HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

How long will the lockout last? And on and on we go!

View Poll Results: How long will the lockout last?
1-2 weeks (no games lost) 24 4.46%
1-2 months (10-12 games lost) 95 17.66%
2-3 months (25-30 games) 130 24.16%
4-6 months (half the season) 64 11.90%
Fugettabouit! 225 41.82%
Voters: 538. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-18-2012, 03:40 PM
  #76
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT21 View Post
If the league moves to 50/50 under old HRR definitions AND the NHLPA permits a secret ballot where all 700 + players vote...... they'll be back on the ice toot sweet.
If any sort of salary rollback remains in the deal it would be rejected unanimously.

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 03:46 PM
  #77
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
If any sort of salary rollback remains in the deal it would be rejected unanimously.
Isn't there a point where they'd lose less money by accepting the NHL proposal rather than lose the entire season's worth of salary ? (those not playing overseas ?)

Iggy77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 03:53 PM
  #78
Boxscore
#oldNHL
 
Boxscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 1974-94
Posts: 4,749
vCash: 500
There will NOT be an NHL season this year. Players are done with the owners games. They're sick of hearing teams like the Nashville Predators "cry poor" after they match a gigantic $110 million deal to Shea Weber. If they don't have the money, they shouldn't have matched. If they do have the money (which they appear to have) then shut up and pay it. Period.

Boxscore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 04:03 PM
  #79
PaulGG
Registered User
 
PaulGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 147
vCash: 500
Season is toast. They both say they are negotiating but it sure doesn't look that way. Players and Owners can play waiting game because they are so damn rich it is ridiculous. Players get a big escrow payday in October and owners get revenue from their arenas by doing a few more concerts and shows.

I hate this and it is going on in all of the sports. Owners versus Unions and fans are odd man out. I want my season ticket money back so I can go on vacation instead.

PaulGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 04:11 PM
  #80
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,350
vCash: 500
Answered 1-2 months.

This said, I wonder... If the matter is settled by, let's say, February...
I wonder if they just could ditch the reg season and play straight for the Stanley Cup? (Barring some arrangement for player compensation -- think of a per game income based on current salary...)

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 09:24 PM
  #81
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
Isn't there a point where they'd lose less money by accepting the NHL proposal rather than lose the entire season's worth of salary ? (those not playing overseas ?)
Isn't there a point where you stand up for yourself on principle rather than just let your employer walk all over you?

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 09:40 PM
  #82
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Isn't there a point where you stand up for yourself on principle rather than just let your employer walk all over you?
Actually there is, you quit your job. Because that's all you can do: you work for him, or fuggetaboutim

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 09:48 PM
  #83
StreetSharks
#19 Joe Trollton
 
StreetSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Frisco
Posts: 5,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Isn't there a point where you stand up for yourself on principle rather than just let your employer walk all over you?
It's called quiting.

StreetSharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 09:50 PM
  #84
shmglsky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Two years, or as long as it takes for a new northern league to pop up.

If the players want to grow the game in the desert they can take 42-50 percent of revenues in a second tier, southern, league.

shmglsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 09:59 PM
  #85
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetSharks View Post
It's called quiting.
You don't quit unless you have lost all leverage.

So long as the NHLPA remains in existence, the players still have leverage (it is debatable how much, but if they had none they would be at training camp right now).

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 04:50 AM
  #86
baldrick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
As for hockey this season, fuggedaboutit. The day Fehr was hired, it was season over. The NHLPA has delayed negotiations by 7 or 8 months. The offers/counter-offers of the past couple of weeks should've been made 5 or 6 months ago. We would've had a new CBA by now.
Exactly. The NHLPA delayed negotiations to increase the pressure around deadline day thinking the league wouldn't dare lose another season and Fehr was hired to play hardball.
That 24% reduction last time was quickly recuperated by the players over the ten years of the CBA. It's the journeyman and bottom rung players who are really getting the shaft through all this,the owners and 50% of the players will recover soon enough.
Pissing contest.

baldrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 07:54 AM
  #87
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Isn't there a point where you stand up for yourself on principle rather than just let your employer walk all over you?
Oh yes NHL players have it so bad, huge salaries, all first class travel and accommodations taken care of etc. NHL sure treats them badly

Eventually they will be holding out for less money and ending some of their fellow player's careers drinking the Fehr Kool-Aid.

No one is the hero here, both sides are just being greedy.

Iggy77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 09:17 AM
  #88
Nolanitis
Registered User
 
Nolanitis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by baldrick View Post
Exactly. The NHLPA delayed negotiations to increase the pressure around deadline day thinking the league wouldn't dare lose another season and Fehr was hired to play hardball.
That 24% reduction last time was quickly recuperated by the players over the ten years of the CBA. It's the journeyman and bottom rung players who are really getting the shaft through all this,the owners and 50% of the players will recover soon enough.
Pissing contest.
Not so simple. Think about the guys who signed a team friendly long term deal to show loyalty. They are getting paid but could have gotten more as ufa's or even rfa's holding out. Instead they will lose 20% more. Yes they are still rich, but they would have been richer.

That is my biggest concern, it just is not right the owners want money back for contracts they agreed too. Hell they aren't going to pass those savings on to us. They just pocket more. A contract is a contract.

Nolanitis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 10:36 AM
  #89
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,242
vCash: 500
In a way if the NHLPA is willing to piss away one and a half season they got the owners by the balls. Because it not a strike it a lockout if it was a strike the owners could use scabs to continue operating under dramatically lower cost. But they can't do that during a lockout. We shall see how far the PA is willing to go because I don't see them caving after losing a full season this time. This lockout will either be very short "Until middle of December" or will last more than one season.

madhi19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 10:37 AM
  #90
starling
Registered User
 
starling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 3,319
vCash: 500
The season is done.
**** you Gary Bettman and **** you Donald Fehr.

starling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 11:03 AM
  #91
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
Oh yes NHL players have it so bad, huge salaries, all first class travel and accommodations taken care of etc. NHL sure treats them badly

Eventually they will be holding out for less money and ending some of their fellow player's careers drinking the Fehr Kool-Aid.

No one is the hero here, both sides are just being greedy.
So you are suggesting NHL players should arrange their own travel and accommodations?

This kind of complaint is simple jealousy from people who didn't work hard enough to get into a profession with such a large scale of economy.

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 11:16 AM
  #92
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
So you are suggesting NHL players should arrange their own travel and accommodations?

This kind of complaint is simple jealousy from people who didn't work hard enough to get into a profession with such a large scale of economy.
No but they could get the same accomadations as other pro hockey leagues like the KHL, which is far from first class.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 11:34 AM
  #93
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
Isn't there a point where they'd lose less money by accepting the NHL proposal rather than lose the entire season's worth of salary ? (those not playing overseas ?)
The average player has a career of about 5 years (i haven't verified that but that's what I've heard). So if the deal signed is at least 5 years the average player will not be playing at the expiration of it. The average player makes about $2 million.

Using the NHL's rollback to 48% that would bring their yearly salary to 1.68 million.

Losing a whole season to stick to their guns and get no roll back would net the average player 4 years at $2m (lost a season) for $8 million.

Giving in right now would net the average player $8.4 million (1.68 for 5 years). So on average a player would be better off taking the NHL's deal now than "winning" their way at the expense of a season.

The average player should be indifferent (ignoring other issues such as pride, looking out for future generations etc) if they held out to get their demands and 1/5th of a season was played. A season would not be player if there was only time for one 5th of it in reality.

So essentially on average if the lockout ends this season and the NHLPA gets its way the players would make more money in their career. However if the season is lost entirely they will on average lose money over the course of their career even if they do get their way eventually.

Mike Modano recently did an interview and said that the last lockout cost him $7 million he never made back and that it wasn't worth it.

If you do the math, a player will have to play an additional 6 years after a lost season to recoup the lost salary (again assuming getting 57% after the lockout vs taking 48% to play this year). That's also assuming their salary would be constant for the 7 years (which in many cases the lost season could be a higher earning year).


Last edited by cheswick: 09-19-2012 at 11:45 AM.
cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 11:53 AM
  #94
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
No but they could get the same accomadations as other pro hockey leagues like the KHL, which is far from first class.
That is how it was for years, until the owners decided they wanted to spend more money on that sort of stuff.

I have never heard of the players demanding improved travel and accommodation in any collective bargaining. If you have any evidence of players demanding those sorts of things (and no, simply complaining about a flight or hotel doesn't make it a collective bargaining demand) please show me.

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 12:06 PM
  #95
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
So you are suggesting NHL players should arrange their own travel and accommodations?

This kind of complaint is simple jealousy from people who didn't work hard enough to get into a profession with such a large scale of economy.
It's quite obvious he's not saying that. What he's pointing out is a small list (a portion of a very big list) of BENEFITS that NHLPA members enjoy when "working."

Pay me $2.0 - 2.4m and I'll fly coach.

And enough with your crying "jealousy" for anyone who happens to view this differently - it's frustration that hockey is being held up by a group of very talented / highly paid / very well taken care of athletes that work a full 9 months a year (that do not see it as a problem that half of the owners are losing money).

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 12:15 PM
  #96
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
It's quite obvious he's not saying that. What he's pointing out is a small list (a portion of a very big list) of BENEFITS that NHLPA members enjoy when "working."

Pay me $2.0 - 2.4m and I'll fly coach.

And enough with your crying "jealousy" for anyone who happens to view this differently - it's frustration that hockey is being held up by a group of very talented / highly paid / very well taken care of athletes that work a full 9 months a year (that do not see it as a problem that half of the owners are losing money).
Hockey is being held up by a group of shady/not so bright business people who were presumptuous and self entitled enough to think that they weren't taking any financial risks when they bought a professional ice hockey team.

Flight and accommodations are NOT "benefits". They are the cost of doing business.

I drive a ton for work. My employer pays for the gas. That gas is not a "benefit". It is a cost of doing business that the employee is entitled to have covered.

Health coverage is a benefit. A pension is a benefit. Travel and accommodations are a cost of doing business.

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 12:39 PM
  #97
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Hockey is being held up by a group of shady/not so bright business people who were presumptuous and self entitled enough to think that they weren't taking any financial risks when they bought a professional ice hockey team.

Flight and accommodations are NOT "benefits". They are the cost of doing business.

I drive a ton for work. My employer pays for the gas. That gas is not a "benefit". It is a cost of doing business that the employee is entitled to have covered.

Health coverage is a benefit. A pension is a benefit. Travel and accommodations are a cost of doing business.
I really do not understand what you're saying here. Do you expect the owners to just offer the players more money each CBA ? Do you expect the players to do the same. Of course they're going to ask for more at the expense of the other side. They are supposed to compromise and arrive at some sort of middle ground where everyone benefits. That's the idea here.

Each side wants more for themselves ! They are exactly the same. I am just sick of the players being portrayed as some poor, downtrodden workforce who is being abused by their employers and forced to work under deplorable conditions.

And yes those are costs of doing business but those directly benefit the players so let's not act like they don't get anything out of those.

Iggy77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 12:57 PM
  #98
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
The average player has a career of about 5 years (i haven't verified that but that's what I've heard). So if the deal signed is at least 5 years the average player will not be playing at the expiration of it. The average player makes about $2 million.

Using the NHL's rollback to 48% that would bring their yearly salary to 1.68 million.

Losing a whole season to stick to their guns and get no roll back would net the average player 4 years at $2m (lost a season) for $8 million.

Giving in right now would net the average player $8.4 million (1.68 for 5 years). So on average a player would be better off taking the NHL's deal now than "winning" their way at the expense of a season.

The average player should be indifferent (ignoring other issues such as pride, looking out for future generations etc) if they held out to get their demands and 1/5th of a season was played. A season would not be player if there was only time for one 5th of it in reality.

So essentially on average if the lockout ends this season and the NHLPA gets its way the players would make more money in their career. However if the season is lost entirely they will on average lose money over the course of their career even if they do get their way eventually.

Mike Modano recently did an interview and said that the last lockout cost him $7 million he never made back and that it wasn't worth it.

If you do the math, a player will have to play an additional 6 years after a lost season to recoup the lost salary (again assuming getting 57% after the lockout vs taking 48% to play this year). That's also assuming their salary would be constant for the 7 years (which in many cases the lost season could be a higher earning year).
This is exactly why the NHLPA will and should settle before they loose paychecks. Once any paychecks are lost, it is money they can not get back. The math and odds make zero sense for the players to give up any paychecks. Fehr should attempt to negotiate a longer term deal, 10-12 years in exchange for a percentage or two today. That way, the NHL gets to clean up there own problems rather then taking it out of the players payroll every 5-7 years....

cobra427 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 01:18 PM
  #99
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
I really do not understand what you're saying here. Do you expect the owners to just offer the players more money each CBA ? Do you expect the players to do the same. Of course they're going to ask for more at the expense of the other side. They are supposed to compromise and arrive at some sort of middle ground where everyone benefits. That's the idea here.

Each side wants more for themselves ! They are exactly the same. I am just sick of the players being portrayed as some poor, downtrodden workforce who is being abused by their employers and forced to work under deplorable conditions.

And yes those are costs of doing business but those directly benefit the players so let's not act like they don't get anything out of those.
I dont expect the owners to offer the players one penny more. I don't expect the owners to offer them anything really (which includes a reasonable offer).

The players are not asking for "more money" though, so I don't know why you mention that. In fact it is the owners who are asking for "more money". The players are simply asking for their contracts to be honoured as they were originally agreed to.

Nobody is portraying the players as poor, or downtrodden, or working under anything but great conditions. Asserting that people are doing that is simply a straw man argument. I have supported the players 100% and I have never once tried to portray them as a group in need of sympathy because they are not.

What they are is a group of professionals who have every right to defend their right to have their contract honoured in full. They are a group that has every right to defend their negotiating and contractual rights.

Its very easy to simply call them lazy and argue that they're making millions playing a kid's game. But that is a kid's perspective of the issue. They are highly skilled professionals who create billions of dollars in revenue with their unique talents.

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 01:20 PM
  #100
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
This is exactly why the NHLPA will and should settle before they loose paychecks. Once any paychecks are lost, it is money they can not get back. The math and odds make zero sense for the players to give up any paychecks. Fehr should attempt to negotiate a longer term deal, 10-12 years in exchange for a percentage or two today. That way, the NHL gets to clean up there own problems rather then taking it out of the players payroll every 5-7 years....
If the NHL learns that short term CBAs will get them a significant roll back of salaries every 5-7 years, why would they ever sign a long term deal? If the league gets what they are asking for, then they will have a very obvious incentive to sign short term deals and lockout the players every time they expire.

Pilky01 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 01:53 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.