HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Devellano CBA Comments

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-24-2012, 03:29 PM
  #1
balaclava brian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 59
vCash: 500
Devellano CBA Comments

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405840


Not that I was ever on the side of the players but, the more that comes out, the more I am aligning with the owners.

balaclava brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 03:48 PM
  #2
El Diego
Registered User
 
El Diego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 486
vCash: 500
Quote:
"It's very complicated and way too much for the average Joe to understand, but having said that, I will tell you this," said Devellano. "The owners can basically be viewed as the Ranch, and the players, and me included, are the cattle. The owners own the Ranch and allow the players to eat there. That's the way its always been and that the way it will be forever. And the owners simply aren't going to let a union push them around. It's not going to happen."
1) In a ranch the owner owns the ranch and the cattle. The NHL owners do not own the players. Bad analogy from the start.

2) The reason people watch the NHL (buy beef from that ranch) is because it contains the best players (the best cattle). You gotta pay top dollar for that cattle but it will bring in top dollar. Fans can watch other leagues or buy other beef, but they don't want to. They're willing to pay more for the best.

3) If these owners wanted to pay players less, and just use other, cheaper cattle, why not own a team in Europe?

I'm sick of the argument by analogy where pro-owner people compare the NHL to other companies. Guess what, it is completely different from McDonald's, a ranch, or Walmart. Compare it to businesses that are actually similar to it such as the MLB, NFL, and NBA. What you'll find is yeah, maybe their splits are closer to 50/50 than 57/43, but there are also many other differences such as robust revenue sharing and soft caps.

El Diego is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 05:32 PM
  #3
TheOriginalSilf*
@real_saundies
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sudbury, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,327
vCash: 500
I completely agree with Devellano. The players are lucky they're getting over 1% of the league's revenue sharings. Employees are employees and these employees are being paid well above the North American average.

Another instance of a guy telling it like it is and being punished (severely) for it.

TheOriginalSilf* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 05:43 PM
  #4
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,657
vCash: 500
they're not just employees, they are also the product.

the NHLPA has a monopoly on NHL hockey players.
the NHL is the only consumer for NHL hockey players.

this isnt a normal labour discussion, it's more of a supply-chain contract issue.

danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 05:57 PM
  #5
Blarginator
Registered User
 
Blarginator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilfverBullet View Post
I completely agree with Devellano. The players are lucky they're getting over 1% of the league's revenue sharings. Employees are employees and these employees are being paid well above the North American average.

Another instance of a guy telling it like it is and being punished (severely) for it.
I disagree. Without the players, there is no NHL. It's not like a company where you can replace a worker with another one who will do the same job. It's not Sidney Crosby who is lucky to be playing with the pens, it's the pens who are lucky to have him. Same for Malkin, Ovechkin, etc. Players = tickets sold, merchandise sold, tv contracts etc. It costs the owners alot of money each year I get that but the profit they make that year are largely due to the players ability to put on a good show that us fans are ready to pay top dollar to go watch.

Now, I'm not saying they are 100% right. They are greedy too. To me, there is no "good side" to this debate. It's still rich people fighting with rich people for more money while the ones who have less money suffers from it. I hate this ****ing lockout

Blarginator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 06:57 PM
  #6
mcnorth
Registered User
 
mcnorth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,797
vCash: 500
I'm very pro-union, but even then I always kinda snicker at the argument that fans watch the NHL because of the players. Dude, I've been watching hockey games for 40 yrs. If Sidney Crosby's dad danced all night with Sidney Crosby's mom, instead of knocking her up and creating the latest and greatest, I'd still be watching hockey. These guys are interchangeable, replaceable, and part of the landscape rather than a focus item. I watch the game, I'm a fan of the game. I hope the players get a fair deal, but don't argue that the players are the reason people watch the game.

mcnorth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 07:00 PM
  #7
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnorth View Post
I'm very pro-union, but even then I always kinda snicker at the argument that fans watch the NHL because of the players. Dude, I've been watching hockey games for 40 yrs. If Sidney Crosby's dad danced all night with Sidney Crosby's mom, instead of knocking her up and creating the latest and greatest, I'd still be watching hockey. These guys are interchangeable, replaceable, and part of the landscape rather than a focus item. I watch the game, I'm a fan of the game. I hope the players get a fair deal, but don't argue that the players are the reason people watch the game.
Correct, the NHL wouldn't fold if it lost the rights to the best players.

That said, it wouldn't be a $2B+ business without those best players, either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilfverBullet View Post
I completely agree with Devellano. The players are lucky they're getting over 1% of the league's revenue sharings. Employees are employees and these employees are being paid well above the North American average.

Another instance of a guy telling it like it is and being punished (severely) for it.
The players earn more than your average North American citizen... and so do the owners. Terrible argument to make, unless the sarcasm is going right over my head.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 08:23 PM
  #8
DJB
Sens best prospect
 
DJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,791
vCash: 500
I'll never side with the owners, sorry. They are acting quite greedy and are unwilling to be even remotely fair. The players gave up a ton in the last CBA to help out the owners, so now they want an even bigger piece of the pie? And why is it that the players are interested in a revenue sharing to help out the weaker owners so that they can keep their franchise and steal from the rich (ala Robin Hood), but the owners don't have anything like that? I'd be pretty pissed owner if I was one of the very weak.

Screw the owners.

DJB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 08:31 PM
  #9
The Fuhr*
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hamilton,Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,765
vCash: 500
The players should be extremity thankful to share a pie where they would get 45% of a 3+ billion dollar industry.

Without the owners there is no NHL.

The Fuhr* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 08:54 PM
  #10
Marvelous Manked
Ooh to be a Gooner
 
Marvelous Manked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sudbury/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Below View Post
The players should be extremity thankful to share a pie where they would get 45% of a 3+ billion dollar industry.

Without the owners there is no NHL.
This argument goes both ways.

The NHL can't sell it's service/product without the players. The players are the face of the company. That's much different than your typical company. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the comparisons to the "regular world". As someone studying to be a businessman in the sports industry, the first think they teach you is how different it is than the regular business world.

Marvelous Manked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 09:02 PM
  #11
balaclava brian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 59
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJB View Post
I'll never side with the owners, sorry. They are acting quite greedy and are unwilling to be even remotely fair. The players gave up a ton in the last CBA to help out the owners, so now they want an even bigger piece of the pie? And why is it that the players are interested in a revenue sharing to help out the weaker owners so that they can keep their franchise and steal from the rich (ala Robin Hood), but the owners don't have anything like that? I'd be pretty pissed owner if I was one of the very weak.

Screw the owners.
Except that the system the players are suggesting is one that is essentially a soft cap. Teams under the cap (aka small market teams) can sell/trade/whatever their unused capspace to another team (aka big market teams) and that team can use that capspace to sign more higher end players and and/or increase the contract size for higher end players.

Either way, the small market team loses because they cannot afford to keep/sign the players who will play for the large market teams. In either system, the small market team is always at a disadvantage. Just that in this proposal the small market team is at a potentially greater disadvantage.

The NHLPA are suggesting this is a way to help small market teams, which in the short term it may very well do. But by giving up their unused capspace they can no longer compete against the large market teams.

"Understand, though, that these players want for nothing ... it's first class this, first class that, meal allowances, travel money on the road, the whole shebang."

Devellano, because of his position, obviously also knows what is going on behind the scenes that the average onlooker doesn't see. The way I see it, the owners pay all the bills, take all the risk, and have to cough up for these increasing players perks. Now that the league is doing much better financially they are bad guys for wanting a more equable share of the profits.

balaclava brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 09:36 PM
  #12
Yokai
Registered User
 
Yokai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,777
vCash: 966
This entire CBA process has made me decide I hate how often the word "pie" is used.

Yokai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 09:38 PM
  #13
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,743
vCash: 500
By the way, does anyone else think it's kind of funny that Devellano's analogy essentially compares players to animals? Figured we'd be above that kind of thinking by now... considering that's the same kind of logic used by slavers back in the 1700s.

CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 09:53 PM
  #14
Legend Killer
Registered User
 
Legend Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
By the way, does anyone else think it's kind of funny that Devellano's analogy essentially compares players to animals? Figured we'd be above that kind of thinking by now... considering that's the same kind of logic used by slavers back in the 1700s.
I dont find it funny... And I agree with him.

What would you have compared the players to??

Legend Killer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 09:57 PM
  #15
saskriders
ColinGreening's#1fan
 
saskriders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,807
vCash: 500
Both sides are very greedy, but I think the players are being more reasonable, and don't want as drastic a change (though I can't stand Fehr). However the thing that the owners want that I really don't like is a cut on already signed contracts. It is classless and unfair to not give a player what you promised them (regardless of how ridiculous the number is or what the small print says). If you want a lower cap then just make the contracts signed before the CBA have a smaller cap hit, but every cent of those signed contracts should be payed out

saskriders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:01 PM
  #16
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend Killer View Post
I dont find it funny... And I agree with him.

What would you have compared the players to??
Employees? People?

My point is - I just don't understand the logic to that argument. There's an underlying assumption that the owners 'deserve' their billions, but the players are 'lucky' that the owners are so giving. It's a complete double standard.

CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:01 PM
  #17
PatrickEaves
Karan S'Jet
 
PatrickEaves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend Killer View Post
I dont find it funny... And I agree with him.

What would you have compared the players to??
Owners are video game publishers. (ie. EA, Activision Blizzard)
Players are video game developers. (ie. Obsidian, inXile)

If only there was a sports equivalent to kickstarter (crowd funding), the players could get out from under the yoke of the owner's tyranny and entertain the public all by themselves!

(I'm only kinda joking)

__________________
No, I'm not a girl. Stop asking!
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBlQ4ybRWH8
PatrickEaves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:07 PM
  #18
Legend Killer
Registered User
 
Legend Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
Employees? People?

My point is - I just don't understand the logic to that argument. There's an underlying assumption that the owners 'deserve' their billions, but the players are 'lucky' that the owners are so giving. It's a complete double standard.
Fair point. Although im not offended by him using the Rancher/Cattle example. Nor did I think of slavery when I heard it.

Also, not all owners are billionaires

Legend Killer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:12 PM
  #19
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend Killer View Post
Fair point. Although im not offended by him using the Rancher/Cattle example. Nor did I think of slavery when I heard it.

Also, not all owners are billionaires
I'd agree that Devellano wasn't trying to allude to slavery, and I'd also agree that not all owners are billionaires. Even so, your average NHL owner has a net worth several times larger than your average NHL player.

CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:16 PM
  #20
Legend Killer
Registered User
 
Legend Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
I'd agree that Devellano wasn't trying to allude to slavery, and I'd also agree that not all owners are billionaires. Even so, your average NHL owner has a net worth several times larger than your average NHL player.
Well yeah, nobody is arguing that. Although Id say most/if not all owners made their money in other business ventures...

How many NHL players lost money last year?? 0 out of Roughly 700

How many owners lost money last year?? Apparently 13 out of 30

Does that system work?

Legend Killer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:22 PM
  #21
saskriders
ColinGreening's#1fan
 
saskriders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend Killer View Post
Well yeah, nobody is arguing that. Although Id say most/if not all owners made their money in other business ventures...

How many NHL players lost money last year?? 0 out of Roughly 700

How many owners lost money last year?? Apparently 13 out of 30

Does that system work?
The owners should know the risks of owning a team, the players did their job and deserve to get what they were promised. The owners were the ones who promised 50 million dollar contracts and who put teams in markets that don't make money. The owners that are struggling are digging their own grave.

saskriders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:32 PM
  #22
Legend Killer
Registered User
 
Legend Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskriders View Post
The owners should know the risks of owning a team, the players did their job and deserve to get what they were promised. The owners were the ones who promised 50 million dollar contracts and who put teams in markets that don't make money. The owners that are struggling are digging their own grave.
So now the players want the rich owners to share money with the poor owners?? Did the owners of the successful teams sign up for that? Do they not deserve the money they make?

Why dont the rich players give money to the poor ones?

Im stuck in the middle of these CBA talks but I know there is no perfect system. Im leaning pro-owner because I dont think they will bend for the players demands. Snd I just want this to end

Legend Killer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:42 PM
  #23
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend Killer View Post
Well yeah, nobody is arguing that. Although Id say most/if not all owners made their money in other business ventures...

How many NHL players lost money last year?? 0 out of Roughly 700

How many owners lost money last year?? Apparently 13 out of 30

Does that system work?
I don't mean to suggest the system is perfect as is, nor am I saying the players are blameless. I think the bulk of the NHL's revenue sharing should come from the richest parties (that is to say, the most profitable clubs in the league), but that the players should accept a revenue share closer to 50%.

My biggest criticism is with those arguing the big owners have 'earned' their money and shouldn't have to give it up to support smaller teams, so instead the players should give up their money. I think Devellano is arguing along these lines.

CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:57 PM
  #24
Inkling
Proud to be a Mammal
 
Inkling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
The only industry you can compare the NHL to is Hollywood, and other parts of the entertainment industry. The top players are the product in the same way that the A-list actors are. No one is going to say that the studios are the ranchers and Scarlett Johansson or Brad Pitt or Christian Bale are the cattle. They get paid partly based upon box office receipts, like hockey players (as a group) get a percentage of revenue. There are obvious differences (no salary cap, A-list actors get different salary structure compared to bit players) but it was a pretty stupid statement for someone who is claiming that it is too hard for the average Joe to understand.

Inkling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2012, 12:45 AM
  #25
Blarginator
Registered User
 
Blarginator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnorth View Post
I'm very pro-union, but even then I always kinda snicker at the argument that fans watch the NHL because of the players. Dude, I've been watching hockey games for 40 yrs. If Sidney Crosby's dad danced all night with Sidney Crosby's mom, instead of knocking her up and creating the latest and greatest, I'd still be watching hockey. These guys are interchangeable, replaceable, and part of the landscape rather than a focus item. I watch the game, I'm a fan of the game. I hope the players get a fair deal, but don't argue that the players are the reason people watch the game.
I'm not saying they can't be replaced but the people that can replace them share a talent that is playing hockey at the highest level in the world. So you can only replace a good NHL player by another good NHL player. There isn't a ton of people to replace them with.

Also, sure you would still watch hockey if there wasn't Crosby but some people wouldn't if there wasn't these kind of players. And let's be honest, if the NHL was full of guys that couldn't skate, can't shoot or pass correctly, you would lose your interest in the NHL. You would then either stop watching hockey or you would find another league who gives a better show and watch it instead. In this case the entertainment value comes from level of skill of the athletes. That's my point, you want to watch a good show and these athletes give you a good show. They are talented people who dedicated their lives to mastering the sport and you get to watch them play against each others for your pleasure. The money the owners make are directly affected by the on ice product. But I'm not saying they should get all the money but they sure deserve close to half of the money the league makes because they are good at playing hockey.

Blarginator 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 08:58 AM.

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.