HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Ladies and gentleman we are going on a strike or lock-out

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2012, 11:14 AM
  #76
VL55
Registered User
 
VL55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-Star View Post
If the NHL strikes again this soon, I'm done with it.
I want to say the same things but I know I'll never be done with the Habs so...


Last edited by VL55: 07-14-2012 at 12:57 PM.
VL55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:16 AM
  #77
Takashi
Registered User
 
Takashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
You don't want a lottery because#30 is just as likely as #1
or imagine Oilers with the #1 overall pick, seith jones
they will be beast

Takashi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:28 AM
  #78
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gates70 View Post
You're talking as if they get paid $50k a year. The worst player gets paid $500k or so. I think "the product", especially these guys that get the millions are well paid for their "product". Give me a break
The players should get the lion's share of rewards, nobody has ever bought a ticket to watch an owner.

Imagine a less restrictive system where Molson can invest his $40 million in profits every year to bring a Cup to Montreal instead of being restricted to a cap (which is basically hamstrings us a further 10-15% because of the tax issue) so that Columbus and Florida and other places that don't give a rat's about hockey can stay afloat.

Sure, some teams will fold in that situation ,but I couldn't care less, hockey was better with 24 teams.

HabsByTheBay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:29 AM
  #79
RC51
Registered User
 
RC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by airic000 View Post
Funny but it's "prima nocte".
my mistake but you still got the idea

RC51 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:32 AM
  #80
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,394
vCash: 500
46% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now : Owners would probably settle for 51-52%. This will pass, unless the players decide that they're negociating AGAIN the whole idea of a cap.

Max length of contracts 5 years : I think this new point is mandatory. However, i think owners would settle for 7 years. But the players will reply that nobody forced the owners to accept those contracts, and they would be right.

No more arbitration : If the owners see this one as a must, then it will pass.

Entry level contract 5 years instead of 3 : No chance of success whatsoever, and really stupid. I mean... KHL, anyone? You'll probably see GM "loan" players in Europe after 11 games, on request of the player.

You need to be in the NHL 10 years before free agency : Makes more sense than the ELD pushed to 5 years, but I think they would be, like, gravy. Or they could end up with 8 years, and the owners would still have won something.


Do any of you think that the negociations of grandfather clauses could cause problem?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:43 AM
  #81
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsByTheBay View Post
The players should get the lion's share of rewards, nobody has ever bought a ticket to watch an owner.

Imagine a less restrictive system where Molson can invest his $40 million in profits every year to bring a Cup to Montreal instead of being restricted to a cap (which is basically hamstrings us a further 10-15% because of the tax issue) so that Columbus and Florida and other places that don't give a rat's about hockey can stay afloat.

Sure, some teams will fold in that situation ,but I couldn't care less, hockey was better with 24 teams.
No way. The last thing I want is for the NHL to become like MLB and always have the same 3-4 teams winning and dominating every year.

As for players getting most of the reward, you have a lot to learn about economics and how a business is run. Owners take the risks and invest, they deserve most of it. That's how economy works. An employee can be replaced and can go work somewhere else. Owners work 10 times harder, they deserve most of it.

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:48 AM
  #82
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-Star View Post
If the NHL strikes again this soon, I'm done with it.
Enjoy watching pro bowling.

Frozenice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:58 AM
  #83
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 9,692
vCash: 1707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
No hockey for a while, if they go on strile.
Are you sure?

MasterDecoy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:10 PM
  #84
PunkinDrublic*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sutton,Qc-Sudbury,On
Posts: 8,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
Enjoy watching pro bowling.
I heard RDS is comming back with Mini Putt, so im sure he will be fine

Birdieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !

PunkinDrublic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:15 PM
  #85
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
No way. The last thing I want is for the NHL to become like MLB and always have the same 3-4 teams winning and dominating every year.

As for players getting most of the reward, you have a lot to learn about economics and how a business is run. Owners take the risks and invest, they deserve most of it. That's how economy works. An employee can be replaced and can go work somewhere else. Owners work 10 times harder, they deserve most of it.
Oh BS,

This isn't textbox capitalism where the owner invests heavily in capital plant to start the business. The biggest capital investment owners make is buying the rights to have a team from other pre-existing owners. In a large proportion of the cases they don't even build the arenas. They get public money to do it for them.

The owners don't work harder. Their money works hard for them. The success of the German Bundesligia with majority fan ownership should show to everyone just how unnecessary these guys are.

Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:15 PM
  #86
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
No way. The last thing I want is for the NHL to become like MLB and always have the same 3-4 teams winning and dominating every year.

As for players getting most of the reward, you have a lot to learn about economics and how a business is run. Owners take the risks and invest, they deserve most of it. That's how economy works. An employee can be replaced and can go work somewhere else. Owners work 10 times harder, they deserve most of it.
lmfao.

That's all I'll say about this post. You sound like a kid who read Uncle Miltie a week ago - instead of the baseball scores.

HabsByTheBay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:17 PM
  #87
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
Oh BS,

This isn't textbox capitalism where the owner invests heavily in capital plant to start the business. The biggest capital investment owners make is buying the rights to have a team from other pre-existing owners. In a large proportion of the cases they don't even build the arenas. They get public money to do it for them.

The owners don't work harder. Their money works hard for them. The success of the German Bundesligia with majority fan ownership should show to everyone just how unnecessary these guys are.
That's not even going into how ha-ha we own you stagnating wages neoliberal bullcrap is what has the world in severe economic straits. Or who wins in baseball. m

HabsByTheBay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:19 PM
  #88
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
No way. The last thing I want is for the NHL to become like MLB and always have the same 3-4 teams winning and dominating every year.

As for players getting most of the reward, you have a lot to learn about economics and how a business is run. Owners take the risks and invest, they deserve most of it. That's how economy works. An employee can be replaced and can go work somewhere else. Owners work 10 times harder, they deserve most of it.
Yes to the first part and no to the second part.

The owners are by and large people that have a large amount of money with nothing worthwhile to do with it and instead of buying a hobby farm or small island in the Caribbean, they buy a hockey team.

More likely it's a vanity purchase rather than a shrewd business decision.

Frozenice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:21 PM
  #89
THE HOFF
Registered User
 
THE HOFF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by franchise player View Post
This... I don't agree that you should start negociating so far from what you're going to settle for. It's just insulting when you go too far. Why don't they try to be fair this time? They're going to piss off the player this time and the fans too. We missed a full year of hockey because the owners couldn't stay reasonable with no salary cap. This time, everyone will be on the players' side.
I agree that the terms are insulting , but as far as we know, they might be pretty close to what GB has in mind, and that's the danger.

They wanted the cap and wanted to stop handing players ridiculous contracts. They put the puzzle together and look at the mess. what the owners generally want and what the market wants is two different things. If there is demand for a player, the prices WILL go up, no matter what you do. If owners don't know when to drop the ball and let it go, its hardly the players' fault. Gomez must've pressed hard on the pen when he signed his contract ... who wouldn't ?

THE HOFF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:25 PM
  #90
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsByTheBay View Post
That's not even going into how ha-ha we own you stagnating wages neoliberal bullcrap is what has the world in severe economic straits. Or who wins in baseball. m
While I totally agree, I'd like to keep politics out of this if possible. Although the hard salary cap means that the NHL isn't like baseball or basketball and isn't going back. The league has more parity now than any time post 1967 and that isn't changing under the current system.

Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:35 PM
  #91
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
It's not like we're talking about a struggling corner store owner being forced out of business by Walmart here. The poorest NHL owner is still worth hundreds of millions of dollars, tens, if not hundreds of times the richest player.

Remember when Shea Weber was fined like $2500 for his hit last year, and people were making those "regular Joe" comparisons? Where they were saying the equivalent value of Weber's fine was about $12 to the average working guy, or something like that? Do the same math for NHL owners and their losses compared to their net worthes. I would bet it comes out to like $500 a year, give or take. Less than four tickets in the red.
Yes, the owners are very wealthy. But you are losing sight of one significant fact. There are teams losing money.

If you were a business owner, regardless of wealth, would you accept your business losing money every year at the same time your employees are demanding more money or they will go on strike? If you are honest, you know the answer to that question.

Here are the teams that had negative operating income last season.

Pittsburgh Penguins -- -0.2 (millions)
Los Angeles Kings -- -2.0
Dallas Stars -- -1.1
Washington Capitals -- -7.5
Minnesota Wild -- -5.9
San Jose Sharks -- -7.8
Anaheim Ducks -- -8.4
New Jersey Devils -- -6.1
Tampa Bay Lightning -- -8.5
Buffalo Sabres -- -5.6
Carolina Hurricanes -- -4.4
Winnipeg Jets -- -5.2
Nashville Predators -- -7.5
Florida Panthers -- -7.0
St Louis Blues -- -2.7
Columbus Blue Jackets -- -13.7
New York Islanders -- -8.1
Phoenix Coyotes -- -24.4

Be careful which side you take in this negotiation. 18 of the 30 teams are losing money. Ownership is not in this to lose money. If the owners get saddled with paying more to players, who loses? Ownership? Hell no. YOU and I do. Look for higher ticket prices, concession prices and merchandise prices. Prices that will eliminate participation at hockey games for the average person.

Its easy to blame and hate the wealthy. In that short sighted belief, you end up hurting yourself, not the wealthy owners.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:40 PM
  #92
shamrun
Registered User
 
shamrun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,295
vCash: 500
Anything on the table to will make it easier to get rid of gomez?

shamrun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:42 PM
  #93
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
While I totally agree, I'd like to keep politics out of this if possible. Although the hard salary cap means that the NHL isn't like baseball or basketball and isn't going back. The league has more parity now than any time post 1967 and that isn't changing under the current system.
I would too but if anything makes my neck veins bulge it's people who think employees are serfs. It's an even more nonsensical argument in sports - Sidney Crosby, in an uncapped market, would collect a huge amount of money because nobody does what Sid does. What he'll sell in tickets, merchandise, advertising and so on will pay for his contract and if he wins you a Cup then it's a bonanza.



Anyway, let's bring it back to sport. Every team in baseball except for the Jays, Natspos (who are in first place), Royals, Orioles and Pirates (who are in first place) have made the playoffs in the last 10 years. Half the league has won a pennant, and we've had eight different champions in the last 10 years.

The same 3-4 teams stuff is so dumb. It wasn't even true in the late 90s, it's definitely not now.

HabsByTheBay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:42 PM
  #94
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrun View Post
Anything on the table to will make it easier to get rid of gomez?

NHL definitely needs an amnesty clause to get rid of one player per year off of the salary cap.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:43 PM
  #95
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,116
vCash: 500
This offer is basically a bad faith insult. A big key is they don't just want 54% of renenue, they want to redefine renenue so they get 100% of many of the revenue streams and 54% of the rest. If this leads to another work stoppage, I blame the league 99%. Let's remember Bettman told us the current deal was what the owners wanted after the last lockout. This is a pure cash grab by a bunch of now proven liars. The players may be just as greedy, but they're not nearly as di
dishonest. Bettman tells the press the NHL is booming, then tells the players it's dying. They're supposed to foot the bill for his sunbelt strategy, apparently.


Last edited by Bullsmith: 07-14-2012 at 12:50 PM.
Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:44 PM
  #96
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Yes, the owners are very wealthy. But you are losing sight of one significant fact. There are teams losing money.

If you were a business owner, regardless of wealth, would you accept your business losing money every year at the same time your employees are demanding more money or they will go on strike? If you are honest, you know the answer to that question.

Here are the teams that had negative operating income last season.

Pittsburgh Penguins -- -0.2 (millions)
Los Angeles Kings -- -2.0
Dallas Stars -- -1.1
Washington Capitals -- -7.5
Minnesota Wild -- -5.9
San Jose Sharks -- -7.8
Anaheim Ducks -- -8.4
New Jersey Devils -- -6.1
Tampa Bay Lightning -- -8.5
Buffalo Sabres -- -5.6
Carolina Hurricanes -- -4.4
Winnipeg Jets -- -5.2
Nashville Predators -- -7.5
Florida Panthers -- -7.0
St Louis Blues -- -2.7
Columbus Blue Jackets -- -13.7
New York Islanders -- -8.1
Phoenix Coyotes -- -24.4

Be careful which side you take in this negotiation. 18 of the 30 teams are losing money. Ownership is not in this to lose money. If the owners get saddled with paying more to players, who loses? Ownership? Hell no. YOU and I do. Look for higher ticket prices, concession prices and merchandise prices. Prices that will eliminate participation at hockey games for the average person.

Its easy to blame and hate the wealthy. In that short sighted belief, you end up hurting yourself, not the wealthy owners.
And if player's share of revenue goes down so will ticket prices? Please. They are priced to market and that's the way it goes. Ticket prices didn't go down after the salary rollback and hard cap last time and won't in the league's new system either.

Plus if you believe the NHL's accounting there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

If the league wants parity they can institute real revenue sharing. If they want to avoiding forcing weak sisters to overspend they can get rid of the cap floor.

The league's proposal isn't about that, its about clawing back money from the players. Which makes smaller teams more competitive and means bigger ones get more profits than they already do.

Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:47 PM
  #97
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,156
vCash: 500
edit: coke to Tanks.

HabsByTheBay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:48 PM
  #98
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsByTheBay View Post
I would too but if anything makes my neck veins bulge it's people who think employees are serfs. It's an even more nonsensical argument in sports - Sidney Crosby, in an uncapped market, would collect a huge amount of money because nobody does what Sid does. What he'll sell in tickets, merchandise, advertising and so on will pay for his contract and if he wins you a Cup then it's a bonanza.



Anyway, let's bring it back to sport. Every team in baseball except for the Jays, Natspos (who are in first place), Royals, Orioles and Pirates (who are in first place) have made the playoffs in the last 10 years. Half the league has won a pennant, and we've had eight different champions in the last 10 years.

The same 3-4 teams stuff is so dumb. It wasn't even true in the late 90s, it's definitely not now.
Athletes are not serfs. They are employees. Without an owner paying Sidney Crosby for his services, what would he make as the world's best pond hockey player? Zero.

And where do owners get the money to pay the Sidney's of the world? From their own stash? **** no. From hockey FANS like you and I.

So why are hockey FANS wanting to screw the owners so that the Sidney's get more money while at the same time the hockey FANS will pay MORE money?

Hockey is a business. Think about it this way and maybe it will make sense to you.

Owners make money.
Players make money.
FANS SPEND MONEY.

Oh, and think of every single player on the Canadiens roster. Do they CARE about YOU? Sure, they will sign autographs and be nice to you in public functions. And they probably make good and friendly neighbors. But do they care about you? Or would they take the extra millions offered to them by another team to leave Montreal? Would they call YOU before they left to tell you that they are sorry that they are leaving?

There is a reality disconnect from a few here.......

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:53 PM
  #99
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
And if player's share of revenue goes down so will ticket prices? Please. They are priced to market and that's the way it goes. Ticket prices didn't go down after the salary rollback and hard cap last time and won't in the league's new system either.

Plus if you believe the NHL's accounting there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

If the league wants parity they can institute real revenue sharing. If they want to avoiding forcing weak sisters to overspend they can get rid of the cap floor.

The league's proposal isn't about that, its about clawing back money from the players. Which makes smaller teams more competitive and means bigger ones get more profits than they already do.
Prices of most everything typically never goes down once it goes up.

Prices can stay the same if revenue stays the same. However, prices ALWAYS go up when revenue drops. Owners are not investing millions of dollars just to lose millions of dollars. They are not idiots.

But I get it. In your mind, "profit" is an evil word. You would rather players "profits" to go up instead of the owner's "profits". And you dont mind spending more of your hard earned money just to be able to say the owners might make less "profit". Interesting...

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:54 PM
  #100
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Athletes are not serfs. They are employees. Without an owner paying Sidney Crosby for his services, what would he make as the world's best pond hockey player? Zero.

And where do owners get the money to pay the Sidney's of the world? From their own stash? **** no. From hockey FANS like you and I.

So why are hockey FANS wanting to screw the owners so that the Sidney's get more money while at the same time the hockey FANS will pay MORE money?

Hockey is a business. Think about it this way and maybe it will make sense to you.

Owners make money.
Players make money.
FANS SPEND MONEY.

Oh, and think of every single player on the Canadiens roster. Do they CARE about YOU? Sure, they will sign autographs and be nice to you in public functions. And they probably make good and friendly neighbors. But do they care about you? Or would they take the extra millions offered to them by another team to leave Montreal? Would they call YOU before they left to tell you that they are sorry that they are leaving?

There is a reality disconnect from a few here.......
Without the current crop of owners we could have something like the German Bundesligia where the fans own the teams directly. The owners aren't essential. The players and the fans are. The owners are largely just middlemen to that relationship.

The fans will pay the same under the current arrangement as much as a new one with this setup. The league takes as much revenue as they can, not just enough to pay the players. The owners aren't the fans' representative here. In fact they are counter to the fans interest because they are the only ones that look to be want to lose games to get what they want which is what the fans want least.

Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:18 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.