1) What's the source for those estimates? (Honestly, don't know)
2) Do they include revenue sharing, and how would the NHLPA's proposed expanded system of revenue sharing change the numbers?
My guess is that everyone but PHX and CBJ moves from red into black with an expanded systme of revenue sharing. In other words, no, it isn't correct that the only reason those clubs are in the red is because of the player's share; it is also because the NHL has the least developed system of revenue distribution among owners. Toronto alone could probably cover half those teams and still turn a heft profit.
#2. Does that really seem fair to you? You'd vote to take more from profitable teams so the players can keep 57% rather than bring the players share closer to 50%.
#2. Does that really seem fair to you? You'd vote to take more from profitable teams so the players can keep 57% rather than bring the players share closer to 50%.
I think the answer is both, but if pressed for an either/or decision, I don't see what's inherently more "fair" about what you propose at all.
Cutting the players share without implementing a massive system of revenue sharing will basically result in (further) inflated profits for the big-market clubs, and a modest improvement in the bottom-lines of some of the clubs you list.
Also, you didn't answer my question: do those numbers include revenue sharing? I've read elsewhere that they do not, but I don't know for certain.
That would be assuming that there was 100 revenue sharing among the owners, right?. In other words, their 43 (or 50) percent share all goes into one pot, and each gets 1/30 of what's left...but that's not the case.
As it stands, the new proposal would allow Toronto (and the Flyers) to keep 50 percent of HRR instead of 43. Their 7 percent added cut is going to be far greater than the 7 percent chunk for say Florida or Columbus.
That's why the NHLPA sees revenue sharing as a core issue.
Unless we're completely posting past each other, in which case, I apologize. I enjoy your analysis of the CBA stuff--you seem to follow it more closely than any of the posters on the Flyers board.
I admittedly haven't looked too much into the newest NHL and NHLPA proposals due to me being away when they were first presented and both sides said they were off the table once the lockout started
But using the previous proposals, they just had the top few teams paying even more of their profits into the revenue sharing while the players didn't give any money up. Personally, I don't think that proposal works because that would be like your boss giving you a raise and telling you how to spend that money..
If no team pays Giroux what he wants to be paid, how in the hell is he setting the market price?
I can say I want to be paid $150K and I want to pay $20K for my house. Personally, I'd love to find a company willing to pay me $150K (not gonna happen) and I'd love to find the house of my dreams for $20K (really not gonna happen). Am I setting the market price on both or am I just be wishing it to be true? In reality the company decides how much to pay me, and the real estate market decides what my house is worth.
this is different in hockey, the teams owners dont decide what money players want, it's the players deciding what money they are looking for, that's why in some cases the players are holding out on the teams because the owners are not giving the money the players want, so the want show up until they get their price, of course the owners are no win situation because they dont want to risk losing their star players unless they have someone on the wings that can replace the same talent for less money.
unfortunately, if they dont, then they have to pay because if they loose their star player then the team is screwed, or they have let to have let him walk because they just dont have the money to pay.
that's the problem with the players, they want to be rich and the owners cant provide that. that's why this lockout is happening,
you are saying the players are nice guys so that means they are the victims but that's wrong because they are ones being selfish and wanting more money, you are telling me the players are never wrong and they can get whatever they want. you know, some players can backstabb or fool you in so many ways, they wont come back to the team if they get paid less.
i dont care about the players, i care about the sport and if the players dont want to play because of their cuts, then dont play because i rather have a sport, then watch greedy players stomp on my heart and dont care about winning.
I'm curious if those losses also take into account the NHL footing the bill for Phoenix? Like if LA lost 2M is that after paying for Phoenix or before?
They also have an additional what 120 million coming in from the new TV deal?
Not bringing these things up to try and skew them against the owners, just pointing out that resolving the phoenix ownership situation and the new television deal are going to alleviate some of the problem.
I think the answer is both, but if pressed for an either/or decision, I don't see what's inherently more "fair" about what you propose at all.
Cutting the players share without implementing a massive system of revenue sharing will basically result in (further) inflated profits for the big-market clubs, and a modest improvement in the bottom-lines of some of the clubs you list.
Also, you didn't answer my question: do those numbers include revenue sharing? I've read elsewhere that they do not, but I don't know for certain.
I am not sure if these numbers include revenue sharing, lets assume for arguments sake that they don't include it:
Teams in the black made: 252.6M
Teams in the red lost: -120M
NHLPA comes to you at the end of the season and says:
"Hey, Toronto you posted a profit of 81.8M dollars! We're going to go ahead and take 47.5% of that (38.86M) and divide it up to the teams who lost money. Keep up the good work!!"
I am not sure if these numbers include revenue sharing, lets assume for arguments sake that they don't include it:
Teams in the black made: 252.6M
Teams in the red lost: -120M
NHLPA comes to you at the end of the season and says:
"Hey, Toronto you posted a profit of 81.8M dollars! We're going to go ahead and take 47.5% of that (38.86M) and divide it up to the teams who lost money. Keep up the good work!!"
Like I said, I think it's both, but, if forced to choose, I'm not sure why what you proposed is any less legitimate than Toronto's owners saying, "Hey, Phil Kessel, we know that you know we made 80+ million last year, but we're going to go ahead and need 24 percent of your $5.4 salary back so that Phoenix can only be in the hole $10 million annually."
Dude please.........You are seriously getting this wrong.
You honestly believe that the owners bent the players over in the last deal.
Their only win was a salary cap.
They lost 57% of their revenue.
God, ignorance is annoying.
54%, actually. And if you look at what the players were pushing for versus the owners in that lockout, the players got very, very little of what they wanted. The CBA belonged to the owners, not the players. The 4% over 50 was the incentive from the owners for the players to accept it...and don't forget that the players wanted a 52 million dollar cap not linked to revenue, and instead had to accept a 39 million dollar cap linked to revenue. Now the owners are looking to take that 4% away while altering FA to boot, and offering nothing in compensation. The player are going to have to take a pay cut, but dropping it all the way down to 50% is drastic considering the other crap the owners want. Both sides need to compromise. But blaming the players for their reluctance to just take whatever the league offers is pointless.
Don't call me ignorant if you plan on getting the facts wrong, you run the risk of being annoying.
Edit: OK, how do the players get 57%? Everything I find indicates that it came out as 54% after the last lockout. Either way, asking to drop that 57 percent to 46 percent is laughable and insane at best.
Edit 2: Ah, that 54% was only the case in the first year of the CBA. Still, the players had to accept a 24% salary reduction, why should they want to have their pay reduced again, to fix the owners' spending mistakes? And why would anybody hold it against them for being reluctant to do so?
Edit 3: If you've bothered reading any of my posts, you'd understand that I'm not arguing the players shouldn't have a pay reduction. I'm pointing out that it's perfectly OK and natural for them to be completely opposed to a pay cut; any person in any field is going to have that reaction. If the NHLPA had started negotiations by demanding 65% of revenue, I wouldn't hold it against the owners to balk at that loss of income either. Until the players realize they're going to have to take a pay cut and the league realizes that its current demands are absurd, no progress is going to be made. The owners are going to need to be willing to give concessions to justify the pay cut if they want the players to warm up to the idea; taking away everything they gave the players to justify the last CBA isn't a good way to start.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 10-01-2012 at 12:16 PM.
Like I said, I think it's both, but, if forced to choose, I'm not sure why what you proposed is any less legitimate than Toronto's owners saying, "Hey, Phil Kessel, we know that you know we made 80+ million last year, but we're going to go ahead and need 24 percent of your $5.4 salary back so that Phoenix can only be in the hole $10 million annually."
I agree that owners asking to cut salaries 24% (46% of HRR?) is equally ridiculous. I am not suggesting that the players bow down to those demands. I am operating under the assumption that the final split will be closer to 50/50 like most major sports leagues, which I understand is a 12% rollback not 24%.
I agree that owners asking to cut salaries 24% (46% of HRR?) is equally ridiculous. I am not suggesting that the players bow down to those demands. I am operating under the assumption that the final split will be closer to 50/50 like most major sports leagues, which I understand is a 12% rollback not 24%.
Ultimately, I suspect that this is probably about right--though I do think the NHLPA will push hard to keep the final split north of 50/50, if for no other reason than to claim some sort of moral victory.
The bigger issue, I think, is how that 12 percent rollback gets used. The NHLPA will find it far easier to swallow if it basically ends up amounting to half of a massive system of revenue sharing--which I'd think the bulk of the smaller clubs woud support, but it will piss off Toronto, Montreal, the Flyers, etc.
i think there's a reason why the owners want a big rollback, i mean they are teams laying off workers on their teams, one team is going bankrupt, i mean it must be really bad otherwise they probably wouldnt have to ask for a paycut.
i think there's a reason why the owners want a big rollback, i mean they are teams laying off workers on their teams, one team is going bankrupt, i mean it must be really bad otherwise they probably wouldnt have to ask for a paycut.
The reason: Like anybody else on earth, the owners want more money. That's why owners in all sports always try to reduce the player's share. The players want money too, which is why they generally try to increase their share.
That's how pretty much all these labor issues work out in sports; one or both sides wants more money.
I don't blame either side, money is pretty awesome. It's easy to see why people want more of it.
i think there's a reason why the owners want a big rollback, i mean they are teams laying off workers on their teams, one team is going bankrupt, i mean it must be really bad otherwise they probably wouldnt have to ask for a paycut.
I don't think the layoffs are intentional. I think the primary reason is that teams are "gearing down" in anticipation of a long lockout.
Think about it, if there's no hockey to be played then your ancillary personell have nothing to do: rink set up crew, equipment managers, doctors/trainers, food/bev vendors, parking/security, front office staff, flight crew, etc. You can't exactly keep all of them on the payroll, especially if you don't have revenue coming in from games.
If you think about it for every 1 player on the ice there are probably 2 or 3 people who are behind the scenes. Unfortunately for them, a lockout pretty much means they have to find new jobs for the next 4-12 months.
Edit: Let's try a example. Let's say that the top guys at post-Jobs Apple begin spending tons of money on employee's contract with a 57% sharing revenue of profits of the company to bring up products sale. Those products all flop and are losses. They decide to cut the 57% sharing revenue to ~46%, but they do not touch their contract salary and benefits to compensate for their missteps. The employees are seriously pissed off about this. Do you think those employees have no right to be angry that they have to pay for management's poor decisions?
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 10-01-2012 at 06:21 PM.
Reason: Altering quotes is against site rules
i dont care how long it takes. id rather see the players leave en mass for another league then get bent over again the way they did before. the whole lockout then negotiate strategy is just ridiculous. i'm disgusted with the league so much i dont know if im gonna watch again
i dont care how long it takes. id rather see the players leave en mass for another league then get bent over again the way they did before. the whole lockout then negotiate strategy is just ridiculous. i'm disgusted with the league so much i dont know if im gonna watch again
Please.
For one, they locked them out because as the other poster said, Fehr didn't want to start negotiations during the season last year. They really have no choice but to lock them out since they didn't come to a deal. If they don't, the players could strike right before the playoffs and cause a lot more problems. Why would league give them that chance?
Two, it's really hard to feel sorry for these players. Their making how much and they don't want to take a pay cut? All you have to do is follow a few of them on twitter and you lose any sympathy for them. A bunch of them bolted the second they could to Europe. Some of them are making a ton of money over there anyway. Others? Well, as I said, follow them on twitter. Yes, I feel so sorry that while their locked out they get to party and all that jazz with out having to play hockey the next day. Guys like Bissonette and Giroux seem soooo upset with the lockout. Please.
I fully support the league on just about 90% of the issues. I don't support everything, but the league needs to be healthy or we'll be right back here when the next CBA is up.
The NHLPA knew what they were doing when they hired Fehr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus
Well, in fairness, didn't the league try to start negotiations during the season, and the NHLPA declined?
I seem to recall that happening. Or maybe I've had too much coffee.
In semi related news, the KHL has signed a deal to be streamed on ESPN 3
First week of games ;
3.10 Dynamo Moscow vs Ak Bars Kazan
6.10 HC LEV Praha vs SKA St Pete,
7.10 Slovan Bratislava vs Dynamo Moscow
8.10 CSKA Moscow vs SKA St Pete,
9.10 HC LEV Praha vs Dynamo Moscow
Dynamo Moscow, current Gagarin Cup holder. currently 4th in West
Former and current NHLers:
Alexander Ovechkin
Yuri Babenko
Filip Novak
Denis Tolpeko
Ak Bars Kazan, 2009&2010 GC winner. currently 3rd in East
Former NHLers:
Niko Kapanen
Alexei Morozov
Janne Pesonen
Jarkko Immonen
Lev Praha, KHL debut this season. currently leading West
Former and current NHLers:
Zdeno Chara
Jiri Hudler
Jakub Voracek
Lubos Bartecko
Tomas Popperle
Jakub Klepis
Erik Christensen
Marcel Hossa
Tomas Surovy
Jiri Novotny
Michal Repik
Alexandre Picard
Nathan Oystrick
Petr Vrana
Jaroslav Svoboda
Tomas Mojzis
SKA St. Petersburg, 2012 GC West finalist. currently 6th in West
Former and current NHLers:
Ilya Kovalchuk
Vladimir Tarasenko
Maxim Afinogenov
Denis Grebeshkov
Alexei Semenov
Evgeni Artyukhin
Viktor Tikhonov
Fedor Fedorov
Dmitri Kalinin
Sergei Bobrovsky
Tony Martensson
Patrick Thoresen
Kevin Dallman
Slovan Bratislava, KHL debut this season. currently 7th in West
Former and current NHLers:
Miroslav Satan
Mario Bliznak
Jonathan Sigalet
Milan Bartovic
Lubomir Visnovsky
Peter Olvecky
Milan Kytnar
Josef Boumedienne
David Printz
Vladimir Mihalik
CSKA Moscow, 32 times Soviet league champion. currently 3rd in West
Former and current NHLers:
Pavel Datsyuk
Ilya Bryzgalov
Mikhail Grabovsky
Igor Radulov
Alexander Radulov
Oleg Kvasha
Sergei Shirokov
Ilya Zubov
Vladimir Zharkov
Denis Arkhipov
Patrick Davis
Janis Sprukts
Rastislav Stana
