing above other leagues have no idea what you're talking about. You have only the NFL to see how a successful league applies real revenue sharing to prop up it's franchises.

The owners got pretty much everything they wanted last time around, they got the players to turn on their own leadership and yet here we are... again. What makes you think it's going to be different next time?

But no, let's keep the same broken system that leads to a strike or lockout with every renewal...
NFL also does not guarantee contracts. You're hurt, you're done. Love to see the NHLPA ponder that little tid bit. Lets also not bring up billion dollar tv deal .

__________________

BOSTON STRONG !!!
Gee Wally is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:58 PM
  #16
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,551
vCash: 500
Since revenue sharing just got hammered home..

We will see tomorrow, but I have yet to see an offer at 50/50 HRR. No one can say it's a true 50/50 when they keep throwing in escrow limits and cap minimums.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:58 PM
  #17
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,729
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Also, not sure why folks freaked out about this. It seems that people really want to dig their heels in. Not sure why you want to cheer for the owner's side, it's like cheering for Walmart.

Go and read some alternative views on things and open your mind up. Don't just automatically assume it's about greedy players because it's not:

Feel free to read Time Magazine's take on it where they verbatim agreed with what I said: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...e-nhl-lockout/

You folks stating that the NHL is proposing revenue sharing above other leagues have no idea what you're talking about. You have only the NFL to see how a successful league applies real revenue sharing to prop up it's franchises.

The owners got pretty much everything they wanted last time around, they got the players to turn on their own leadership and yet here we are... again. What makes you think it's going to be different next time?

But no, let's keep the same broken system that leads to a strike or lockout with every renewal...
The Times guy is wrong. He links to the article that says that a team can get up to $16M in revenue sharing as a source for the statement "while NBA teams reportedly approach a 50% total revenue share (give or take a few complex calculations)."

Let's assume every NBA team by some miracle get maximum revenue sharing (which is of course impossible, but it illustrates how wrong this guy is), it would mean NBA have revenues of $960M/year. The author of that article either lacks knowledge or a basic grasp on math.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:58 PM
  #18
Vladdy84
L-O-Y-A-L-T-Y
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
NFL also does not guarantee contracts. You're hurt, you're done. Love to see the NHLPA ponder that little tid bit. Lets also not bring up billion dollar tv deal .
I'm totally down with non-guaranteed deals and a soft cap. Let teams that wanna spend, spend.

Vladdy84 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:59 PM
  #19
Chazz Reinhold
Registered User
 
Chazz Reinhold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Stanley Cup
Country: United States
Posts: 6,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Every time I come in here it continues to amaze me how people continue to blame the players for this.

The bulk of the blame here rests with Bettman. His first offer was ridiculous and a clear signal that he wanted a war... well, he got one. He's commandeered us to a strike or a lockout at the end of almost every contract expiration over the course of his career.

The offer that was the opposite of what the players were privy to last season? If it was so offensive to the players, imagine how offensive it was to the owners when the players had that in their favor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And btw, the problem is not how much players are making. The players have already agreed to a 50/50 split anyway... the real problem is revenue sharing. The NHL doesn't have the same kind of revenue sharing that other cap leagues do and it's why the game is in the state that it is. Until every team has the same opportunity to ice a winner you're going to have the imbalance that the owners continue to whine about.
Since when have the players agreed to a 50/50 split? Every single proposal has had some type of delinkage that allows for the players to command a greater than 50/50 split of HRR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
But the owners... don't want to talk about this. They want to solve this problem on the backs of the players and it's not going to work. Really the only way to solve it is to level the playing field. The players have actually been pretty reasonable and have been the ones giving up everything here. I was against them last time around but this time? I don't understand all the vitriol directed towards them when Bettman is the principal villain in all this.
How else do the owners solve the problem of uneven revenue distribution? There aren't really many options. The best way is to cut back on the biggest expense (gee, player salaries?). It's so obnoxious when people say the NHL hasn't given up anything ("anything," to most people here, seems to mean "money"). They NHL has supplied the NHLPA with plenty of positives, but apparently it doesn't count if it's not money. For reference's sake, here is what the players have gained in these negotiations:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ec-27-proposal

You honestly think a lot of this stuff doesn't cost the owners money?

Chazz Reinhold is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 08:59 PM
  #20
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
S

Some say the players are encouraged but not 'happy' with the proposal. Will find out tomorrow if the nhl really wants a season
If the players don't want money this year whatever, I have other places to spend it. Every day they waste fighting over scraps, the less scraps everyone is going to put into it. Tell that to the player saying if the NHL really wants a season. Probably Campoli or something.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 09:00 PM
  #21
StreetSharks
#19 Joe Trollton
 
StreetSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Frisco
Posts: 5,473
vCash: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Reposting this because everyone loved what I was saying and it drew thunderous applause:




Every time I come in here it continues to amaze me how people continue to blame the players for this.

The bulk of the blame here rests with Bettman. His first offer was ridiculous and a clear signal that he wanted a war... well, he got one. He's commandeered us to a strike or a lockout at the end of almost every contract expiration over the course of his career.

And btw, the problem is not how much players are making. The players have already agreed to a 50/50 split anyway... the real problem is revenue sharing. The NHL doesn't have the same kind of revenue sharing that other cap leagues do and it's why the game is in the state that it is. Until every team has the same opportunity to ice a winner you're going to have the imbalance that the owners continue to whine about.

If it were just the Leafs, Habs and Rangers would there be a problem? No. But unfortunately we're saddled with the teams that consistently lose money. Those teams MIGHT be able to get out of the whole if they could compete with the larger market teams if they had the same access to funds that the others do but that's not the case.

The latest contract will NOT solve these problems. These problems will remain until the next contract renewal comes up again and then we'll hear all over again how the Phoenix Coyotes are hemmoraging money season after season. And we'll hear this crap while the Leafs ownership sits there smoking hundred dollar bills.

The Leafs are worth a billion dollars for Pete's sake. What the hell do they need the cap for? They don't. So a cap doesn't make sense unless there's REAL revenue sharing to go along with it.


But the owners... don't want to talk about this. They want to solve this problem on the backs of the players and it's not going to work. Really the only way to solve it is to level the playing field. The players have actually been pretty reasonable and have been the ones giving up everything here. I was against them last time around but this time? I don't understand all the vitriol directed towards them when Bettman is the principal villain in all this.
This post its soooo wrong it amazes me

StreetSharks is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 09:00 PM
  #22
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
The above comparison to Walmart just underscores the complete lack of understanding by many posters of the basics here. For example, Walmart isnt the only store offering similar products within a region.

DuklaNation is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 09:01 PM
  #23
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz Reinhold View Post
The offer that was the opposite of what the players were privy to last season? If it was so offensive to the players, imagine how offensive it was to the owners when the players had that in their favor.


Since when have the players agreed to a 50/50 split? Every single proposal has had some type of delinkage that allows for the players to command a greater than 50/50 split of HRR.
The owners have agreed to contracts that they now want to go back on... How would you feel about negotiating a contract only to find out the following year that it wasn't worth what you had originally signed for? I think you'd be slightly pissed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz Reinhold View Post
How else do the owners solve the problem of uneven revenue distribution? There aren't really many options.
Revenue sharing addresses the problem directly. If all your teams can compete at the same level then there's an equal opportunity for them to ice winning teams. If you can't do this and you're in a non-hockey market... how will you ever build a fan base?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz Reinhold View Post
The best way is to cut back on the biggest expense (gee, player salaries?).
How does cutting players salaries address anything here? How does going from 57 to 50 make Phoenix profitable? It doesn't. Why? Because the Rangers can still outspend the hell out of them.

If you want to actually FIX things, there needs to be a level playing field. Reducing player salaries does nothing to fix this. And how the hell does TO need a freaking salary cap?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz Reinhold View Post
It's so obnoxious when people say the NHL hasn't given up anything ("anything," to most people here, seems to mean "money"). They NHL has supplied the NHLPA with plenty of positives, but apparently it doesn't count if it's not money. For reference's sake, here is what the players have gained in these negotiations:
Obnoxious is when people freak out when you express a different opinion.

There's a lot of validity to what I'm saying. Not sure why you're so upset here... go read the link I provided. There's another side to this story that you seem to have dismissed for some reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz Reinhold View Post

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ec-27-proposal

You honestly think a lot of this stuff doesn't cost the owners money?
Nobody said the owners don't pay money for stuff. But somehow NHL values have grown 20% since the last time around and yet they're still crying poor. The Leafs make money over fist year after year after year... and yet they need a handout? Why?

What's the problem with having the rich teams share more with the poor to level the playing field? If they did this, the inequities go away.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 09:01 PM
  #24
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz Reinhold View Post
How else do the owners solve the problem of uneven revenue distribution? There aren't really many options. The best way is to cut back on the biggest expense..
No, the best way is to share gate receipts and ALL broadcast revenue.

 
Old
12-30-2012, 09:02 PM
  #25
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,128
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
You do realise that Fehr can only reccomend that his clients take the deal that they have agreed to, the players are free to vote it down if they see fit. I believe something similiar happened early in last years NBA lockout. The owners wont lift the lockout before a positive vote be the PA members.
yeah he can only recommend that his clients take the deal, and with how mickey mouse group the players already look after the last lockout (going behind goodenow's back to agree to the last cba, then replacing him with saskin, then firing saskin for reading emails, then hiring kelly, then firing him because he was to goody tooshoes with the owners, then hiring fehr and preaching to the choir that they are 100% behind him the entire way) there would be nobody that would work for, or ever take the nhlpa serious again.

but once he does recommend something, it will be a overwhelming vote yes. and it will be done while all the players are in training camp.

Barrie22 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 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.