HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Lockout VII: I've walked for miles, my feet are hurting

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-05-2013, 01:11 PM
  #226
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I don't think they are clueless, just intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, it's a trend that is being seen in all media.
I don't mind columnists who have an opinion.

What I'm sick of are the reporter/columnists like Mac, Lebrun and Dreger, who are all pro owner.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 01:18 PM
  #227
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Do people really not understand why the players AND owners are fighting over $60 and $65M?

It's not about the money made next year.

it's about every single UFA and RFA who will be a free agent this offseason.

If every team has $5M less, that puts a clamp on the market.
That reduces the contracts everyone agrees to.

Now, with escrow, that's all anyone gets NEXT YEAR>

Say you sign a 3-year, $1.2m per year deal instead of a 3 year 1.7M per year deal because of the $5M reduction in the cap.

Year one might be a wash because of escrow. But you lose in year 2 and year 3..

Say you're a superstar.
you're looking for a 6 year, $48M... how huge is the difference between $60M and $65M in your market

If this issue didn't matter, as some people want to pretend, then why is the NHL fighting it?
The players would rather every player sacrifice in escrow and maintain the market for next year's UFAs.. the actual HRR will catch up in 2-3 years.
This is half of a good point. The other half says this:

Take your sample player X who signs for 1.2 instead of 1.7. Year 1, as you say, is a wash because of escrow. But in Year 2 and 3, their cap hit is potentially lower proportional to other players who come on the market, meaning they get less than they would have if they signed a year later.

That's bad for player X. What you didn't mention is that everything player X loses gets recaptured by players Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, Y and Z, who sign deals later on and get the benefit of all the money player X left on the table being added to the bidding war for their services. The cap is still the cap, and so everything else just exists to shift money around between players.

So when you're negotiating for all these people, you see that the average welfare for your whole constituency doesn't change.

I'm not going to assume either side is irrational in fighting over this piece until I understand more. But I have yet to hear the rational argument for either side, either. Assuming that the cap could end up being effectively adjusted up to $70M or down to $50M through the escrow system, it shouldn't seem to matter.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 01:27 PM
  #228
Slot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I don't mind columnists who have an opinion.

What I'm sick of are the reporter/columnists like Mac, Lebrun and Dreger, who are all pro owner.
MOD

the three guys you mentioned are some of the best reporters in hockey. It may behoove you to listen to those opinions and not dismiss them as casually as your post makes it sound like you have.


Last edited by Fugu: 01-05-2013 at 06:17 PM. Reason: address his actual comments, not translating for him
Slot is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 01:29 PM
  #229
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,251
vCash: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I don't mind columnists who have an opinion.

What I'm sick of are the reporter/columnists like Mac, Lebrun and Dreger, who are all pro owner.
So you only love Aaron Ward, and others who love the same thing you do.

stuffradio is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 01:39 PM
  #230
aj8000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I don't mind columnists who have an opinion.

What I'm sick of are the reporter/columnists like Mac, Lebrun and Dreger, who are all pro owner.
I can understand that you would not like pro owner media since you are Pro PA. Have you ever considered that the PA may be the reason the talks are stalled?

aj8000 is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 01:40 PM
  #231
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slot View Post

the three guys you mentioned are some of the best reporters in hockey. It may behoove you to listen to those opinions and not dismiss them as casually as your post makes it sound like you have.
They have great connections. But they are doing the owners' work. These guys report with an obvious bias.

They seem to want t both ways. They want to be seen as objective reporters and tastemaking opinion guys. That's fine. But it comes with a cost to your credibility as a reporter.

The thing about Brooks is that he doesn't dress his columns up "stories." A guy like Lebrun or McKenzie give what appears to be a straight news account, but put in BS about how "the PA is being unrealistic with this demand" while rarely putting the owners demands under the same microscope.

When you consider their blurring of the lines between reporting and opinion in all their stories and then consider they're all are paid by companies owned by the same companies who own NHL teams, the blur begins to look like deceit.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 01:41 PM
  #232
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aj8000 View Post
I can understand that you would not like pro owner media since you are Pro PA. Have you ever considered that the PA may be the reason the talks are stalled?
Owners could unstall the talks right now quite easily, couldn't they?
I can think of about 10 ways they could do it.

Talks are stalled because both sides are unwilling to budge.

I'm not pro-PA. I'm anti-owner. And there's a difference/

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 01:44 PM
  #233
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Owners could unstall the talks right now quite easily, couldn't they?
I can think of about 10 ways they could do it.

Talks are stalled because both sides are unwilling to budge.

I'm not pro-PA. I'm anti-owner. And there's a difference/
"Players could unstall the talks right now quite easily, couldn't they?
I can think of about 10 ways they could do it."

See how easy that is?

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 01:46 PM
  #234
aj8000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Do people really not understand why the players AND owners are fighting over $60 and $65M?

It's not about the money made next year.

it's about every single UFA and RFA who will be a free agent this offseason.

If every team has $5M less, that puts a clamp on the market.
That reduces the contracts everyone agrees to.

Now, with escrow, that's all anyone gets NEXT YEAR>

Say you sign a 3-year, $1.2m per year deal instead of a 3 year 1.7M per year deal because of the $5M reduction in the cap.

Year one might be a wash because of escrow. But you lose in year 2 and year 3..

Say you're a superstar.
you're looking for a 6 year, $48M... how huge is the difference between $60M and $65M in your market

If this issue didn't matter, as some people want to pretend, then why is the NHL fighting it?
The players would rather every player sacrifice in escrow and maintain the market for next year's UFAs.. the actual HRR will catch up in 2-3 years.
Do people not understand why the owners want to drop the players share of revenue and keep a lid on salaries so they can make a return on their investment.

This is not the issue holding up the CBA since most teams will not be close to the cap anyways be it 60 million or 65 million. The reason we do not have a deal is because of the pensions. The pension demands by the PA will result in the season being cancelled if they do not give in.

The PA will give in eventually, the only question is whether they will give in to save a partial season or lose the entire season and possibly much more.

aj8000 is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 01:52 PM
  #235
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,251
vCash: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
They have great connections. But they are doing the owners' work. These guys report with an obvious bias.

They seem to want t both ways. They want to be seen as objective reporters and tastemaking opinion guys. That's fine. But it comes with a cost to your credibility as a reporter.

The thing about Brooks is that he doesn't dress his columns up "stories." A guy like Lebrun or McKenzie give what appears to be a straight news account, but put in BS about how "the PA is being unrealistic with this demand" while rarely putting the owners demands under the same microscope.

When you consider their blurring of the lines between reporting and opinion in all their stories and then consider they're all are paid by companies owned by the same companies who own NHL teams, the blur begins to look like deceit.
Meanwhile Aaron Ward does the players work who doesn't put the Players demands under the same microscope.

stuffradio is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 01:55 PM
  #236
aj8000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Owners could unstall the talks right now quite easily, couldn't they?
I can think of about 10 ways they could do it.

Talks are stalled because both sides are unwilling to budge.

I'm not pro-PA. I'm anti-owner. And there's a difference/
[mod]

Yes the CBA could be signed in 10 minutes if one side just gave in. that is likely not going to happen.

My issue is with the PA treating this like it is a grade four argument in school. The NHL puts a proposal to the PA, the PA is offended, they then cry to the media, on twitter, about how unfair the NHL is. Teacher, teacher, Bettman is a bully and wants to take away my lunch money. sniff sniff.

Like it or not this is a negotiation on how much the players are going to give back to the owners from the last CBA. Everything the owners are going to propose will adversely affect the players.


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 01-05-2013 at 02:49 PM. Reason: discuss post, not poster
aj8000 is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 02:17 PM
  #237
Conflicted Habs fan
Registered User
 
Conflicted Habs fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 562
vCash: 763
Renegotiating the CBA is unnecessary on the grounds that revenues are lucrative. Why there is even a dispute that has taken this long is due in large part to Bettman's ego. He just wants to be seen as the commissioner in control whose tune everyone must dance to.
If what I think the PA is doing, and this is a collective effort by all the players, is to ensure that Bettman will not walk away awarded with more profit than he is not entitled to. if that is what they're doing, I'm for it.

Conflicted Habs fan is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 02:33 PM
  #238
aj8000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conflicted Habs fan View Post
Renegotiating the CBA is unnecessary on the grounds that revenues are lucrative. Why there is even a dispute that has taken this long is due in large part to Bettman's ego. He just wants to be seen as the commissioner in control whose tune everyone must dance to.
If what I think the PA is doing, and this is a collective effort by all the players, is to ensure that Bettman will not walk away awarded with more profit than he is not entitled to. if that is what they're doing, I'm for it.
Record revenues does not equal record profits or a profit at all).

How much profit are the owners entitled to then? 1% on investment 5% on investment? 10%?

aj8000 is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 02:38 PM
  #239
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conflicted Habs fan View Post
Renegotiating the CBA is unnecessary on the grounds that revenues are lucrative. Why there is even a dispute that has taken this long is due in large part to Bettman's ego. He just wants to be seen as the commissioner in control whose tune everyone must dance to.
If what I think the PA is doing, and this is a collective effort by all the players, is to ensure that Bettman will not walk away awarded with more profit than he is not entitled to. if that is what they're doing, I'm for it.
And BTW Bettman doesn't make any more or less money because of this negotiation. He's salaried.

Plus you're just being a crazy conspiracy theorist. It would be just as easy for me to say that Don Fehr wants to be seen as the labor boss in control to whose tune everyone must dance to. But I don't, because that's ****ing stupid.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 02:44 PM
  #240
cpcftw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conflicted Habs fan View Post
Renegotiating the CBA is unnecessary on the grounds that revenues are lucrative. Why there is even a dispute that has taken this long is due in large part to Bettman's ego. He just wants to be seen as the commissioner in control whose tune everyone must dance to.
If what I think the PA is doing, and this is a collective effort by all the players, is to ensure that Bettman will not walk away awarded with more profit than he is not entitled to. if that is what they're doing, I'm for it.
What makes you think the revenues are lucrative? They clearly are not lucrative or the owners would have made a deal by now.

Let's say you bought a house as an investment property and you were charging $4000/mo rent. Are those revenues lucrative? Not if you're mortgage is $5000/mo.

[mod]


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 01-05-2013 at 02:50 PM. Reason: watch the blanket generalizations
cpcftw is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 02:48 PM
  #241
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Do people really not understand why the players AND owners are fighting over $60 and $65M?

It's not about the money made next year.

it's about every single UFA and RFA who will be a free agent this offseason.

If every team has $5M less, that puts a clamp on the market.
That reduces the contracts everyone agrees to.

Now, with escrow, that's all anyone gets NEXT YEAR>

Say you sign a 3-year, $1.2m per year deal instead of a 3 year 1.7M per year deal because of the $5M reduction in the cap.

Year one might be a wash because of escrow. But you lose in year 2 and year 3..

Say you're a superstar.
you're looking for a 6 year, $48M... how huge is the difference between $60M and $65M in your market

If this issue didn't matter, as some people want to pretend, then why is the NHL fighting it?
The players would rather every player sacrifice in escrow and maintain the market for next year's UFAs.. the actual HRR will catch up in 2-3 years.
Every serious poster here understands why the NHLPA wants this. But the impact is significantly over blown.

Given that the current proposal keeps the floor at $44M in both proposals suggesting that a $65M cap would mean every team might spend $5M more is your first mistake. There are probaly about 8-10 teams that might use a significant amount of this space. Perhaps even less because teams would be wise to be cautious in over spending until they have a sense of what revenues might look like going forward.

It is a pretty good guess that with a $65M cap in 2013-2014 that the cap will actually fall again for 2014-2105. Teams will also be less likely to use the compliance buyouts at $65M vs $60M. This takes away even more from the new money avialable for UFA's and RFA's.

I am just guessing here but it would not surprise me if the total difference in FA spending between the two cap levels was in the $20-25M range. Most of this would go to a small number of FA's. And it is also the case that extra money spent in year 1 also reduces the total available in year 2.

So in the end what are we talking about? Perhaps a $100K for about 150 FA's and the rest in the hands of a very small group of players? Not really worth losing 1/2 a season over.

Of course the one issue you have not mentioned is the impact of the cap drop on some of the vets nearing the end of their careers. The last time we had a flat cap teams turned to younger players and a fair number of older vets did not get resigned (See Radek Bonk et al).

Fourier is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 02:48 PM
  #242
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conflicted Habs fan View Post
If what I think the PA is doing, and this is a collective effort by all the players, is to ensure that Bettman will not walk away awarded with more profit than he is not entitled to. if that is what they're doing, I'm for it.
So the players are willing to lose hundreds of millions just to see that Bettman (who has a fixed salary) doesn't get awarded?

Okay.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 02:57 PM
  #243
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
I don't know why people feel the need to pick sides. I feel as though a fan of the NHL would support what's best for the league; fair player salaries, league wide parity where every team operates on an even playing field, and a system which promotes league wide growth and healthy revenues. This is best for not only the players and owners but most importantly for the fans of all 30 NHL teams.

du5566* is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 02:59 PM
  #244
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
I don't know why people feel the need to pick sides. I feel as though a fan of the NHL would support what's best for the league; fair player salaries, league wide parity where every team operates on an even playing field, and a system which promotes league wide growth and healthy revenues. This is best for not only the players and owners but most importantly for the fans of all 30 NHL teams.
Maybe I started by feeling that way and, over the course of paying attention to the negotiations, concluded that only the owners were fighting for that vision.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 03:00 PM
  #245
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
I don't know why people feel the need to pick sides. I feel as though a fan of the NHL would support what's best for the league; fair player salaries, league wide parity where every team operates on an even playing field, and a system which promotes league wide growth and healthy revenues. This is best for not only the players and owners but most importantly for the fans of all 30 NHL teams.
No, sorry, I *hate* the idea of "league wide parity". First, because it's a myth anyway, and second, because it is a system that implicitly punishes the most supportive fan bases.

I completely disagree that what you propose is "best for the league". And it's certainly not the way to provide for the best expression of the game.

 
Old
01-05-2013, 03:05 PM
  #246
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,562
vCash: 500
According to a live report on Sportsnet right now, the pension issue has been settled (defined benefits, funded by the players). Despite that, a deal isn't imminent and it is likely to take from a few hours to a couple of days before a final deal is done.

colchar is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 03:05 PM
  #247
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aj8000 View Post
Record revenues does not equal record profits or a profit at all).

How much profit are the owners entitled to then? 1% on investment 5% on investment? 10%?
There are no guarantees, if they don't like it sell. Guess what hockey would exist let it find the proper balance. Too much outside inteference and subsidy which screws everything.

Confucius is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 03:07 PM
  #248
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
There are no guarantees, if they don't like it sell. Guess what hockey would exist let it find the proper balance. Too much outside inteference and subsidy which screws everything.
Guess what, the "proper balance" may involve hundreds of players losing their jobs. The "proper balance" under your ideology might make both sides worse off. What the hell is proper about making everybody worse off?

And that subsidy you speak of? That's owners paying players more than fans were willing to for years.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
01-05-2013, 03:10 PM
  #249
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Guess what, the "proper balance" may involve hundreds of players losing their jobs.
If that's the underlying, sustainable reality, then so be it.

 
Old
01-05-2013, 03:10 PM
  #250
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffradio View Post
So you only love Aaron Ward, and others who love the same thing you do.
Where did I say i like Aaron Ward?

Stop guessing and you'll stop being wrong.

RedWingsNow* 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 10:00 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.