HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Notices

2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-19-2012, 09:27 AM
  #376
SensibleGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,509
vCash: 50
You can't expect the owners not to take advantage of every opportunity they can to improve their franchises. Thats the reason a CBA is needed in the first place. Its illegal for the owners to get together on their own and agree not to pay over a certain amount - its called collusion. In the absence of that sort of agreement (which would be illegal remember) or a CBA that has salary caps in place, most teams wouldn't be able to compete.

People keep saying "the owners already got what they wanted last time." Ummmm, no they didn't. They got what they could, not want they wanted. They won't get what they want this time either, but they will move in the right direction. The owners first offer of 43% revenue for the players was considered outrageous by many, but its the percentage the owners themselves have been getting since the last cba. 50/50 makes sense. Some revenue sharing makes sense too...

I had to laugh though when Fehr kept saying early on that the players would be perfectly willing to play under the current agreement while the new one was worked out. No need for a lockout at all! How heroic of him. lol, those bad old owners are the ones forcing the lockout! Sure, why wouldn't the players be ok with that? They know the old cba was a pretty sweet deal for them and that they are going to lose some in the next one.

SensibleGuy is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 09:38 AM
  #377
buggs
Registered User
 
buggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: flatlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,680
vCash: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SensibleGuy View Post
People keep saying "the owners already got what they wanted last time." Ummmm, no they didn't. They got what they could, not want they wanted. They won't get what they want this time either, but they will move in the right direction. The owners first offer of 43% revenue for the players was considered outrageous by many, but its the percentage the owners themselves have been getting since the last cba. 50/50 makes sense. Some revenue sharing makes sense too...

I had to laugh though when Fehr kept saying early on that the players would be perfectly willing to play under the current agreement while the new one was worked out. No need for a lockout at all! How heroic of him. lol, those bad old owners are the ones forcing the lockout! Sure, why wouldn't the players be ok with that? They know the old cba was a pretty sweet deal for them and that they are going to lose some in the next one.
Completely agree. You can tell your buds that the owners are indeed stupid (or competitive, depending on your point of view) and need a new CBA to prevent the insanity that has happened with salaries of late. Guys like Leopold need to be restrained, though it's understandable that he's trying to improve his team. Massively hypocritical after crying relative poverty, but a new CBA should help in that direction.

Revenue sharing needs to be improved as well for the health of the overall league. While it's nice that we were in the top half of the league and got no revenue we are still the smallest market and are sensitive to fluctuations in currency and if the lustre of a new franchise ever wears off to the point where we only have 10,000 season ticket holders we might need that revenue sharing. We're a have for now but at some point may be a have not.

As for Fehr, I thought the notion of playing under the current CBA without formal agreement was utterly laughable. As an Expos fan from the 1970s on through to the demise and move, I remember the MLB strike very, very well and who orchestrated that little manouver. I found it supremely arrogant of Fehr to think that the NHL would be so stupid to forget that little tidbit of history.

buggs is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 09:52 AM
  #378
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 501
vCash: 500
you cannot.

Both sides are pretty filthy but the Owners in particular have made this situation themselves and are now jumping up and down pointing fingers at the NHLPA. They promissed last time that if the players took the paycut and allowed a cap that the League would be strong and woprkable....well now a short few years later they are screaming that the modelk isbroken and they can't make it. well the NHLPA says why redoo the same steps that led to failure last time when we(the NHL and NHLPA) could really fix the core problems. Of course the owners won't budge , they are waaaaay to sefish and greedy to work together to stabalise the league and grow the sport thru co-operation...they would rather keep the Have Havenot situation this league has been in since Bettmans "southern expansion" masterplan was hatched, a plan that still has failed to materialise. meanwhiol whatever ground the NHL gained on the fabeled TV contract in the states will be lost after this fiasco of a lockout.

The owners demand for a salary cut, on previosly signed LEGALLY BINDING contracts is the real sticking point. The Owners demand it and the PA won't do it, nor should they.

I tell you what. If the owners win this thing, and again fail to fix the heart of the problem, the finacial inequality within the league, then we will all be back here in 5 years arguing whose at fault for causing another lockout.

Another thing. I see several people talking about the revnue split and comparing it to a "normal business".. that's absurd. in the NHL the players are more than just staff they in essence are the staff and the product combined. without them thee is nothing to sell nothing to see and nowhere to go. Hardly the same as some yutz at Canadian tire selling you a wrench is it.

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 09:55 AM
  #379
DespoticNewt
Registered User
 
DespoticNewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,827
vCash: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by buggs View Post
Completely agree. You can tell your buds that the owners are indeed stupid (or competitive, depending on your point of view) and need a new CBA to prevent the insanity that has happened with salaries of late. Guys like Leopold need to be restrained, though it's understandable that he's trying to improve his team. Massively hypocritical after crying relative poverty, but a new CBA should help in that direction.

Revenue sharing needs to be improved as well for the health of the overall league. While it's nice that we were in the top half of the league and got no revenue we are still the smallest market and are sensitive to fluctuations in currency and if the lustre of a new franchise ever wears off to the point where we only have 10,000 season ticket holders we might need that revenue sharing. We're a have for now but at some point may be a have not.

As for Fehr, I thought the notion of playing under the current CBA without formal agreement was utterly laughable. As an Expos fan from the 1970s on through to the demise and move, I remember the MLB strike very, very well and who orchestrated that little manouver. I found it supremely arrogant of Fehr to think that the NHL would be so stupid to forget that little tidbit of history.
Fortunately, it appears Bettman is every bit a historian as he is a lawyer. All of the posturing and rhetoric from both sides has gotten old and stale. They need to quit with the PR spin, and sit down and ****ing listen to each other. No one is getting paid until Bettman is satisfied with the concessions wrangled from the players.


Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 09-19-2012 at 11:03 AM. Reason: filter circumvention
DespoticNewt is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 10:01 AM
  #380
DespoticNewt
Registered User
 
DespoticNewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,827
vCash: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
The owners demand for a salary cut, on previosly signed LEGALLY BINDING contracts is the real sticking point. The Owners demand it and the PA won't do it, nor should they.
My solution to this is simply pay the current contracts their monetary value, but have the cap hit reflect the same percentage under the new*CBA*as it did in the old one.

DespoticNewt is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 10:02 AM
  #381
Mr Writer
Registered User
 
Mr Writer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
Right. Damn those owners for playing by the existing rules and not the as of yet undefined future rules!

Working Arbitrarily below those rules would collusion. Not saying they don't look stupid, but I don't get the outrage.
Hey I'm not outraged.. I'm just saying, in the interest of my membership (If I were at the NHLPA) and I'm taking concessions AGAIN, then I would negotiate that these contracts be declared null and void.

I think that some of the owners negotiated in bad faith...now if you want to accept Bettman's spin on things, go right ahead...that's your choice.

Mr Writer is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 10:44 AM
  #382
ps241
Drunken rant!
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,324
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Writer View Post
Hey I'm not outraged.. I'm just saying, in the interest of my membership (If I were at the NHLPA) and I'm taking concessions AGAIN, then I would negotiate that these contracts be declared null and void.

I think that some of the owners negotiated in bad faith...now if you want to accept Bettman's spin on things, go right ahead...that's your choice.
Not sure I agree Mr. Writer. At the end of the day a rollback is far from guaranteed at this point. Even if there was a roll back or a reduction in value of the contracts you are discussing it would have no greater or worse impact than any other current contract no? On top of that one would assume it will impact the short term comps for new deals going forward by the same discount. For example if for some reason Evander Kane's last minute deal that is currently valued at $5.25 million per was reduced by a 24% roll back (which is just not going to happen this time IMHO) and the new net value was approximately $4.0 million per year then that is most likely what Jamie Benn is going to be getting paid in the new world. No way Benn is getting paid more than the NEW Hall, Eberle, Kane, and Skinner type range after adjustment.

I don't think the owners or players negotiated in bad faith and if anything both sides probably mutually wanted to make sure they got longer term deals like 6 years done in case there were contract limit lengths put in the new CBA. On top of this you have to remember the players didn't have to do long term deals they would have been able to work shorter term deals out or even wait until after the CBA was done if they wanted to ensure certainty like Benn, PK and others did.

I think both sides were eyes wide open going into the negotiation process IMHO and that is probably why some guys did deals and some waited. Either way you are taking a risk that will most likely normalize in the new CBA anyways. I just don't see a smoking gun on this one from everything I know there are still far too many moving parts left to negotiate to assume the owners bilked anyone.

ps241 is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 11:02 AM
  #383
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
you cannot.

Both sides are pretty filthy but the Owners in particular have made this situation themselves and are now jumping up and down pointing fingers at the NHLPA. They promissed last time that if the players took the paycut and allowed a cap that the League would be strong and woprkable....well now a short few years later they are screaming that the modelk isbroken and they can't make it. well the NHLPA says why redoo the same steps that led to failure last time when we(the NHL and NHLPA) could really fix the core problems. Of course the owners won't budge , they are waaaaay to sefish and greedy to work together to stabalise the league and grow the sport thru co-operation...they would rather keep the Have Havenot situation this league has been in since Bettmans "southern expansion" masterplan was hatched, a plan that still has failed to materialise. meanwhiol whatever ground the NHL gained on the fabeled TV contract in the states will be lost after this fiasco of a lockout.

The owners demand for a salary cut, on previosly signed LEGALLY BINDING contracts is the real sticking point. The Owners demand it and the PA won't do it, nor should they.

I tell you what. If the owners win this thing, and again fail to fix the heart of the problem, the finacial inequality within the league, then we will all be back here in 5 years arguing whose at fault for causing another lockout.

Another thing. I see several people talking about the revnue split and comparing it to a "normal business".. that's absurd. in the NHL the players are more than just staff they in essence are the staff and the product combined. without them thee is nothing to sell nothing to see and nowhere to go. Hardly the same as some yutz at Canadian tire selling you a wrench is it.
This is the biggest myth out there. The owners HAVE NOT once, in ANY proposal, asked for an immediate salary rollback. Not once.

They have asked the percentage the players get be reduced. Big difference. It does not directly effect current contracts. There has not been a proposal that immediately rolls back the salaries like the players are suggesting. And 100% of their "numbers" about how much their salaries are going down are based on them assuming their will be 4 more years of near record growth in terms of %.

It MIGHT effect the players a little in escrow. But really, if revenues grew by say a conservative 3 percent (lower than any season post 04-05), a rollback to 52% still only represents a loss of 2% lost to escrow compared to last year. Then if the PA does not take the % cap escalator they have taken every year, bam the players are getting more than last year (actually more money next year from the same contracts already signed)...

So explain to me again where the owners are rolling back salaries

__________________


Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 11:27 AM
  #384
ps241
Drunken rant!
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,324
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
This is the biggest myth out there. The owners HAVE NOT once, in ANY proposal, asked for an immediate salary rollback. Not once.

They have asked the percentage the players get be reduced. Big difference. It does not directly effect current contracts. There has not been a proposal that immediately rolls back the salaries like the players are suggesting. And 100% of their "numbers" about how much their salaries are going down are based on them assuming their will be 4 more years of near record growth in terms of %.

It MIGHT effect the players a little in escrow. But really, if revenues grew by say a conservative 3 percent (lower than any season post 04-05), a rollback to 52% still only represents a loss of 2% lost to escrow compared to last year. Then if the PA does not take the % cap escalator they have taken every year, bam the players are getting more than last year (actually more money next year from the same contracts already signed)...

So explain to me again where the owners are rolling back salaries
This post x 100%

I kind of wonder if Don has walked the players through this or not (I assume he has)? It is just not nearly as ugly as people are making it out to be and its why I remain optimistic we won't lose a year. If the NHL was holding tight for a 24% roll back day 1 of the new CBA then I could see why the players could be sold on sitting out but really the way the NHL is using the escrow solution leads me to believe with normal revenue growth most players will not feel any pain and more likely than not just experience a less accelerated growth rate in the near future.

ps241 is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:22 PM
  #385
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
This is the biggest myth out there. The owners HAVE NOT once, in ANY proposal, asked for an immediate salary rollback. Not once.

They have asked the percentage the players get be reduced. Big difference. It does not directly effect current contracts. There has not been a proposal that immediately rolls back the salaries like the players are suggesting. And 100% of their "numbers" about how much their salaries are going down are based on them assuming their will be 4 more years of near record growth in terms of %.

It MIGHT effect the players a little in escrow. But really, if revenues grew by say a conservative 3 percent (lower than any season post 04-05), a rollback to 52% still only represents a loss of 2% lost to escrow compared to last year. Then if the PA does not take the % cap escalator they have taken every year, bam the players are getting more than last year (actually more money next year from the same contracts already signed)...

So explain to me again where the owners are rolling back salaries

"So that's the backdrop as the NHL, in its initial proposal to the NHLPA, suggested the players' share of revenue be decreased from 57 per cent to 43 per cent -- an actual one-year reduction of the player salary pool of 24 per cent -- which would undoubtedly lead to wage rollbacks on existing contracts and/or significant escrow payments. Since then, the NHL has upped the proposed players' share number to 46 per cent, presumably meaning the NHL is prepared in a negotiation to go even higher still and we can reasonably guess the final target is likely to be around the 50 per cent mark." Bob Mckenzie TSN http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=404989

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:23 PM
  #386
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Writer View Post
Hey I'm not outraged.. I'm just saying, in the interest of my membership (If I were at the NHLPA) and I'm taking concessions AGAIN, then I would negotiate that these contracts be declared null and void.

I think that some of the owners negotiated in bad faith...now if you want to accept Bettman's spin on things, go right ahead...that's your choice.
These "concessions" the players took when the last CBA was forced down their throats have resulted in a 65% increase in their salaries between 2005 and the 2011-2012 season that just concluded. So, yeah, I hope they don't take it on the chin like that again...

Gm0ney is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:29 PM
  #387
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 501
vCash: 500
Again. The owners out-bid eachother to sign mediocre players to Silly silly contracts. they hold governments hostage for new arenas, they redefined Hockey Related Revenue so not only is the % going down, it's a smaller piece of a smaller pie as well. and on and on.

Plus they stoutley refuse to look at the real issue which is that the league needs revenu sharing or contraction to be healthy. Screwing the players here and now will not address the financial instability and disparity amongst the leagues teams....why do this all again when it'll last 5 more years and then another lockout. FIX the core problem. institute better revenue sharing and spread the 3.3 billion dollars of HRR around more evenly. grow the sport in the USA and get the big pie in the sky TV contract they keep talking about.

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:45 PM
  #388
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 3,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Again. The owners out-bid eachother to sign mediocre players to Silly silly contracts.
this argument should be dropped. the owners are operating within a currently existing framework. GMing is itself a game. the GM's are playing by the rules of the game. furthermore, the cap floor forces them to over pay mediocre players. If its too expensive to play the game the owners should either A) get out of the game, or B) use the next opportunity of rule negotiations to change them to something favorable (what they're doing right now).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
they hold governments hostage for new arenas, they redefined Hockey Related Revenue so not only is the % going down, it's a smaller piece of a smaller pie as well. and on and on.
actually, they hold team owners hostage for arenas. the owners then turn around and hold their governments hostage. pheonix is a unique case in which the nhl has said, pay for us to be here or we'll look elsewhere. that doesn't seem like an outlandish proposition. Blame COG's clown of a council.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
[B]
Plus they stoutley refuse to look at the real issue which is that the league needs revenu sharing or contraction to be healthy. Screwing the players here and now will not address the financial instability and disparity amongst the leagues teams....why do this all again when it'll last 5 more years and then another lockout. FIX the core problem. institute better revenue sharing and spread the 3.3 billion dollars of HRR around more evenly. grow the sport in the USA and get the big pie in the sky TV contract they keep talking about.
that's fair enough, and I agree, but this in and of itself is NOT (as some seem to believe) mutually exclusive to the changes the owners have discussed.

The owners have flat out said, we are currently paying too much in salaries and will not continue to do so. They have a historic precedent (NFL and NBA agreements) to back up that they should not keep paying 57%, yet the NHLPA takes a stance saying we won't take a lesser cut when all signs point to it being the "right" solution, or at least part of it.

Bettman has flat out said, "yes this is the deal we got before, and yes we believe some parts of it were a mistake and need to be corrected" that's the whole ****ing point of having this negotiation.

An expired agreement is not legal nor moral ground (though the NHLPA certainly seems to think so) to dictate the future agreement. If it was, then wouldn't that agreement just have been signed into eternity?

The most reasonable solution would appear to be something in the middle, a split of revenues closer to 50-50 and improved revenue sharing programs.

That being said a "short term solution" should not be a radical departure for the existing agreement(the NHLPA's proposal), it should be something very similar to the existing proposal (the NHL's but at a shorter length) so that the radical departure can be given the due time and diligence it deserves and a win-win agreement is reached.

either work out a combination of the two agreements at a relatively long term, or something close to the owners (the same system, lower figure) at a short term and IMMEDIATLY work on creating the combination agreement.

Grind is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:48 PM
  #389
dynastyREredux
Where's the Doritos?
 
dynastyREredux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: All over Canada
Posts: 1,245
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dynastyREredux
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingBogo View Post
Sorry, but this is a very uninformed opinion. A toatally free market would destroy the league as we know it and the Jets would soon be history or would soon turn into a glorified farm team. There are only 8 - 10 teams that could compete on the open market and the Jets aren't one of them. And to say Chipman and Thomson are too stupid to run their businesses may be the most naive thing I've read on the board.
Actually you're probably misrepresenting my opinion but that's OK and your defensiveness about Winnipeg as a market not withstanding I didn't even say a free market was good for the league, just that the owners couldn't handle one so they traded it in for cost certainty and gave the players a % to get that cost certainty less than a decade ago and it's hard to feel sorry for them now.

Also, bare in mind under the old free market system teams controlled players until they were 31, right through their prime years so it's hard to imagine anyone really being a farm system for anyone else under that system.

As for implying Chipman and Thomson are too stupid to run their business, I didn't seeing as they didn't have a team under the previous CBA but any group of owners that willingly give up the % of revenue that the players got under the previous CBA were acting stupidly and flat out not running their business problem. People blame escalation but it eventually has to cap out. MLB players I think capped out at around 62% of league revenue a decade ago and are around 50-52% now in a free market.

FWIW, the Jets could easily survive a free market with the dollar is where it is but it's not even that I think that's ideal, just that the owners were incredibly stupid when it existed (when they didn't have to be) so they traded it in for cost certainty. In an ideal world for me there would probably some kind of luxury tax with increased revenue sharing a minimum payroll required to qualify for revenue sharing. Either way, I'm not trying to argue the merits of either system, the owners couldn't handle themselves under the old system and they obviously negotiated a system under which they can't make money. Yes, revenues have grown and the player salaries have grown exactly as they negotiated. It's just hard to feel sorry for them less than a decade later. They're obviously not as good at running their collective businesses are they think they are. Weren't the players willing to a 49 million dollar hard cap last time that didn't move and the owners wanted to tie it to revenue to cover themselves?


Last edited by dynastyREredux: 09-19-2012 at 01:00 PM.
dynastyREredux is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:49 PM
  #390
Mr Writer
Registered User
 
Mr Writer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
These "concessions" the players took when the last CBA was forced down their throats have resulted in a 65% increase in their salaries between 2005 and the 2011-2012 season that just concluded. So, yeah, I hope they don't take it on the chin like that again...
Regardless of the mistakes and the shortsightedness of the league in not anticipating loopholes in the last CBA, the players did make concessions in 2004...league revenue grew and as a result their salaries grew in step with the growth in revenue.

Sometimes I think the PA should just sign any freaking document the league puts in front of them, because owners and GMs will eventually find a way to screw it all up and players salaries will continue to grow. The NHL continues to survive despite the stupid people who run it.

Mr Writer is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:51 PM
  #391
Mr Writer
Registered User
 
Mr Writer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Again. The owners out-bid eachother to sign mediocre players to Silly silly contracts. they hold governments hostage for new arenas, they redefined Hockey Related Revenue so not only is the % going down, it's a smaller piece of a smaller pie as well. and on and on.

Plus they stoutley refuse to look at the real issue which is that the league needs revenu sharing or contraction to be healthy. Screwing the players here and now will not address the financial instability and disparity amongst the leagues teams....why do this all again when it'll last 5 more years and then another lockout. FIX the core problem. institute better revenue sharing and spread the 3.3 billion dollars of HRR around more evenly. grow the sport in the USA and get the big pie in the sky TV contract they keep talking about.
100% agree.

Mr Writer is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 12:54 PM
  #392
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,154
vCash: 500
I always find it hard to side with people that are Billionaires who cry that they are going to the poor house

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:16 PM
  #393
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
"So that's the backdrop as the NHL, in its initial proposal to the NHLPA, suggested the players' share of revenue be decreased from 57 per cent to 43 per cent -- an actual one-year reduction of the player salary pool of 24 per cent -- which would undoubtedly lead to wage rollbacks on existing contracts and/or significant escrow payments. Since then, the NHL has upped the proposed players' share number to 46 per cent, presumably meaning the NHL is prepared in a negotiation to go even higher still and we can reasonably guess the final target is likely to be around the 50 per cent mark." Bob Mckenzie TSN http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=404989
At the initial offer, yes the escrow penalty would have hurt somewhat. The NHL has been willing to move on their percent.

Notice no numbers? That article is also VERY dated. Owners went as high as 49% with the old definition of HRR in the latest offer. Like I said, the place the owners want to get to 50-52 WILL NOT hurt the players very bad in escrow. And there has NEVER been any offer that has had a rollback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Again. The owners out-bid eachother to sign mediocre players to Silly silly contracts. they hold governments hostage for new arenas,
What in the hell? The owners were operating under the current CBA, which REQUIRED them to spend to get to the floor in a lot of cases, OR they were spending a small percent of their team's revenues. The system did not work, no doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
they redefined Hockey Related Revenue so not only is the % going down, it's a smaller piece of a smaller pie as well. and on and on.
NOT TRUE! The Owners have gone back to the old definition of HRR. So yeah, nope!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
Plus they stoutley refuse to look at the real issue which is that the league needs revenu sharing or contraction to be healthy. Screwing the players here and now will not address the financial instability and disparity amongst the leagues teams....why do this all again when it'll last 5 more years and then another lockout. FIX the core problem. institute better revenue sharing and spread the 3.3 billion dollars of HRR around more evenly. grow the sport in the USA and get the big pie in the sky TV contract they keep talking about.
The new NBC deal is pretty damn good and very long term. Revenue sharing is what is needed there is no doubt. But nobody is the bad guy here. The % REALLY needs to drop, the revenue sharing REALLY needs to increase. It's a give and take, neither side is doing either. Arbitrarily assigning a "bad guy" is ridiculous. Both sides have part of the picture...nobody can see the forest through the trees right now and that's what is costing us hockey, not because one side or the other is bad guys or good guys..


Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 09-19-2012 at 01:22 PM.
Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:19 PM
  #394
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 3,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Both sides have part of the picture...nobody is can see the forest through the trees right now and that's what is costing us hockey, not because one side or the other is bad guys or good guys..
so what you're really saying is....we need to hire a lumberjack.

Grind is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:20 PM
  #395
DespoticNewt
Registered User
 
DespoticNewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,827
vCash: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Both sides have part of the picture...nobody is can see the forest through the trees right now and that's what is costing us hockey, not because one side or the other is bad guys or good guys..
Bettman and Fehr need to rent a barn and duke it out, tbqh.

DespoticNewt is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:21 PM
  #396
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fantasybaseballchamp View Post
Also, bare in mind under the old free market system teams controlled players until they were 31, right through their prime years so it's hard to imagine anyone really being a farm system for anyone else under that system.
And yet that is exactly what happened for many many teams. Keep in mind that they may have "controlled" them, but they still had to PAY them. Players like Yashin, Weight, Nabokov, Gaborik, etc were not scared to hold out to get trades/raises. The return on those assets were rarely (Yashin excepted) very good. Teams like OTT, EDM, FLA WERE farm teams for the rest of the league, never a real chance to compete, as soon as player got good, they could not afford him and had to trade him, or could not put ANY talent around him (There was one year were Bure was directly in on like 65% of FLA's goals).

Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:46 PM
  #397
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
I always find it hard to side with people that are Billionaires who cry that they are going to the poor house
Billionaires or not, no one likes to lose money. And most of these guys became billionaires in spite of owning a hockey franchise, not because of it.

When a high-end player on a team makes more per year from playing on the team, than the guy does from OWNING the team, things are broken.

Let's say you're wealthy guy, and you decide to open a restaurant. The restaurant has some good years and some bad years, and some years you just break even on it. You're certainly not in the poor house because you have other investments, but this venture isn't exactly consistent or reliable unless you're running the Maple Bar & Grill in downtown Toronto. Some years you book a loss. A couple of your other wealthy buddies do the same, and experience the same sort of 'just hanging in there' amount of success.

The salaries of your staff keeps on getting higher and higher, and they get paid pretty well regardless of how poorly you do, because if you don't pay them, they'll just take an offer from another restaurant that can afford to pay them...like the Maple Bar & Grill. Or maybe Ranger's Steakhouse.

The restaurant staff solution: Go ask the Maple Bar & Grill and/or Ranger's to share more of their earnings with you.

Restaurant owners: We need to reduce costs so this becomes consistently profitable for me, and you guys are my biggest cost. Otherwise why should I be here? I'm going to pay you less.

No deal either way, and the restaurants lock their doors. Heck for some owners this is actually SAVING them money.

Biggest losers: The diners who frequent these owner's restaurants and like the food.

Now, the difference between a restaurant staff member taking a pay cut, and a NHL player taking a pay cut? For the restaurant staff it might mean trouble making a mortgage payment,or paying some bills. For the NHL player? It means maybe not buying that 2nd luxury home this year or that 3rd luxury vehicle. At like 25 years old.

That's kind of my simple view of things. I'm with the owners, billionaires or not.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
09-19-2012, 01:49 PM
  #398
ps241
Drunken rant!
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,324
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
These "concessions" the players took when the last CBA was forced down their throats have resulted in a 65% increase in their salaries between 2005 and the 2011-2012 season that just concluded. So, yeah, I hope they don't take it on the chin like that again...
Yea Gm0ney but here’s the rub, you are being a bit to practical by focusing on what happened over the life of the last CBA to the players salaries, the NHLPA would prefer you to stay focused on what really matters and that is what they gave up in the first year of the contract and ignore how well it ended up for them in the long run!

ps241 is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 02:03 PM
  #399
ps241
Drunken rant!
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,324
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
I always find it hard to side with people that are Billionaires who cry that they are going to the poor house
I don't think they are crying that they are going to the poor house? I hear them saying they want to negotiate a new CBA and think THEY are paying the players too much as a percentage of total revenues.

For the record I have no pity for either side since they are all doing obscenely well in life. It doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't negotiate a new deal, but a little less chatter to the media would be appreciated by me at least since both sides come across looking out of touch when they argue in public about how they are being wronged


Last edited by ps241: 09-19-2012 at 02:36 PM.
ps241 is online now  
Old
09-19-2012, 02:05 PM
  #400
dynastyREredux
Where's the Doritos?
 
dynastyREredux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: All over Canada
Posts: 1,245
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dynastyREredux
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
And yet that is exactly what happened for many many teams. Keep in mind that they may have "controlled" them, but they still had to PAY them. Players like Yashin, Weight, Nabokov, Gaborik, etc were not scared to hold out to get trades/raises. The return on those assets were rarely (Yashin excepted) very good. Teams like OTT, EDM, FLA WERE farm teams for the rest of the league, never a real chance to compete, as soon as player got good, they could not afford him and had to trade him, or could not put ANY talent around him (There was one year were Bure was directly in on like 65% of FLA's goals).
Like I said, I wasn't arguing for either system, both are flawed. I do think the whole being a farm system for the rest of the league gets really overstated but that's not really what I was trying to get at. Edmonton and Ottawa were both competitive prior to the lockout. Florida was bad, but I can't really remember it being a case of them developing a lot of good young players and then losing them to the rest of the league.

Free agent frenzy has always been kind of a fool's gold but especially prior to the lockout when free agents were 31+.

Anyway, the new system has actually hurt small market teams with the inflated cap floor. The whole CBA seems pretty poorly thought out and what's frustrating is the possibility of losing another significant chunk of time trying to fix it when it should have been properly addressed last time.

The league needs a lot more than just a few extra % points from the players, they need to start getting creative and helping the bottom rung of the league with real, legitimate revenue sharing similar to the MLB revenue sharing model.

dynastyREredux 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 10:55 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.