HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Islanders
Notices

2012-13 CBA Discussion Thread *NHL/NHLPA Please do Something!!*

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-23-2012, 01:11 PM
  #126
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
I know I've said it before but I will say it again; These sides should be meeting around the clock. None of this 2-3 hours meeting BS that they've been pulling. The lockout date is 3 weeks away. Absolutely BS!!!
thats what i think for the most part. I think they need meet for 3 days a week for 8 hours at a time. then take a some time to digest with there side only. then repeat

Fantom is online now  
Old
08-23-2012, 01:38 PM
  #127
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,925
vCash: 234
Both sides met again today but did not discuss the core financial issues, the stuff that they're apparently worlds apart on. They did discuss the contract issues and player postseason shares.

Here's some great BS from Bettman via Mark Masters twitter:

Quote:
Bettman on damage lockout could do: 'We recovered last time bc we have the world's greatest fans'
Pretty much doesn't think it will hurt the league. Moron..

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 01:40 PM
  #128
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland View Post
Both sides met again today but did not discuss the core financial issues, the stuff that they're apparently worlds apart on. They did discuss the contract issues and player postseason shares.

Here's some great BS from Bettman via Mark Masters twitter:



Pretty much doesn't think it will hurt the league. Moron..
How many times do I have to harp on the fact that what is said in the media =/= what is being thought. Bettman can't say a lockout will massively hurt the league because he loses leverage.

Renbarg is online now  
Old
08-23-2012, 01:58 PM
  #129
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,925
vCash: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
How many times do I have to harp on the fact that what is said in the media =/= what is being thought. Bettman can't say a lockout will massively hurt the league because he loses leverage.
Yeah that's fairly obvious that they aren't going to share everything to the public but he shouldn't make idiotic comments like these its already a tense time for the fans and saying "Oh they'll be back" just makes him look worse.

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 05:16 PM
  #130
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland View Post
Yeah that's fairly obvious that they aren't going to share everything to the public but he shouldn't make idiotic comments like these its already a tense time for the fans and saying "Oh they'll be back" just makes him look worse.
What's a better answer? "No comment" - "No, a lockout will kill us"

Its pretty much the only thing he can say. Notice he went around the answer as well. He didn't say the fans will be back this time, he said they came back last time. It was a clever non-answer from a lawyer.

Renbarg is online now  
Old
08-23-2012, 06:55 PM
  #131
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland View Post
Both sides met again today but did not discuss the core financial issues, the stuff that they're apparently worlds apart on. They did discuss the contract issues and player postseason shares.

Here's some great BS from Bettman via Mark Masters twitter:



Pretty much doesn't think it will hurt the league. Moron..
So.....cap will go down because the casual fan will go away, find basketball better like the '90's strike (when the NHL was going UP in the ratings and the NBA was stagnant, after the San Jose jerseys sold more than many clothing lines) and tickets will have to drop. Fans will be pissed like before and it won't hurt one bit.

Got it.

Well, It won't hurt Toronto or Montreal or a few other teams, but it could kill several (not including the Isles). Bettman is a putz....work stoppage #3 in his tenure.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 07:41 PM
  #132
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
They shut the league down for a year and six years later its revenues are up 50% from the year before the lockout. Anyone that thinks a silly little lockout is going to do serious harm is clearly NOT looking at history.

Sports leagues have figured something out. We stupid fans come clamouring back regardless of a work stoppage.

This doesn't hurt the NHL long-term, but it kills the players' short-term revenue generating ability. That's why the owners can take the line they are. It's short-term pain for long-term gain.

Players need to realize they have no leverage anymore, cut the best deal they can and get on with it.

JKP is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 01:28 PM
  #133
OrangeZebra
Unregistered User
 
OrangeZebra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Been debating the Lockout on my teams board recently and dug up some interesting data. Forbes is the only newscorp i could find doing yearly financial reviews of the NHL (I know-surprise surprise) and there is a 4 year trend that was easy to identify, while quite disturbing.

The number of teams in the red has been steadily increasing for years; 12 in 2008, 14 in 2009, 16 in 2010, and 18 in 2011. So in 4 years we went from 12 teams losing money to only 12 teams making money.

That is an extemely alarming trend for any League. It's especially bad given the record breaking increases in net revenue over the same time period, which in most economic models would imply a healthy profitable industry.

The NHL business model as presently designed in the CBA is completely unsustainable. I did not know it was this bad. The owners literally can't give in to Donald Fehr and the players, it would be like slitting their own throats.
Im actually pretty surprised at that info

OrangeZebra is online now  
Old
08-25-2012, 01:50 PM
  #134
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeZebra View Post
Im actually pretty surprised at that info
39% increase in ticket prices on average since the lockout. Toronto's increases are scary. So the players salaries shot up - and fans pay more during a recession.

Fun times. Wanna blame the players? The owners increased revenues. Blame the owners? The FANS kept paying to see it. There's the problem - fans made it expensive to see a game and what the NHL is likely seeing is that if fans go away when government fun stuff kicks in and there's less money, or if the Canadian dollar adjusts the other way, there will be a BIG drop in revenue - and the cap will hurt the spenders.

So the teams hurting are not winning.....and their ticket prices went up. Should they drop their prices? Well, yeah . . . but that'll affect the cap floor and ceiling. Think there's no pressure from the league, the successful teams and so on to make sure the cap never goes down?

So fans don't get a system allowed to work. And they have themselves as a whole to blame.

Just my opinion.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
08-26-2012, 09:43 AM
  #135
steveat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,785
vCash: 500
I'm confused now.

The players want more rev sharing right? This way the teams making money will pay into a fund that will compensate the lesser teams with much needed revenue to stay afloat, thus creating more stability with all the teams and allowing for a better situation for players to have ample teams to play for.

The owners don't want rev share...right?

More than half the NHL is in the red...so how can the owners suggest that they don't want rev share. I can understand the wealthy organizations not wanting to share, but since most of the teams are underwater..how can they come to the same agreement. The poorer teams would want help from other teams no?

Or do the owners just want to cap salaries or something to that affect so they can ALL control salaries to positively affect their ability to make profit...Seems symantecs to me...

steveat is offline  
Old
08-26-2012, 10:57 AM
  #136
Riddick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveat View Post
I'm confused now.

The players want more rev sharing right? This way the teams making money will pay into a fund that will compensate the lesser teams with much needed revenue to stay afloat, thus creating more stability with all the teams and allowing for a better situation for players to have ample teams to play for.

The owners don't want rev share...right?

More than half the NHL is in the red...so how can the owners suggest that they don't want rev share. I can understand the wealthy organizations not wanting to share, but since most of the teams are underwater..how can they come to the same agreement. The poorer teams would want help from other teams no?

Or do the owners just want to cap salaries or something to that affect so they can ALL control salaries to positively affect their ability to make profit...Seems symantecs to me...
i THINK that the players are willing to say 'sure, we'll give in to a lot more revenue sharing but in four years we have the option where we can revert back to where we are now' which would screw the league hugely. at least thats my take.

Riddick is offline  
Old
08-26-2012, 03:28 PM
  #137
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
39% increase in ticket prices on average since the lockout. Toronto's increases are scary. So the players salaries shot up - and fans pay more during a recession.

Fun times. Wanna blame the players? The owners increased revenues. Blame the owners? The FANS kept paying to see it. There's the problem - fans made it expensive to see a game and what the NHL is likely seeing is that if fans go away when government fun stuff kicks in and there's less money, or if the Canadian dollar adjusts the other way, there will be a BIG drop in revenue - and the cap will hurt the spenders.

So the teams hurting are not winning.....and their ticket prices went up. Should they drop their prices? Well, yeah . . . but that'll affect the cap floor and ceiling. Think there's no pressure from the league, the successful teams and so on to make sure the cap never goes down?

So fans don't get a system allowed to work. And they have themselves as a whole to blame. And, as you say, if the FX swings back the other way, revenues will go down sharply, esp now with an extra team in Winterpeg.

Just my opinion.
You guys also have to remember that a lot of the revenue growth came from the appreciation of the CDN dollar relative to the US dollar.

In 2004 the CAD was worth 77 cents against the greenback. Now it's at par. So that 39% increase in ticket prices in TO was actually closer to 50% increase in USD revenue.

A significant part (maybe 20%, maybe more) of the NHL's revenue growth is likely fuelled by the rising CDN dollar and is therefore somewhat artificial. This is why a number of US teams have struggled. CDN dollar strength grows revenues (and therefore the cap) despite US markets treading water.

It's not the only driver of growth, obviously, but it is one of the factors. And yes, if the FX goes down, there will be a sharp drop in revenue, esp with an extra team in Winterpeg.

JKP is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 05:54 AM
  #138
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Every team biggest expense is player salaries and if more and more team operate at a loss then players salaries must come down. It's that simple.

If a company operates at a loss employess will be laid off, now you can't cut down on the number of players but you have to do something about their earnings. It's not as if they'll starve..

IslesNorway is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 06:44 AM
  #139
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesNorway View Post
Every team biggest expense is player salaries and if more and more team operate at a loss then players salaries must come down. It's that simple.

If a company operates at a loss employess will be laid off, now you can't cut down on the number of players but you have to do something about their earnings. It's not as if they'll starve..
Except it isn't that simple. Player salary cost is fixed as a percentage of revenue and has been since the lockout.

The players are arguing that the fiscal problems are because the owners don't equitably split the revenues and they want to know why they should give back some of their share of revenue to "help" those teams that are struggling just so the rich teams can make even more profit.

Remember that salaries have gone up only in absolute terms. As a percentage of revenue, salaries haven't gone up or down at all since the lockout.

JKP is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 07:00 AM
  #140
Mr Wentworth
Arch Duke of Raleigh
 
Mr Wentworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Except it isn't that simple. Player salary cost is fixed as a percentage of revenue and has been since the lockout.

The players are arguing that the fiscal problems are because the owners don't equitably split the revenues and they want to know why they should give back some of their share of revenue to "help" those teams that are struggling just so the rich teams can make even more profit.

Remember that salaries have gone up only in absolute terms. As a percentage of revenue, salaries haven't gone up or down at all since the lockout.
I'm sure deep down the players know (and so do the owners and GMs) that the league's fiscal problems (partly) stem from their own lack of ability to keep themselves from making bad decisions and signing players to bad contracts.


Last edited by Mr Wentworth: 08-27-2012 at 07:38 AM.
Mr Wentworth is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 07:44 AM
  #141
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Except it isn't that simple. Player salary cost is fixed as a percentage of revenue and has been since the lockout.

The players are arguing that the fiscal problems are because the owners don't equitably split the revenues and they want to know why they should give back some of their share of revenue to "help" those teams that are struggling just so the rich teams can make even more profit.

Remember that salaries have gone up only in absolute terms. As a percentage of revenue, salaries haven't gone up or down at all since the lockout.
Thanks for clearing that up.

I must admit that I find the whole concept of players and owners/League having a CBA somewhat bizarre. If the owners of the product (the League) have decided on a salary cap then that should be the end of the whole story. The players should either accept that or move to pastures new (ie Russia).

I'm a firm believer in trade unionism but American trade unionism seems a little different from the European version. I beleive the players should have their rights but not to the extent where they can shut down the entire league. That's just wrong.

IslesNorway is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 09:43 AM
  #142
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Because no one does anything without a deadline breathing down their neck.

Bettman doesn't care how he looks, he cares about doing the owners' bidding and getting paid for getting them what they want. To date, he's been pretty successful at that.
Actually the NHL wanted talks to start last summer, the NHLPA did not think that was necessary. And people need to stop blaming everything on Bettman, he just represents the owners, not himself. And he can't force anyone to sign an agreement. Both sides are very stubborn but I have to side with the owners because the NHLPA has its way, it will ruin the league.

Milliardo is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 09:50 AM
  #143
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan View Post
I'm sure deep down the players know (and so do the owners and GMs) that the league's fiscal problems (partly) stem from their own lack of ability to keep themselves from making bad decisions and signing players to bad contracts.
But that is irrelevant. There are no bad contracts from a fiscal impact because the sum total of all contracts cannot exceed 57% of total revenues.

The problem is the league isn't a single entity of 30 equal portions. Each portion has a different revenue structure and the high revenue teams drive up the overall pool of revenue disproportionately to the low revenue teams.

The cap/floor is built off the average and the weaker teams struggle.

If the NHL derived most of its revenue from league sources, as the NFL does, this wouldn't be a problem because the deltas between 'rich' and 'poor' would be very small.

But the NHL derives its revenues primarily from team gate and team regional TV. The league-wide sources aren't that great. Thus the imbalance.

By the NHL trying to drive back salaries, they are trying to make it more affordable for the lower revenue teams and retain larger profits for the higher revenue teams.

Thus the PA's suggestion at revenue sharing. My theory is, the PA should accept a 50-50 cut (because what's more fair than half each?) on the condition that the 7% difference be put into revenue sharing.

This would continue to allow the league to grow, the players would still get paid well and the smaller market teams would receive some compensation for the disproportionate amount of growth the high revenue teams affect on salaries.

JKP is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 09:59 AM
  #144
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesNorway View Post
Thanks for clearing that up.

I must admit that I find the whole concept of players and owners/League having a CBA somewhat bizarre. If the owners of the product (the League) have decided on a salary cap then that should be the end of the whole story. The players should either accept that or move to pastures new (ie Russia).

I'm a firm believer in trade unionism but American trade unionism seems a little different from the European version. I beleive the players should have their rights but not to the extent where they can shut down the entire league. That's just wrong.
The problem is the "league" is not a single entity with 30 subsidiaries but is a cartel of 30 companies. This cartel is not a true free market, i.e. a player is restricted in his freedom to find the best deal for his services among the 30 employers.

This restriction is likely a violation of anti-trust laws. But because it's in the best interests of the PA and the league to keep the overall system intact, it has never really been challenged.

Don't confuse sports league unions with 'real' unions. They are different animals.

JKP is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 10:41 AM
  #145
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
The problem is the "league" is not a single entity with 30 subsidiaries but is a cartel of 30 companies. This cartel is not a true free market, i.e. a player is restricted in his freedom to find the best deal for his services among the 30 employers.

This restriction is likely a violation of anti-trust laws. But because it's in the best interests of the PA and the league to keep the overall system intact, it has never really been challenged.

Don't confuse sports league unions with 'real' unions. They are different animals.
I think he means, that the league should be able to do whatever it wants. Like in Europe. Or the heads of each club vote on the changes. You don't like it? Well then go play in another league.

Milliardo is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 11:23 AM
  #146
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milliardo View Post
I think he means, that the league should be able to do whatever it wants. Like in Europe. Or the heads of each club vote on the changes. You don't like it? Well then go play in another league.
Yup. I'm hugely in favour of the salary cap structure and the stand on contracts and on the whole the entire CBA because it has a degree of fairness to it.

However when it comes to sports I don't think players should really complain because they are paid millions to do what they love the most. I feel for the guys in the AHL and below though, but NHLers? No. So why can't the owners just issue an ultimatum saying take it or leave it - that's what I find so weird. After all, the team, the organziation and the club is more important than the individual players. I'd rather watch the Islanders full of new names than no Islanders at all.

IslesNorway is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 12:13 PM
  #147
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milliardo View Post
I think he means, that the league should be able to do whatever it wants. Like in Europe. Or the heads of each club vote on the changes. You don't like it? Well then go play in another league.
Except then the players would file an anti-trust lawsuit against the owners arguing they are an illegal cartel that is artificially colluding to restrict the free market movement and salaries of NHL hockey labour.

And, I believe, in the US if you're found guilty under the anti-trust laws that the awarded damages are tripled as a punitive measure.

JKP is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 02:12 PM
  #148
Dutch Frost
Everything is Fine!!
 
Dutch Frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,594
vCash: 1130
The ahl

My question is, If there is a lockout which NHL Islanders players can we see in Bridgeport?

Can Strome go to the AHL or is he to young? Can Nino play in the AHL? What about other players on the team?

Dutch Frost is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 05:00 AM
  #149
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesNorway View Post
Yup. I'm hugely in favour of the salary cap structure and the stand on contracts and on the whole the entire CBA because it has a degree of fairness to it.

However when it comes to sports I don't think players should really complain because they are paid millions to do what they love the most. I feel for the guys in the AHL and below though, but NHLers? No. So why can't the owners just issue an ultimatum saying take it or leave it - that's what I find so weird. After all, the team, the organziation and the club is more important than the individual players. I'd rather watch the Islanders full of new names than no Islanders at all.
Yeah, pretty much.

Milliardo is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 05:02 AM
  #150
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Except then the players would file an anti-trust lawsuit against the owners arguing they are an illegal cartel that is artificially colluding to restrict the free market movement and salaries of NHL hockey labour.

And, I believe, in the US if you're found guilty under the anti-trust laws that the awarded damages are tripled as a punitive measure.
But that's because the set up is wrong. The players join this league because they want to, it's their free will. So by that, they have to accept the rules or else they are free to go to any other league the please.

Milliardo 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 03:09 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.