HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-23-2012, 12:43 PM
  #151
Hank Chinaski
Moderator
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Granola Belt
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,092
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
Only close in terms of revenue sharing.
Everything else sounds pretty far apart
It sounds like they're not even close on that.

Both sides agree that revenue sharing has to be a fundamental part of the new CBA, but that's about it. There still seems to be a massive gulf between them on where those revenue sharing monies will come from.

Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 12:46 PM
  #152
King Woodballs
**** HFJets
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 34,152
vCash: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
It sounds like they're not even close on that.

Both sides agree that revenue sharing has to be a fundamental part of the new CBA, but that's about it. There still seems to be a massive gulf between them on where those revenue sharing monies will come from.
I read today that bettman said they were getting close on revenue sharing today
But who knows how close "close" is, is anyones guess

King Woodballs is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 12:55 PM
  #153
sully1410
#VinegarStrokes
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,687
vCash: 72
Anyone else think that the players shoukd just take a bit of a cut? I have a hard time feeling sorry for them at this point.

sully1410 is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 12:59 PM
  #154
King Woodballs
**** HFJets
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 34,152
vCash: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
Anyone else think that the players shoukd just take a bit of a cut? I have a hard time feeling sorry for them at this point.
Yes they should.
The owners are not going to cave.

As far as i am concerned, its easier replacing the players then it is to find owners willing to run a team

King Woodballs is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 01:11 PM
  #155
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
Yes they should.
The owners are not going to cave.

As far as i am concerned, its easier replacing the players then it is to find owners willing to run a team
as a fan, this is where i through in. Also, the issue of owners taking all the risk.

I don't agree with either, and think they should essentially be "splitting the difference" players take a smaller cut, owners do more revenue sharing, but when push comes to shove if i've got to pick a side, I'm on the owners side.

the players have to realize that unfavorable demands by them could potentially cost them jobs in regards to the closures of certain markets. All the owners stand to lose (at least the majority of the owners) is a shiny toy that also happens to be a mediocre investment.

Grind is online now  
Old
08-23-2012, 03:21 PM
  #156
sully1410
#VinegarStrokes
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,687
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
as a fan, this is where i through in. Also, the issue of owners taking all the risk.

I don't agree with either, and think they should essentially be "splitting the difference" players take a smaller cut, owners do more revenue sharing, but when push comes to shove if i've got to pick a side, I'm on the owners side.

the players have to realize that unfavorable demands by them could potentially cost them jobs in regards to the closures of certain markets. All the owners stand to lose (at least the majority of the owners) is a shiny toy that also happens to be a mediocre investment.
I just don't get it. How much do the players honestly need? I remember when I first started posting here and everyone was gushing over the discount Crosby took for the good of his team. 8.7m.

Seriously? How much cash does someone in their twenties need? Really? A discount that would be worth talking about would be like Jonathon Toews or the Sedins.

Friggen piss me off lol

sully1410 is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 03:43 PM
  #157
ps241
It's closing time.
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14,018
vCash: 50
The issue with Rev sharing is currently there are too few have's and not enough common revenue. Easy for a league like the NFL and MLB because they have massive TV deals. Hockey has grown but it is still a have not sport.

My idea for rev sharing was simple but nobody bought in. rather than go to a 50-50 split of HRR (which is what the NHL is probably looking for) while they have the chance now they go to 50 players 44 owners and 6% dedicated rev sharing pool. This dedicated 6% rev sharing would be on top of the current rev sharing plan. They could also phase it in over 3 years so they don't have to claw back too much of the player's salaries right away. 2% in 2013-14 then 2% 2014-15, then the final 2% in 2015-16. If the defined revenue was $3.3 to $3.5 billion then this would give the league close to $200 million annually to apply towards a strategy for rev sharing. The current payment model would remain the same for owners but less would be going into payroll and more into revenue sharing. Perhaps it is too utopian but a commonly managed rev sharing arrangement between players and league would be interesting conceptually....a sub CBA. criteria could be set up for how to best utilize the monies. It would be in neither sides interest to see a team like Phoenix need to draw $25 million a year to stay afloat. If I was running it the fund would be more hand up vs. hand out. help each market get more seats filled then increase the revenue per seat over the years. This is very back of the napkin but any cuts the players agreed to would be going towards revenue sharing not towards making the rich teams even richer.


To be clear this plan assumes that the owners are probably going to lock out until they get closer to 50-50 so if the players are going to end up going down this road anyways why not have maximum impact on the conceded dollars.

This is a hair brained scheme that is not going to happen but I am bored

ps241 is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 03:48 PM
  #158
sully1410
#VinegarStrokes
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,687
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
The issue with Rev sharing is currently there are too few have's and not enough common revenue. Easy for a league like the NFL and MLB because they have massive TV deals. Hockey has grown but it is still a have not sport.

My idea for rev sharing was simple but nobody bought in. rather than go to a 50-50 split of HRR (which is what the NHL is probably looking for) while they have the chance now they go to 50 players 44 owners and 6% dedicated rev sharing pool. This dedicated 6% rev sharing would be on top of the current rev sharing plan. They could also phase it in over 3 years so they don't have to claw back too much of the player's salaries right away. 2% in 2013-14 then 2% 2014-15, then the final 2% in 2015-16. If the defined revenue was $3.3 to $3.5 billion then this would give the league close to $200 million annually to apply towards a strategy for rev sharing. The current payment model would remain the same for owners but less would be going into payroll and more into revenue sharing. Perhaps it is too utopian but a commonly managed rev sharing arrangement between players and league would be interesting conceptually....a sub CBA. criteria could be set up for how to best utilize the monies. It would be in neither sides interest to see a team like Phoenix need to draw $25 million a year to stay afloat. If I was running it the fund would be more hand up vs. hand out. help each market get more seats filled then increase the revenue per seat over the years. This is very back of the napkin but any cuts the players agreed to would be going towards revenue sharing not towards making the rich teams even richer.


To be clear this plan assumes that the owners are probably going to lock out until they get closer to 50-50 so if the players are going to end up going down this road anyways why not have maximum impact on the conceded dollars.

This is a hair brained scheme that is not going to happen but I am bored
What do you mean nobody bought in?

sully1410 is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 03:57 PM
  #159
ps241
It's closing time.
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14,018
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
What do you mean nobody bought in?
I have floated the idea on a few different threads on this topic and you are the first person to actually "reply" to the idea and even then it was just to clarify a supporting point. It’s all good just looking for ways to turn the owner gains into tangible revenue sharing and not just additional revenue to "all teams"

if they combined this formula for redistribution of funds with a few inflationary controlling ideas that are already out there then I think the league could continue to march forward with parity and less extreme losses on the low end and more help for the middle revenue teams. On balance with allot healthier league.

ps241 is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 04:07 PM
  #160
sully1410
#VinegarStrokes
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,687
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
I have floated the idea on a few different threads on this topic and you are the first person to actually "reply" to the idea and even then it was just to clarify a supporting point. Itís all good just looking for ways to turn the owner gains into tangible revenue sharing and not just additional revenue to "all teams"

if they combined this formula for redistribution of funds with a few inflationary controlling ideas that are already out there then I think the league could continue to march forward with parity and less extreme losses on the low end and more help for the middle revenue teams. On balance with allot healthier league.
It sounds good to me...why don't you float that past your mysterious connections?

sully1410 is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 04:07 PM
  #161
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
I have floated the idea on a few different threads on this topic and you are the first person to actually "reply" to the idea and even then it was just to clarify a supporting point. Itís all good just looking for ways to turn the owner gains into tangible revenue sharing and not just additional revenue to "all teams"

if they combined this formula for redistribution of funds with a few inflationary controlling ideas that are already out there then I think the league could continue to march forward with parity and less extreme losses on the low end and more help for the middle revenue teams. On balance with allot healthier league.
I had the same idea, although I would distribute to all teams on an increasing gradiant based on revenue generated. The lower the revenue the greater portion of the split you get.

surixon is online now  
Old
08-23-2012, 04:14 PM
  #162
ps241
It's closing time.
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14,018
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
I had the same idea, although I would distribute to all teams on an increasing gradiant based on revenue generated. The lower the revenue the greater portion of the split you get.
interesting. Also there could be rules for usage of the funds. In the case of extreme losses they could use the funds to slow the bleeding but as you worked up the food chain it would be nice if the funds (or a portion of the funds) could be put towards revenue generating ideas like marketing plans and grass roots ideas to grow attendance and drive game day revenue in markets.

ps241 is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 11:39 AM
  #163
Lynk
Registered Bro
 
Lynk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,619
vCash: 500
Well Bettman gave us a nice Akin like comment today:

Quote:
“We recovered last time because we have the world’s greatest fans,” Bettman said. The commish meant this as a compliment, of course. An honest reading of this beauty is more like: “If you fans weren’t such doormats, I might be worried.”
Retweeted by Wheeler and Scottie Upshall.

Rest of article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4496245/

Lynk is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 11:46 AM
  #164
Guerzy
HFBoards Contributor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,300
vCash: 50
I think most Hockey fans would again come back, but you want to be careful how many damn times you do this.

I still say this, there is no logical reason you will make me believe as to why we have to get to this point, this close, to a damn lockout (again). It's a shame it has to get to this point and the two sides cannot do their job prior to a lockout and shortened season.

Everyone knew this was coming, both sides are fully aware when this current CBA expires. Just figure it the **** out.


Last edited by Guerzy: 08-24-2012 at 11:54 AM.
Guerzy is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 11:48 AM
  #165
Lynk
Registered Bro
 
Lynk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,619
vCash: 500
The fact they're already canceling meetings and what not just shows how far away this thing really is from being finished.

It's going to be a cold winter my friends.

Lynk is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 12:00 PM
  #166
Sir Erdinger
Registered User
 
Sir Erdinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
I like Bettman as much as the next guy. (Ya i hate him) But taking his statement "best fans" and turing it into "the fans are doormats".. C'mon. Anyone buying that? This is starting to look like an election campaign. Instead of showing what we will do for you, we will make the other guys look as bad a possible!

Sir Erdinger is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 12:02 PM
  #167
Lynk
Registered Bro
 
Lynk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,619
vCash: 500
Well he gave a politician's answer, so I see no reason in treating him differently.






(I naturally have a not so thinly veiled hatred for the man), so I apologize for the smidgen of bias that may come out in my posts.

Lynk is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 12:05 PM
  #168
sully1410
#VinegarStrokes
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,687
vCash: 72
There's only one way to settle this labor dispute...

DANCE OFF!

No seriously.

We as the fans need to take a stand and really put some pressure on the two sides to actually come to an agreement. They need to know that we are not doormats. We are not ****ing impressed and we will not stand for it damnit!

A wide spread fan strike won't work. Neither will merchandise. The way I see it, there's only one thing to do.

Riot. Riot our ****ing ***** off.


I should make it clear that I'm joking...

But still...not a bad idea...

Just throwing it out there.


Last edited by sully1410: 08-24-2012 at 12:10 PM.
sully1410 is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 12:37 PM
  #169
broinwhyteridge
Registered User
 
broinwhyteridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,703
vCash: 500
We need this resolved through some kind of "handbags at dawn" showdown featuring Bettman/Daly vs. Fear/Fear in a no holes barred falls count anywhere Tables/Ladders/Chairs match.

Best 2/3 I guess - have to account for incompetent / on the take refereeing (or an evil twin/double).

broinwhyteridge is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 02:14 PM
  #170
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,920
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynk View Post
Well Bettman gave us a nice Akin like comment today:



Retweeted by Wheeler and Scottie Upshall.

Rest of article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4496245/
Seems to me like the author really had an agenda with this article.

I find it a huge stretch to take "We recovered last time because we have the world's greatest fans", and try to make it seem like Bettman is referring to the fans as doormats.

If Bettman would have said "yes, I am worried about the fallout of a lockout", would the author have then spun that quote to say "Bettman has no faith in hockey fans and thinks they are the worst fans in the world"! Or maybe the author would have tried to put words into Bettman's mouth and said, "Bettman doesn't think hockey is strong enough to survive a lockout!"

This just seems like the lowest form of journalism here. I guess I shouldn't be shocked considering how far journalism has sunk.

Huffer is online now  
Old
08-24-2012, 02:28 PM
  #171
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Seems like the media has to push their own agendas... the last lockout, they made the players the bad guys and the owners the poor people. The owner's got their way last time.

Now it seems the media needs to pick a side (because heaven forbid they only report the news) and they are going with the players... or perhaps more against the owners.

You can't watch/listen to the news with regards to this either because they cut and edit things to show their story. Quite frustrating.

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 03:38 PM
  #172
Hobble
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,924
vCash: 500
Its hard at times to feel sorry for the players when you look at guys like Dipietro (sp?), Redden and Gomez, Kovalchuk etc., who get either grossly overpaid or are on huge career-ending contracts that are frontloaded to a greater degree than Kate Upton.

Hobble is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 11:02 AM
  #173
scelaton
Registered User
 
scelaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobble View Post
Its hard at times to feel sorry for the players when you look at guys like Dipietro (sp?), Redden and Gomez, Kovalchuk etc., who get either grossly overpaid or are on huge career-ending contracts that are frontloaded to a greater degree than Kate Upton.
The players in general get a bad rap because of the insane salaries of the upper echelon, but it's the lower-tier players that we should focus on. These guys put their entire lives aside to have a chance at the NHL, against huge odds. If the median length of an NHL career is 5 years, then these guys may have only 2 or 3 years to generate income. So, a lost season can represent a significant loss of lifetime income. In a shrunken league they would never get a chance to play at all.
I couldn't give a hoot about the top-end salaries and, in a rational world, neither would the players, because a 33 million dollar contract doesn't make ANYONE happier over the long term than one worth 28 million.
The PA needs to make sure that there are 30 strong teams and that we don't lose a season, because that will provide the greatest happiness to the greatest number of players. The rich owners and top end players have the least to lose in all of this.

scelaton is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 11:13 AM
  #174
Diatidialga
Registered User
 
Diatidialga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynk View Post
Well Bettman gave us a nice Akin like comment today:



Retweeted by Wheeler and Scottie Upshall.

Rest of article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4496245/
That's a little stretch on the main boards they said it sounded like.

"Canadian's don't have anything better to do, so they'll come back."

Diatidialga is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 11:51 AM
  #175
vBurmi
Blue-Line Dekes
 
vBurmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Totally lost
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,629
vCash: 3200
Quote:
Originally Posted by scelaton View Post
The players in general get a bad rap because of the insane salaries of the upper echelon, but it's the lower-tier players that we should focus on. These guys put their entire lives aside to have a chance at the NHL, against huge odds. If the median length of an NHL career is 5 years, then these guys may have only 2 or 3 years to generate income. So, a lost season can represent a significant loss of lifetime income. In a shrunken league they would never get a chance to play at all.
I couldn't give a hoot about the top-end salaries and, in a rational world, neither would the players, because a 33 million dollar contract doesn't make ANYONE happier over the long term than one worth 28 million.
The PA needs to make sure that there are 30 strong teams and that we don't lose a season, because that will provide the greatest happiness to the greatest number of players. The rich owners and top end players have the least to lose in all of this.
Agreed in general. Just like the league though, how much, if any, pull do these lower paid players have? I haven't heard one word about them bargaining for an increased minimum salary or health benefits after retirement. When they're bargaining from the standpoint of the 5M+ a year player, I'm not sure they don't deserve that bad rap.

vBurmi 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 09:47 AM.

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

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