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.

The NHLPA's problem as I see it....

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-10-2004, 09:53 PM
  #51
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
It is available only to players because it is the only bargaining tool they have in the current CBA until they turn 31.
It's not the only tool they have, they also have the guaranteed 10% raises. And restricted free agency. So the players have *three* tools to raise salaries, whereas the owners have *zero* tools to lower salaries. Hardly fair, and it's why this CBA is broken.


Quote:
You mean like Peter Schaefer and Mike Peca?
Just two among hundreds.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 10:12 PM
  #52
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
It's not the only tool they have, they also have the guaranteed 10% raises. And restricted free agency. So the players have *three* tools to raise salaries, whereas the owners have *zero* tools to lower salaries. Hardly fair, and it's why this CBA is broken.



Just two among hundreds.
1) players do not have guaranteed 10% raises. lie #1
2) owners do have multiple methods to lower salaries. lie #2

so, what other lies can you tell ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 11:26 PM
  #53
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,914
vCash: 500
Facts, idiot, not lies. Learn the freakin' CBA.

In order to maintain a player's rights - Section 10.2, a ii A:

"if the player's Prior Year's Salary is equal to or less than the Average League Salary for that League Year, 110% of the major league portion of his Prior Year's Salary"

PecaFan is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 12:09 AM
  #54
capman29
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsharkfan
The NHLPA finished there audit of the 30 teams last week. They have kept suspiciously silent as to what they found. Their silence makes me believe that they found that the NHL had been telling the truth regarding the millions of dollors of losses per year! If the NHLPA found otherwise the would have been all over the press spouting that the NHL lies etc..etc..

Owners of professional sports teams are extremely wealthy and can afford to lose some money for the privilege of owning a team. That does not mean they want to continue to invest more and more money in a business that has no hope of ever making a profit.
Wrong Wrong Wrong !!!!!!! The players found that only six teams were losing 75% of the caimed loses. Big difference would you not say yu management want t be . It is realy great that you think you know anything about what this is realy about and what it i about hs nothing to do with money . The owners want to go back to pre union days where they made all the money and gave the players peanuts and very few benifits.To break the union or install on like the NFL has ( do anything managements wants ) is what they are after and most of you are to blind to see it . If they areable to do that, then you fans are next in line to feel teir wrath with much higher ticket prices because they know you al are to stupid and will blame the players . Boy wht fols you all must be . Hope you like it when they come after your money . HE HE The joke i on you all enjoy it because the owners will .

capman29 is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 05:06 AM
  #55
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,864
vCash: 500
Um, no. The numbers the NHLPA used are total numbers, including money-making teams like Toronto, New York and Detroit.
Take away the teams that make money and those six teams don't account for 75% of the losses. The logic behind this is just stupid. You can't just cancel out the teams with losses with the teams that make money, because the teams with losses don't get any money from the teams which make money.

Sanderson is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 09:08 AM
  #56
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Facts, idiot, not lies. Learn the freakin' CBA.

In order to maintain a player's rights - Section 10.2, a ii A:

"if the player's Prior Year's Salary is equal to or less than the Average League Salary for that League Year, 110% of the major league portion of his Prior Year's Salary"
So does that guarantee all players a 10% raise?

Did it guarantee Pavol Demitra, Boyd Devereaux, Daniel Cleary, Chris Pronger, Denis Pederson, or Paul Kariya a minimium of a 10% raise each year?

Just because you're quoting the CBA, doesn't mean that you understand it.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 12:55 PM
  #57
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Facts, idiot, not lies. Learn the freakin' CBA.

In order to maintain a player's rights - Section 10.2, a ii A:

"if the player's Prior Year's Salary is equal to or less than the Average League Salary for that League Year, 110% of the major league portion of his Prior Year's Salary"
and if he isnt worth the 10%, let him go. if he is worth it, whats the problem ?

thats not a guaranteed 10% increase. LET HIM GO !

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 02:05 PM
  #58
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
It's not the only tool they have, they also have the guaranteed 10% raises. And restricted free agency. So the players have *three* tools to raise salaries, whereas the owners have *zero* tools to lower salaries. Hardly fair, and it's why this CBA is broken.
Those arent tools for the players, those are tools for the owners. They are the ones who lobbied for them in the last agreement, and currently are using them to keep salaries down.

Surely you arent complaining the fact that a team like Ottawa having to qualify Chris Neil at $770K from 700k is the cause of the leagues money losing problems.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 06:02 PM
  #59
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Coolburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 8,059
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
Apparently, sources say that the FL Panthers are one of the 6 teams losing money (approx. $60 million in the last 3 yrs). I can't say I'm surprised at all but the article below talks about contraction as a non-option (though it says 30 teams, which doesn't rule out relocation). So I would think that an option would be to move those 6 teams losing all that money to a more profitable area, in addition to getting the CBA worked out. I just find it interesting that the league wanted a luxury tax & revenue sharing back in 94...if they get a better proposal from the players along those lines, they should take it (if the tax is dollar for dollar and shared proportionately).

Source: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/h...ports-panthers

Coolburn is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 08:03 AM
  #60
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,478
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
and if he isnt worth the 10%, let him go. if he is worth it, whats the problem ?

thats not a guaranteed 10% increase. LET HIM GO !

dr

No team can be competitive letting its players go over 10% raises even if they are not worth it. They lose too much talent, it can't be replaced via UFA route (too much $) and if they try the trade route they rapidly run out of prospects and picks, and then run the risk of losing that player via the 10% increase at some future time. Fans desert the team of duds, team loses more money, downward spiral.

Demented you know you are speaking nonsense. While its an uneven playing field let people walk means teams go backwards. Unless every GM agrees not to offer the rejected player a contract then it won't work, and if every GM does blackball that player then its illegal collusion.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 08:12 AM
  #61
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,478
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3000694



Apparently they don't necessarily disagree with the total loss claimed.

Looks like six teams are responsible for shutting down the league this season. I wonder who they are?

Much more than 6. There are probably 6 profit making teams. That means 24 teams are losing money, 6 some more than the 18 other losers. If you believe the NHL those 18 lost about $100m between them. There is about $50m difference between the NHLPA and the NHL which is probably the profit made by the money making clubs. Maybe the NHLPA is write and those 18 clubs only lost $50m. Doesn't matter at least 18 clubs are losing enough money to be serious, probably closer to 24.

That isn't even taking into account the owners would want to see some profit on their investments, a minimum of the 5% they could have gotten from a bank or bond. At the end of the day, 80% of the teams at or below breakeven is BAD.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 10:47 AM
  #62
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
No team can be competitive letting its players go over 10% raises even if they are not worth it. They lose too much talent, it can't be replaced via UFA route (too much $) and if they try the trade route they rapidly run out of prospects and picks, and then run the risk of losing that player via the 10% increase at some future time. Fans desert the team of duds, team loses more money, downward spiral.

Demented you know you are speaking nonsense. While its an uneven playing field let people walk means teams go backwards. Unless every GM agrees not to offer the rejected player a contract then it won't work, and if every GM does blackball that player then its illegal collusion.
i disagree completly. in the case of good level players like the Sedins, you give them the 10% and dont blink an eye because they are still paid less than they should be. In the case of players like Tyler Bouck, if you dont want to give him the 10%, dont. There are other players like him in the system who will work for less than his new contract.

The Canucks recently let Denis Pederson and Trevor Letowski go instead of giving them a QO. WOw, poor Canucks.

They recently let Umberger go instead of giving him a stupid rookie contract. Wow, poor Canucks.

Just use the system and have some balls.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 10:58 AM
  #63
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Much more than 6. There are probably 6 profit making teams. That means 24 teams are losing money, 6 some more than the 18 other losers. If you believe the NHL those 18 lost about $100m between them. There is about $50m difference between the NHLPA and the NHL which is probably the profit made by the money making clubs. Maybe the NHLPA is write and those 18 clubs only lost $50m. Doesn't matter at least 18 clubs are losing enough money to be serious, probably closer to 24.
6 teams are losing 75% of the losses. For non hockey salary related reasons but ownership structuring decisions.

6 teams are making healthy profits.

18 teams losing 3mil a year. One average free agent on their roster.

Massive CBA changes arent needed. Shareholder revolt perhaps, but not a salary restructuring.


--

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichPanther
Apparently, sources say that the FL Panthers are one of the 6 teams losing money (approx. $60 million in the last 3 yrs). I can't say I'm surprised at all but the article below talks about contraction as a non-option (though it says 30 teams, which doesn't rule out relocation). So I would think that an option would be to move those 6 teams losing all that money to a more profitable area, in addition to getting the CBA worked out. I just find it interesting that the league wanted a luxury tax & revenue sharing back in 94...if they get a better proposal from the players along those lines, they should take it (if the tax is dollar for dollar and shared proportionately).

Source: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/h...ports-panthers
Thanks for the link. Interesting.

I guess it makes sense that Florida could have lost this money over the last few years. It probably hasnt been easy on them lately. But, they have been rebuilding beautifully with low priced youth and you can clearly see the potential makings of a championship team in their stable of prospects. You can clearly the see potential for their core to grow into a top payroll team. If you have the patience.

There is absolutely no good reason for the Panthers to be going out on the free agent market trying to acquire expensive core players. That would be ridiculous. You have prospects to develop. Dont throw away that ice time on some veteran. To see that young team make the playoffs the first time, is going to be real exciting for Panther fans. And its going to happen very soon.

And now you have Keenan and Jacques Martin. Makes me think even more of Ottawa. When we first came into the league, we were playing in our junior teams arena that seats 10,000. And the owner had apparently even borrowed the $50mil franchise fee. Tickets were cheap when we look back now. Back then todays ticket prices would have been absolutely inconceivable. Payroll in the bottom of the league. Attendance flagging.

And then several years later we had to build a brand new arena privately. Needless to say, the owner had been accumulating huge debts in his start up costs, and the interest was compounding annually. We could scarcely conceive of a $35 mil payroll. 30% of the teams revenue was going into debt repayment. We lost Yashin over money. Doom was in the air. By the end of our first owners reign, the team was in debt for an amount 3-400% more than its value. He went bankrupt. Most Sens fans thought the teams was destined to be in Portland or Fargo the next year.

But at least 3 known bidders tried to buy it. And our new owner got it in an amazing circumstances fire sale although an incredibly complex deal he said he signed thousands and thousands of documents while a court trustee was running the team. And all of a sudden the same, team, the same market, the same CBA, Sens fans see everything quite differntly. Winning a little changes everything. It wasnt the fault of the salaries, it was the owners financial structuring. It wasnt a systemic problem, it was an owners boardroom problem.

I remember the rats. Dont tell me there is no hockey market there. When Ottawa was at Floridas stage of development, our attendance was suffering too. If the city cant do it, then just as if it were an NFL team, they will move somehwere they think they can. But I think the Panther fans are there. Some very rich men have bet hundreds of millions they are there too. If they cant, well stuff happens, you cant expect to ask the players to lower salaries so a non-market can stay in the league.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 12:01 PM
  #64
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
And now you have Keenan and Jacques Martin.........
This is what I would be very worried & just show to me how much can an owner make so many bad decisions.

Mike Keenan was one of the poorest GM's ever regarding the financial aspect of the game. This franchise seems to lost of lot of money & you put in charge someone that everywhere he did go in the past increase the expense by not caring about the budget of the team.

This is just speculation of my part of course but if I were a Panthers fan , I would be worry as hell.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 12:33 PM
  #65
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,317
vCash: 500
Ya Keenan is a bit of a firecracker, but he knows what he has there. He knows how to mold young players. Like Torts with Vinny. Things wont be dull, but he does know how to build a champ, and he is blessed with an outstanding opportunity and one of the leagues top coaches. Jacques will have that team competing at another level very soon I bet.

Keenan will be probably be controversial and forever on the verge of being fired, but I suspect he will do the right things for Florida. He'll probably make controversial changes but the Panthers core will start to become clearly defined.

thinkwild 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 03:25 PM.

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

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