HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

When will this lockout end? (all lockout talk here)

View Poll Results: When will the lockout end?
Sometime between Oct-nov 49 18.08%
Sometime between Dec-jan 90 33.21%
Season canceled 132 48.71%
Voters: 271. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 01:41 PM
  #301
doulos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,467
vCash: 500
Chalk one up for the League PR machine. It's worked on most of you.

doulos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:58 PM
  #302
s7ark
Registered User
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
They can't though, if they do I'm sure the PA would be suing for tens of millions if not hundreds of millions.
Perhaps you are correct and those sheets are full financials. I really don't have any way of knowing. If so I retract that statement.

I still do find it odd that the NHL was screaming to anyone that would listen about that 3.3B in July, but come September, they are on the brink of collapse unless the PA bends to their every wish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doulos View Post
Chalk one up for the League PR machine. It's worked on most of you.
The players' reaction to this offer is what is souring my judgment on the PA. Not any league propaganda.

s7ark is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:58 PM
  #303
jadeddog
Registered User
 
jadeddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 11,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doulos View Post
Chalk one up for the League PR machine. It's worked on most of you.
no, most rational people see that the deal will end up at about 50/50, so seeing the players saying that they refuse to give up *anything* has turned most of us against the players

jadeddog is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:07 PM
  #304
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: St Albert
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,439
vCash: 500
Lupul and Couture's tweets this morning just make me shake my head.

Lupul complaining about the NHL making its offer public is asinine. Couture complaining that the league wasn't making offers in July is even better.

Groucho is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:15 PM
  #305
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
Apart from the league, who knows what they decided to put in and leave out of those pages? The owners have a history of crying poor come CBA negotiation time, and rich every summer when looking for TV deals and new sponsors. Which is true?
They cry poor because they are the ones invested with all the risk. The players just have their 57% given to them and its up to them what to do with it. They don't have to give 57% of their money to anyone.

Reimer is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:24 PM
  #306
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
I get that revenue and profit are different. But when revenue almost doubles over a 7 year span, how could the profits drop given that the players chunk was a fixed %? What other secret expenses snuck up on the owners to negate all that revenue gain? Is all the profit going to a couple of teams while everyone else struggles? If so then revenue sharing is a better solution than clawing back money from the players from agreements the teams made.
The profits that I'm alluding to are specifically for the poor teams. The teams who have 57% taken from them and sell **** all for tickets and merchandise.

Quote:
Revenues grew from around 1.8B to 3.3B over the last CBA. So the revenue split started at 1.026B for the players and 0.774B for the owners. Last season it was, 1.881B for the players and 1.419B for the owners. So if the owners take has nearly double over the CBA, how are they now crying poor? Were they losing money hand over fist at the start and just a little bit now? Have other expenses skyrocketed in some way that is the players fault?
Well some expenses might have gone up due to players such as keeping the prima-donnas(pretty much every NHLer) happy and paying for an extra hotel room at a 5-star hotel over 45ish road games.

Again you're right both the players and owners(most of them) are getting richer. However at the end of the day it's the owners who put their necks out there and take on the risk of owning a sports franchise which unless you own a Toronto Maple Leafs or New York Yankees or LA Lakers is a poor investment. More or less the owners are crying poor because a handful of them actually are.

Quote:
If they really are losing money as bad as they say, they could prove it by opening up their books. And that option never seems to be on the table. Also, if revenue is as meaningless as you suggest, why does the NHL crow about those numbers every summer?
They crow about them as an attention grab. Big numbers well...look big to people.

Quote:
All that being said, as the rest of my post stated, **** both these groups if they can't get this deal to work.
Again I feel your sentiment and my post wasn't an attack on you in particular just the idea which I've seen thrown around by several people who support the players due to the "large league revenues". Just saw it in your post and replied as such.

Reimer is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:27 PM
  #307
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
Lupul and Couture's tweets this morning just make me shake my head.

Lupul complaining about the NHL making its offer public is asinine. Couture complaining that the league wasn't making offers in July is even better.
Yeah I know it's a joke. D-bags like Commodore want to twist things and say HRR has changed and eventhough they are saying it's 50/50 it isn't because they have changed the way HRR is calculated. Well f-you Commodore take a look at the proposal d-bag. Both these sides want to negotiated through the media so the league got the upper hand by making the proposal sooner.

PA could have avoided all this if they came up with a proposal before the NHL, afterall they are the ones that want to come to an agreement more than anything.

I also find it laughable that they want a solution for the poor teams. tHe league gives them that and now they show their true colors by stating they don't want to give up a penny.

Reimer is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:52 PM
  #308
czar99
Registered User
 
czar99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Shultz'z Place
Posts: 3,896
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Really torn on what moving UFA to one year older does.

On the bigger UFA's who cause much of the problems, the older the player is the worse the contract becomes. Granted contracts are probably looking at being a max of 5-7 years in the new CBA, how often in the past has a deal looked brutal in year 1 or 2 of a UFA signing?

I just see future UFA signings being cap problems earlier and what is going to be the fix then?

I guess for us it's a good thing as it will give us an extra year of our young kids.
How about no contract over 5yrs once you become a UFA. So that player becomes a UFA at 28 and can only sign till he's 33. Then take it 1 yr decrease every contract after. So four year max for the next one. So 37 then two year increments after that. Also if you want to sign a player long term on his second contract it can't go past his 28th.

czar99 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:52 PM
  #309
nabob
Hall for captain
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
no, most rational people see that the deal will end up at about 50/50, so seeing the players saying that they refuse to give up *anything* has turned most of us against the players
Yep them saying that and at the same time saying "The overall agreement has to be fair and equitable for both parties. Bargaining is both give and take." makes them really easy to hate.

Fehr really needs to put a leash on these morons as their grade 11 educations are starting to shine through.

nabob is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:56 PM
  #310
CanadianHockey
On the Alfie Wagon
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uOttawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,309
vCash: 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
no, most rational people see that the deal will end up at about 50/50, so seeing the players saying that they refuse to give up *anything* has turned most of us against the players
The league hasn't offered the players any compensation, though.

The only thing the league has offered that the players wanted is increased revenue sharing and 1 fewer ELC years.

In exchange the league wants 12% of player salaries, UFA to be pushed back a year, and no more front-loading.

Does that seem like a fair deal from the player's perspective? The Players are being asked to give up a lot more than the owners.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:02 PM
  #311
nabob
Hall for captain
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
The league hasn't offered the players any compensation, though.

The only thing the league has offered that the players wanted is increased revenue sharing and 1 fewer ELC years.

In exchange the league wants 12% of player salaries, UFA to be pushed back a year, and no more front-loading.

Does that seem like a fair deal from the player's perspective? The Players are being asked to give up a lot more than the owners.
Thats probably because there are more than a afew owners who cannot sustain the current CBA. The same cannot be said for the players, all they have said is they have m"lost" the last CBA so we should be getting more now.

How did they "lose" the last CBA exactly.
- The owners got a cap system, that saw players salaries rise from a little over $1B to almost $2B.
- The players got everything else

The cost of doing everything in owning a big business has gone up dramatically in the last 4-5 years.

nabob is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:05 PM
  #312
nabob
Hall for captain
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,976
vCash: 500
Maybe the NHL should contract the 4 or 5 biggest struggling teams and put 100+ NHL players out of work. Thats a solution to fixing the teams that are losing money.

nabob is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:10 PM
  #313
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23,990
vCash: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
Perhaps you are correct and those sheets are full financials. I really don't have any way of knowing. If so I retract that statement.

I still do find it odd that the NHL was screaming to anyone that would listen about that 3.3B in July, but come September, they are on the brink of collapse unless the PA bends to their every wish.



The players' reaction to this offer is what is souring my judgment on the PA. Not any league propaganda.
Simple, back in July they were trying to make it sound like the league was doing great to get increased advertisement and endorsement. Come September to save face with the fans they had to talk about how the owners can't feed their children.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:10 PM
  #314
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,566
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
The league hasn't offered the players any compensation, though.

The only thing the league has offered that the players wanted is increased revenue sharing and 1 fewer ELC years.

In exchange the league wants 12% of player salaries, UFA to be pushed back a year, and no more front-loading.

Does that seem like a fair deal from the player's perspective? The Players are being asked to give up a lot more than the owners.
The presumption here is that a 57% share of the revenue is the players' to give up. It really isn't. The revenues belong to the owners, they can spend them as they see fit.

The sooner the players realize this, the better for everyone.

worraps is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:11 PM
  #315
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23,990
vCash: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimer View Post
They cry poor because they are the ones invested with all the risk. The players just have their 57% given to them and its up to them what to do with it. They don't have to give 57% of their money to anyone.
Correct they just have to give 90% to their wives

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:26 PM
  #316
CanadianHockey
On the Alfie Wagon
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uOttawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,309
vCash: 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabob View Post
Thats probably because there are more than a afew owners who cannot sustain the current CBA. The same cannot be said for the players, all they have said is they have m"lost" the last CBA so we should be getting more now.

How did they "lose" the last CBA exactly.
- The owners got a cap system, that saw players salaries rise from a little over $1B to almost $2B.
- The players got everything else

The cost of doing everything in owning a big business has gone up dramatically in the last 4-5 years.
You are misrepresenting the last round of CBA negotiations, in my opinion.

The players lost out badly on the salary front. They went from 75% of league revenues to 54% (and gradually back up to 57%). Assuming your $1B and $2B figures are accurate, had the players been making 75%, the players lost out on $500M.

Note that over the same time, league revenues have increased proportional to player salaries. So no, the players aren't 'making more than they ever have' relative to the league's revenues. The league would be a helluva lot worse off had the PA not accepted a drastic rollback (eg instead of 1/3 of the league in the red, it'd be 1/2 to 2/3).

Pretty much everyone said the owners won the last lockout when it ended. In hindsight, the salary cap structure ended up increasing the inequalities of the league, which makes some revisionists say the owners lost the last round, badly.

The real problem with this league isn't that the players make too much. It's that the three top teams increased their revenues so drastically that the league's HRR grew faster than the majority of franchises in the league.

In the mind of the players, that's an ownership created problem. Why? Because the owners have the capacity to fix it for themselves by simply increasing the revenue sharing by taxing the top earning teams.

Instead they blame the players, tell the players they need to give up even more.

Another thing I'd mention is that, while owners do have most of the risk, these franchises are typically not their primary sources of income, and most owners see these teams as toys rather than profit-ventures (eg most owners are happy to break even). The players salary, on the other hand, is his primary source of income. He's going to make a lot less from his NHL salary than the owners will make off their ventures.


Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
The presumption here is that a 57% share of the revenue is the players' to give up. It really isn't. The revenues belong to the owners, they can spend them as they see fit.

The sooner the players realize this, the better for everyone.
This is a horrible way of looking at revenues. The only thing saving the NHL from anti-trust litigation is the PA. If the NHL starts dictating 'it's our money to do with it as we please,' they're essentially saying the negotiations don't matter, consent of the players doesn't matter, and therefore the salary cap is merely collusion between franchises rather than an negotiated agreement between a union and the owners.


Last edited by CanadianHockey: 10-17-2012 at 03:34 PM.
CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:39 PM
  #317
doulos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,467
vCash: 500
The league basically took the old pig and dressed it up in a tutu and nice shirt and sent it back, hoping that the pretty clothes will fool everyone into thinking that it's no longer a pig.

If HRR is defined differently (and that's one of the sticking points here, the future definition of HRR) then 50/50 can in essence be worth way less than it is being spun as. So it actually is very important to realize that to say it's a 50/50 deal now is not 100% of the truth if they are only offering 50% of a much smaller percentage of dollars.

I think unions are crap and if it were my call I'd say disband the stupid thing, fire a bunch of players and contract the league. But that will never happen and since the union is doing its best to try and get a fair deal then they need good answers to questions like how HRR will be determined and such.

doulos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:49 PM
  #318
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,566
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
You are misrepresenting the last round of CBA negotiations, in my opinion.

The players lost out badly on the salary front. They went from 75% of league revenues to 54% (and gradually back up to 57%). Assuming your $1B and $2B figures are accurate, had the players been making 75%, the players lost out on $500M.

Note that over the same time, league revenues have increased proportional to player salaries. So no, the players aren't 'making more than they ever have' relative to the league's revenues. The league would be a helluva lot worse off had the PA not accepted a drastic rollback (eg instead of 1/3 of the league in the red, it'd be 1/2 to 2/3).

Pretty much everyone said the owners won the last lockout when it ended. In hindsight, the salary cap structure ended up increasing the inequalities of the league, which makes some revisionists say the owners lost the last round, badly.

The real problem with this league isn't that the players make too much. It's that the three top teams increased their revenues so drastically that the league's HRR grew faster than the majority of franchises in the league.

In the mind of the players, that's an ownership created problem. Why? Because the owners have the capacity to fix it for themselves by simply increasing the revenue sharing by taxing the top earning teams.

Instead they blame the players, tell the players they need to give up even more.

Another thing I'd mention is that, while owners do have most of the risk, these franchises are typically not their primary sources of income, and most owners see these teams as toys rather than profit-ventures (eg most owners are happy to break even). The players salary, on the other hand, is his primary source of income. He's going to make a lot less from his NHL salary than the owners will make off their ventures.




This is a horrible way of looking at revenues. The only thing saving the NHL from anti-trust litigation is the PA. If the NHL starts dictating 'it's our money to do with it as we please,' they're essentially saying the negotiations don't matter, consent of the players doesn't matter, and therefore the salary cap is merely collusion between franchises rather than an negotiated agreement between a union and the owners.
The salary cap is effectively legalized collusion and aside from reorganizing the NHL into a single corporation, it is the owners only recourse to prevent their employment expenses from reaching destructive levels.

The NHL's revenues do belong to the NHL's owners and every other professional athlete in North America has demonstrated they are willing to play for less than or equal to 50% of their league's revenues. Given those two facts, if the players and Fehr think they will be able to keep more than 50% of the revenues, they are wildly deluded.

worraps is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:52 PM
  #319
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23,990
vCash: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
The salary cap is effectively legalized collusion and aside from reorganizing the NHL into a single corporation, it is the owners only recourse to prevent their employment expenses from reaching destructive levels.

The NHL's revenues do belong to the NHL's owners and every other professional athlete in North America has demonstrated they are willing to play for less than or equal to 50% of their league's revenues. Given those two facts, if the players and Fehr think they will be able to keep more than 50% of the revenues, they are wildly deluded.
I don't think that they actually think that. What's deluded is people's opinions on how negotiations work and they can't see why the players just wouldn't sign any CBA that the owners offer.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:53 PM
  #320
OilDrop37
Registered User
 
OilDrop37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up North
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,858
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
The league hasn't offered the players any compensation, though.
You mean other than 1.7 Billion dollars...to play a game they all love to play. Yeah, there being completely screwed on this.

OilDrop37 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:54 PM
  #321
doulos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
The salary cap is effectively legalized collusion and aside from reorganizing the NHL into a single corporation, it is the owners only recourse to prevent their employment expenses from reaching destructive levels.

The NHL's revenues do belong to the NHL's owners and every other professional athlete in North America has demonstrated they are willing to play for less than or equal to 50% of their league's revenues. Given those two facts, if the players and Fehr think they will be able to keep more than 50% of the revenues, they are wildly deluded.
Are all of the professional league's defining League Revenue the same way?

If League 1,2,and 3 all offer 50/50

League 1 says Revenue includes parking

League 2 says Revenue does not include parking

League 3 says Revenue does not include parking, concessions, or merchandise sales

then the 50/50 is nowhere NEAR the same thing.

That's the main issue as far as I can tell.

doulos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:57 PM
  #322
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
The league hasn't offered the players any compensation, though.

The only thing the league has offered that the players wanted is increased revenue sharing and 1 fewer ELC years.

In exchange the league wants 12% of player salaries, UFA to be pushed back a year, and no more front-loading.

Does that seem like a fair deal from the player's perspective? The Players are being asked to give up a lot more than the owners.
Thats because they've already taken alot more.

AM is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:57 PM
  #323
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,828
vCash: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by doulos View Post
Are all of the professional league's defining League Revenue the same way?

If League 1,2,and 3 all offer 50/50

League 1 says Revenue includes parking

League 2 says Revenue does not include parking

League 3 says Revenue does not include parking, concessions, or merchandise sales

then the 50/50 is nowhere NEAR the same thing.

That's the main issue as far as I can tell.
There isnt a large discrepancy over defining HRR. The league has agreed to use the previous definition, so you are spending a lot of time arguing a moot point.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:00 PM
  #324
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23,990
vCash: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
There isnt a large discrepancy over defining HRR. The league has agreed to use the previous definition, so you are spending a lot of time arguing a moot point.
It's not moot when everyone brings up that other leagues don't have players taking more than 50% of the revenue.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:06 PM
  #325
nabob
Hall for captain
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
Another thing I'd mention is that, while owners do have most of the risk, these franchises are typically not their primary sources of income, and most owners see these teams as toys rather than profit-ventures (eg most owners are happy to break even). The players salary, on the other hand, is his primary source of income. He's going to make a lot less from his NHL salary than the owners will make off their ventures.
I have a huge beef with this train of thought.

That is why it is uausally only very successfull business men who own hockey teams. If the NHL folds the owners will still have other profitable businesses. The players on the other hand will be pumping gas and working at McD's for the most part if there was no pro hockey.

You say most owners are happy breaking even, why is it so unreasonable for players to be happy with an average salary of what ever 50% of revenue is for playing a game for half the year?

nabob is online now  
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 10:32 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.