HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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, 04:07 PM
  #326
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,127
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabob View Post
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?
I doubt the players wouldn't be happy. Just because they might come out tomorrow and ask for 53% doesn't mean that they are going to hate it if they end up with 50%. They are humans and will take as much as they can get.

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:08 PM
  #327
doulos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
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.
"We agree to retain the CBA’s current HRR definitions. Further, we propose to formalize the various agreements the NHLPA and the NHL have reached, and lived under, during the course of the expired CBA, and to clarify mutually identified ambiguities in the CBA. "

That's from the document and it essentially leaves wide open some areas of ambiguity. Until those areas are cemented this isn't a moot point at all. I can 100% see why the Union would be wary of this.

Combine this with the sneaky "Make Whole" clause and while it's absolutely a great first step by the league, I can't see any way that the Union would accept this deal as is.

doulos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:17 PM
  #328
nabob
Nuuuuuuuuuuge!!
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
I doubt the players wouldn't be happy. Just because they might come out tomorrow and ask for 53% doesn't mean that they are going to hate it if they end up with 50%. They are humans and will take as much as they can get.
The PA has repeatedly refused any kind of salary reduction.

nabob is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:19 PM
  #329
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,980
vCash: 500
I don't know if they'll make that Nov. 2 date, but I think they'll probably be playing regular season games a month from now.

Soundwave is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:27 PM
  #330
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,127
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabob View Post
The PA has repeatedly refused any kind of salary reduction.
Repeatedly?

Wasn't it only once and it wasn't a small chunk at that.

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:27 PM
  #331
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doulos View Post
"We agree to retain the CBAs current HRR definitions. Further, we propose to formalize the various agreements the NHLPA and the NHL have reached, and lived under, during the course of the expired CBA, and to clarify mutually identified ambiguities in the CBA. "

That's from the document and it essentially leaves wide open some areas of ambiguity. Until those areas are cemented this isn't a moot point at all. I can 100% see why the Union would be wary of this.

Combine this with the sneaky "Make Whole" clause and while it's absolutely a great first step by the league, I can't see any way that the Union would accept this deal as is.
The NHL estimates the new cap to be $59.9M assuming flat growth for next year. This last part simply means that there is no 5% inflator built into the calcualtion. If you start with the current cap at 70.2M and remove the 5% inflator you get a midpoint at $59.9M. Then reduce this to 50% of revenue rather than 57% and you get a new midpoint at $52.2M meaning a new cap at $60.2M under the old HHR rules vs he proposed $59.9.

Fourier is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:34 PM
  #332
doulos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
This last part simply means that there is no 5% inflator built into the calcualtion. .
Interesting, if true. How do you know that is what the ambiguity is referring to? Genuinely curious!

doulos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:37 PM
  #333
I am the Liquor
Nelson got screwed
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,479
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by doulos View Post
"We agree to retain the CBAs current HRR definitions. Further, we propose to formalize the various agreements the NHLPA and the NHL have reached, and lived under, during the course of the expired CBA, and to clarify mutually identified ambiguities in the CBA. "

That's from the document and it essentially leaves wide open some areas of ambiguity. Until those areas are cemented this isn't a moot point at all. I can 100% see why the Union would be wary of this.

Combine this with the sneaky "Make Whole" clause and while it's absolutely a great first step by the league, I can't see any way that the Union would accept this deal as is.
Mutually identified areas of ambiguity in the CBA.

Where in the above does it say anything about not agreeing on a definition of HRR?

What it does seem to say is that there are areas of the last CBA that BOTH sides have deemed to be unclear.

Nothing about HRR.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:43 PM
  #334
Njoy Oilers
Registered User
 
Njoy Oilers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Southern Alberta.
Posts: 3,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabob View Post
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?
There would be some wicked comercial leagues then, eh.

Njoy Oilers is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:46 PM
  #335
doulos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Mutually identified areas of ambiguity in the CBA.

Where in the above does it say anything about not agreeing on a definition of HRR?

What it does seem to say is that there are areas of the last CBA that BOTH sides have deemed to be unclear.

Nothing about HRR.
"They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules," executive director Donald Fehr wrote. "It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries."

Clearly the Union sees a reason for concern still as well.

From the letter that TSN posted:

2. HRR Accounting:

- Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.



I think I'll side with the guys who are being paid to read the contracts in this case (not in terms of who is right, but just in terms of what is at stake here)

The definition of the HRR is 100% NOT set in stone at this point and is sticking point as it always has been right from the start.

doulos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 05:28 PM
  #336
McJadeddog
Registered User
 
McJadeddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 12,287
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.
of course they are being asked to give up more, the league has a bunch of teams losing massive amounts of money every year, and essentially has 2-4 teams that are floating the rest of the league... the players are gonna have to take a haircut here, pretty simple

McJadeddog is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:12 PM
  #337
syz
[1, 5, 6, 14]
 
syz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 50
50/50: officially not fair.

syz is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:23 PM
  #338
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by syz View Post
50/50: officially not fair.
lol

Post of the thread.

Replacement is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:02 PM
  #339
doulos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by syz View Post
50/50: officially not fair.
We buy lottery tickets together and win.

I tell you we will split the winnings 50/50 but winnings is defined as total winnings - all of my bills being paid first.

That's when 50/50 is not fair and that's the situation that is to be resolved in the labour negotiations.

doulos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:36 PM
  #340
T-Funk
Registered User
 
T-Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doulos View Post
We buy lottery tickets together and win.

I tell you we will split the winnings 50/50 but winnings is defined as total winnings - all of my bills being paid first.

That's when 50/50 is not fair and that's the situation that is to be resolved in the labour negotiations.
Ah the magical lottery where no one takes a cut of the ticket money to ensure sustainability?

T-Funk is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:52 PM
  #341
nabob
Nuuuuuuuuuuge!!
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Repeatedly?

Wasn't it only once and it wasn't a small chunk at that.
every negotiation report has stated that the players will not take a reduced salary in the new CBA

nabob is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:57 PM
  #342
nabob
Nuuuuuuuuuuge!!
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doulos View Post
We buy lottery tickets together and win.

I tell you we will split the winnings 50/50 but winnings is defined as total winnings - all of my bills being paid first.

That's when 50/50 is not fair and that's the situation that is to be resolved in the labour negotiations.
revenue = before bills are paid
profit = after bills are paid.

players will be getting 50% of revenue
players will be making 100% profit
owners will be making much, much less than that.

nabob is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:08 PM
  #343
Oi'll say!
Go Flames
 
Oi'll say!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oil in 9
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,226
vCash: 500
I think the owners handed over a 1,000 page cba that says goes on endlessly about 5 yr contracts etc and 13 months in someone will "find" a loophole that makes 22 yr contracts and just about everything else ok.

A few small market teams will be picked clean and then we'll go through this farce all over again.

Oi'll say! is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:38 PM
  #344
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,977
vCash: 777
The poor owners are not making any money. I mean it isn't like they handed out a stupid amount of money in the off season. No one signed 2 players to 80 million contracts or anything.

I am sure the players are the evil ones behind this. I mean they went on strike 3 times already now and brought the poor owners to knees each time and forced the Owners into these contracts.

Why I think the players mandated we move teams to Phoenix,Atlanta and they said if you don't have 2 teams in Florida we are going on strike as well. BTW we also don't want any kind of meaningful revenue sharing AT ALL.

Yep those players the root of all evil. I bet they are behind Katz as well asking the tax payers for more money. Build us a giant arena Hall demanded or we STRIKE again.

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:06 PM
  #345
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabob View Post
players will be getting 50% of revenue
players will be making 100% profit
owners will be making much, much less than that.
There is a very important fact you are failing to consider.

players will be bringing 100% hockey talent
owners will be bringing 0% hockey talent

I'm not going to pretend this is definitive but clearly there is more to this than your simple statement.

Eskimo44 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:13 PM
  #346
nabob
Nuuuuuuuuuuge!!
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo44 View Post
There is a very important fact you are failing to consider.

players will be bringing 100% hockey talent
owners will be bringing 0% hockey talent

I'm not going to pretend this is definitive but clearly there is more to this than your simple statement.
yep, that why the players get 50% of the revenue, and they have to invest 0% of it.

Just check out Taylor Halls latest twit pic to see how hard he has it.

nabob is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:18 PM
  #347
T-Funk
Registered User
 
T-Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo44 View Post
There is a very important fact you are failing to consider.

players will be bringing 100% hockey talent
owners will be bringing 0% hockey talent

I'm not going to pretend this is definitive but clearly there is more to this than your simple statement.
Players will be providing what percent of airplane and equipment costs? What percent of insurance costs?

T-Funk is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:44 PM
  #348
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo44 View Post
There is a very important fact you are failing to consider.

players will be bringing 100% hockey talent
owners will be bringing 0% hockey talent

I'm not going to pretend this is definitive but clearly there is more to this than your simple statement.
And owners will continue to pay 100 percent of all the salaries to the hockey talent...you are right, your argument is not definitive.

There will always be a pool of players to fill rosters - there is a definitive number of prospective groups that can own NHL teams and cover all the costs. Please refer to Phoenix as an example of limited ownership options.

Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:45 PM
  #349
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,855
vCash: 500
We should expect a counter proposal from the pa tomorrow I think?

Lebrun tweet:
NHL/NHLPA meeting Thursday at 1 pm ET in Toronto
(thats 11 am MT)

402 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 12:04 AM
  #350
doulos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabob View Post
revenue = before bills are paid
profit = after bills are paid.

players will be getting 50% of revenue
players will be making 100% profit
owners will be making much, much less than that.
You are bang on, and I agree. I'm just trying to point out that quick little retorts about 50/50 being fair are completely missing the point of it all. You've demonstrated the opposite side of the spectrum just as well.

There is a reason people sit down and actually read these contracts.

doulos 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 08:32 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.