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
10-19-2012, 03:28 AM
  #476
Tarus
#Craigsnotonit
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
Nice argument, so the owners signed the last minute contracts and giant offer sheets to avoid a colusion charge?

No what is dumb is asking an employee to take a reduction on a signed contract on a Thursday when the ink was placed on the contract on a Wednesday.

If economics are an issue don't offer large contracts
If individual players didn't want to potentially suffer a salary rollback, they shouldn't have signed last minute contracts and giant offer sheets on the eve of the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement.

This isn't about the contracts signed by individual businesses operating under a legally negotatied collective bargaining agreement while subject to anti-trust laws, It's about the agreement itself.

Tarus is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:06 AM
  #477
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
I see its full player hate on.

Course they have worked hard to earn it.

I say, go with replacement players now. Players will be back inside of a two weeks.

What are the players thinking, a majority of the teams need to get a better deal to be able to make a profit. How many companies can continue operation when they continue to have losses year after year.

As for union solidarity. I hope they have fun making zero because its going to continue for a long time whilst the owners make minus dollars.
The problem I have with this is I don't think they've earned it.

What have NHL players done to earn a higher percentage of league revenue than their NFL or NBA counterparts?

They draw lower ratings (can barely beat infomercials for the Stanley Cup Finals), lower attendance, lower overall revenue, and less sponsorship than their NFL or NBA counterparts.

Yet as little as six seasons ago they were taking home a whopping 70% of league revenue. The current 57% they take home (what a cut!) dwarfs the 50.5% NBA players get and the sub 48% NFL players get even though NBA and NFL players are far more marketable and bring in a far larger audience. No wonder the NHLPA would love to keep the old CBA, it's a sweetheart deal compared to other sports.

The real driver for any economic growth the NHL has seen the last 6 years likely doesn't even have anything to do with the players themselves. It's because of the combination of a salary cap (which the players flushed an entire season down the toilet fighting against) and a strengthened Canadian dollar has allowed more Canadian teams to be competitive again -- thus driving revenue growth.

And yet most of these players snub their nose at playing for a Canadian team every chance they get, but they all benefit mightily from people up here paying outrageous ticket prices. The Oilers in last place charge more than the NBA champion Miami Heat for an average ticket ... that certainly helps NHL revenue and helps Joe Nobody on Columbus get paid even though he did dick all for it.

This is why I can't get behind the players. They have been entitled for way too long, the NHL has been too weak like a parent that can't stand up to a spoiled child. For 10 years they let the players have 70% revenue . The salary cap was good for the league as a whole. A 50-50 split will be good for the league too IMO.


Last edited by Soundwave: 10-19-2012 at 05:15 AM.
Soundwave is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:12 AM
  #478
Hunt4Oil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London On
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
What's shockingly stupid is a group of individuals demanding a pay cut from their employees in the course of experiencing unprecedented growth in revenues, only outmatched by said owners signing 100+ million in contracts the DAY BEFORE they lock out the very same employees and ask them fto reduce the contracts signed yesterday.

And using nurse salaries as perspective on players salary is lame and low. It's called law of demand, society has a greater demand for the narrow fraction of the population with incredible atheletic performance in their blood, it doesn't make athletes bad people or wrong for expecting fair market value for their talents.
Nope it doesn't make them bad people, it makes them delusional greedy people who have no concept of reality in this world.

Hunt4Oil is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 06:52 AM
  #479
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babel View Post
I have been a "LONGTIME LURKER" and this is post compelled me to join. Well said Replacement

I will add, I always hear about a "Partnership" from the players and the share of HRR. Well when I think about it, wouldn't player endorsements fall under HRR? I know if I was a business owner I wouldn't fathom having any player endorse my business or product if they didn't play hockey.

So I am patiently waiting for the players to give up 43% of all endorsement $$'s to the NHL to be distributed to the owners. That would feel MUCH more like a true partnership and not a such a one sided one.
Just like to shout out some appreciation to all the people that took the time to read another of my long and winding posts and a rant at that..

Thanks.

But a nice feeling as well to have a new poster on board posting and I hope you post more and mostly enjoy the experience. Overall its a good informed place and the best place for hockey talk I know. Also the OT stuff will get more prolific and interesting as the lockout drags on. This board somehow takes on a better feel when its mostly just us diehards posting.

Replacement is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:24 AM
  #480
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
Sorry but your rant is nonsense
Well, lets consider it further then.

Quote:
Anti-trust gives unprecedented labour advantage to sports owners, they get to DRAFT 18 year old pups and consign them to a location for 7 years.
But as you know this is not entirely accurate and not the only option available to players presently. Theres increasing opportunity of not playing in the NHL at all and instead jumping to the KHL. All European leagues exist on an ongoing basis as well, not just during lockouts.. Any player also has the option of refusing to sign with the drafting club, spend some time say going to college, earning a degree, and then come back with a different status and mobility. I mean how hard is that to do? A little postsecondary delay of gratification like most of us do on the way to our 5 figure incomes...
Finally, what stops the players from actually competing directly like they've stated in the last lockout and putting their money where there mouth is and creating an upstart league? No, that would require dedication, cooperation, saving capita, organization, and a great deal of effort and sacrifice. Not at all what the players really want though so welcome to One top pro league NA.

Quote:
Your argument that hockey players are selfish due to their inability to realize the consequence of their contracts on teamates is a great exercise in polemics but is a garbage argument when you take time to consider the simple fact that the only reason there are any constraints on salary is due to the fact the owners locked them out for an entire year to get such restraints.
How about the simple fact that in many markets current expenses have exceeded reasonable expectations of revenue? The cows got out of that barn a longtime ago, I would say in the 90's. Whats happened since is attempts to correct that massive salary inflation that occurred and that was not realistically in line with overall revenues. Revenue sharing was a good, and reasonable solution, and one that not only the NHL has arrived at, and that the players agreed to. Lets be clear here. The players are fine with revenue sharing, they just want the lionshare of it. In short they want more than the majority of the owners are making with no overhead, limited risk, and no financial risk, which should cause anybody pause for thought.

Quote:
Athletes of all types, in any sport that generates significant revenue get paid ungodly amounts of money because of the scarcity of their talent. Period
Well how about NHL salaries and revenue sharing is disproportionate relative to the other pro team sports that rake in much more revenue? Its really hard to argue that hockey players should have their sights set on say NBA earners where starters play a much more significant part, play nearly all minutes, and are much more responsible for earnings and endorsements and TV contracts. The players are the game in the NBA, to a degree that just isn't the case in the NHL, which showcases a broader team sport with a larger roster. Similarly maybe if Hockey players expected to be paid like Baseball players maybe they should be playing 180games. (No, I'm not for a moment suggesting I'd want that)

Quote:
Its not collusion, its not because athletes are good negotiators (Bob Stauffer fallacy # 243), its not because of agents or greediness, it boils down to the number of people on earth that can perform an athletic task at a sufficent level that 17,000 people will pay money to clap for them while they do it.
This argument applies to maybe 200NHL players if that. The vast majority of the rest could be replaced and forgotten with fairly similar talent for much cheaper and in a short period of time. The 17K would still come, and little difference would be noted. Think about the average NHL lineup and the half dozen or more go to players supplemented with what is largely dispensable fill anyway. Indeed the average team experiences so much player movement these days that in 3yrs you often don't see much more than a nucleus of say 7 players anyway.

Quote:
Lockouts happen because owners have the leverage of short career spans that they can utilize at negotiating time to increase their margins.
No, they happen because its the only time inequities in respective control can be balanced when the association you're dealing with have moved away from realistic expectations of team salary. Everything in the system between CBA's is geared to player benefit and salary appreciation. Put in a natural free market system (which this isn't but a different conversation)players, players association, agents, salary disclosure, salary price fixing, and anything that could arguably be considered collusion is fair game on the players side. With the owners not having similar dynamic control and instead being in a system where by nature they are in direct competition on and off the ice with little recourse.
Guess what that system leads to everytime? Rampant payroll and costs escalation. Which is why very detailed CBA's are required to try to stem some of the escalation and cost inflation that occurs.


Last edited by Replacement: 10-19-2012 at 07:35 AM.
Replacement is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:29 AM
  #481
McBooya42
Have a McDavid day!
 
McBooya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,860
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..

Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.

To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.

Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"

Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.

go figure

Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.

Suck it up.

rant done
Excellent post Replacement.

McBooya42 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:36 AM
  #482
McJadeddog
Registered User
 
McJadeddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 12,284
vCash: 500
players are certainly showing why they are athletes and not accountants (or any other profession that requires skill with numbers, lol).... it just boggles the mind that they won't accept one penny less this year, but seem to be *completely* willing to accept a lost season, and thus 100% loss in salary

i still haven't heard an argument that even begins to explain this

McJadeddog is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:02 AM
  #483
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
Sorry but your rant is nonsense

Anti-trust gives unprecedented labour advantage to sports owners, they get to DRAFT 18 year old pups and consign them to a location for 7 years.

Your argument that hockey players are selfish due to their inability to realize the consequence of their contracts on teamates is a great exercise in polemics but is a garbage argument when you take time to consider the simple fact that the only reason there are any constraints on salary is due to the fact the owners locked them out for an entire year to get such restraints.

Athletes of all types, in any sport that generates significant revenue get paid ungodly amounts of money because of the scarcity of their talent. Period

Its not collusion, its not because athletes are good negotiators (Bob Stauffer fallacy # 243), its not because of agents or greediness, it boils down to the number of people on earth that can perform an athletic task at a sufficent level that 17,000 people will pay money to clap for them while they do it.

Lockouts happen because owners have the leverage of short career spans that they can utilize at negotiating time to increase their margins.
Let's not forget these are very small margins for most teams and negative for a lot of other teams.

Reimer is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:06 AM
  #484
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
players are certainly showing why they are athletes and not accountants (or any other profession that requires skill with numbers, lol).... it just boggles the mind that they won't accept one penny less this year, but seem to be *completely* willing to accept a lost season, and thus 100% loss in salary

i still haven't heard an argument that even begins to explain this
I said this yesterday too. The big win in the NHL's proposal was that they were willing to do an 82 game season that enabled the players to make their full pop(well adjusted to a 50/50 split).

In terms of taking a "cut" by having this type of revenue sharing shouldn't the players be under the understanding that it is possible that they may not make the full amount of their contract anyhow on any given year?

Reimer is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:18 AM
  #485
CornKicker
Still burning Lowood
 
CornKicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,533
vCash: 694
0% of your salary is $0. this will sink in very quick on players as the nhl cancels games. which should be happening very soon imo

CornKicker is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:52 AM
  #486
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
players are certainly showing why they are athletes and not accountants (or any other profession that requires skill with numbers, lol).... it just boggles the mind that they won't accept one penny less this year, but seem to be *completely* willing to accept a lost season, and thus 100% loss in salary

i still haven't heard an argument that even begins to explain this
If you look at it objectively both sides are completely rational in their position.

With little work and little lost the owners have already seen a 12-13% reduction in their biggest expense line. That's a huge win.

The players problem is if they don't make a stand here they risk losing a pound of flesh every renewal date.

This is a different fight than 6 years ago in that the win, while nice for the owners, isn't going to be a massive one like 2006. Economics probably dictate that the owners will have a hard time justifying a season loss for the margin wins they are going to achieve.

Long term the best strategy for the players is probably to take their lumps now, miss a season and strengthen their negotiating position going foward with Fehr as their leader. Realistically a hard sell though considering a lot of players missed a year of earnings in 2006.

HotToddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:28 AM
  #487
McJadeddog
Registered User
 
McJadeddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 12,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
If you look at it objectively both sides are completely rational in their position.

With little work and little lost the owners have already seen a 12-13% reduction in their biggest expense line. That's a huge win.

The players problem is if they don't make a stand here they risk losing a pound of flesh every renewal date.

This is a different fight than 6 years ago in that the win, while nice for the owners, isn't going to be a massive one like 2006. Economics probably dictate that the owners will have a hard time justifying a season loss for the margin wins they are going to achieve.

Long term the best strategy for the players is probably to take their lumps now, miss a season and strengthen their negotiating position going foward with Fehr as their leader. Realistically a hard sell though considering a lot of players missed a year of earnings in 2006.
if their stance is "we're willing to lose a full years salary to show the NHL we are united and to gain strength in future negotiations", then sure, *maybe* it makes sense... i would argue against the fact of it giving them future bargaining strength because each bargaining session is based on the current environment the league and union is in, it is not based on past negotiations.... but lets put that aside and say that it does indeed give them strength moving forward

but the problem is, the NHLPA has not been saying that... they have, quite simply, been saying that they are not willing to take a rollback this season and they want the NHL to honor the existing contracts.... if we take them at their word, they are not logical at all, because they are about to lose 100% of their salary this year.... in no world does it make sense to say "we won't take a 10% pay cut, but are perfectly willing to take a 100% pay cut"

McJadeddog is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:38 AM
  #488
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Displaced
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
players are certainly showing why they are athletes and not accountants (or any other profession that requires skill with numbers, lol).... it just boggles the mind that they won't accept one penny less this year, but seem to be *completely* willing to accept a lost season, and thus 100% loss in salary

i still haven't heard an argument that even begins to explain this
1.6B this year vs 1.6B spread over 6 or 7 years.

has anybody in the PA showed this to them? do they get it ?

Groucho is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:54 AM
  #489
McFuhryous
Registered User
 
McFuhryous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Medicine Hat, AB
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,111
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..

Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.

To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.

Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"

Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.

go figure

Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.

Suck it up.

rant done
Very well said, Replacement! Have you thought of sending your comments directly to the NHLPA? It is very well written and I believe it would garner some sort of a response.
Here is the site link if anyone else wants to send a comment to them:

http://www.nhlpa.com/inside-nhlpa/contact-us

I know it will fall on deaf ears, but at least it gives an opportunity to voice our collective displeasure.

McFuhryous is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:55 AM
  #490
NewBoysClub97
All-Star
 
NewBoysClub97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,680
vCash: 50
Whiffcoff has some strong words for the NHL:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/10/1...al-not-serious

“Gary says whatever is conducive to say at the time that puts him in a better light,” said Horcoff. “But right when the meeting is done you can’t walk out and say the players never came close to 50%.

“We watched his press conference in another room and we were going irate. He (appeared deceptive) about four or five different things. We were looking at each other: ‘What did he just say!?!’ Our first two proposals take some time to get to 50, but they get there, and our third starts at 50 right away. It was blatantly false. It was unbelievable that he said that. None of our proposals come near 50%? Guys were going crazy.

“Their first move has always been, ‘Let’s just lock them out, make them miss some paycheques and hope they cave,’ ” said Horcoff, adding players are prepared to wait as long as it takes. “We’re willing to sit the year out if it means getting the right deal.

“We’re not going to sell everybody’s future short just so some guys can collect their salaries this year. That’s just not going to happen among hockey players.”

NewBoysClub97 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:55 AM
  #491
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
if their stance is "we're willing to lose a full years salary to show the NHL we are united and to gain strength in future negotiations", then sure, *maybe* it makes sense... i would argue against the fact of it giving them future bargaining strength because each bargaining session is based on the current environment the league and union is in, it is not based on past negotiations.... but lets put that aside and say that it does indeed give them strength moving forward

but the problem is, the NHLPA has not been saying that... they have, quite simply, been saying that they are not willing to take a rollback this season and they want the NHL to honor the existing contracts.... if we take them at their word, they are not logical at all, because they are about to lose 100% of their salary this year.... in no world does it make sense to say "we won't take a 10% pay cut, but are perfectly willing to take a 100% pay cut"
The equation does not work perfectly for those collecting money overseas, but for the majority of guys in the PA - this is pretty simple. Whatever rollback/decrease you are fighting against right now is out the window the minute 10 games are cancelled, and then some, let alone if you lose the entire season.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:56 AM
  #492
CornKicker
Still burning Lowood
 
CornKicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,533
vCash: 694
if the players want more money then they should say they will take 50/50 but the nhl has to relocate or disolve the 4-6 weak teams. move them to markets where they will flourish and the HRR will increase dramatically.

CornKicker is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:56 AM
  #493
Matador
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,378
vCash: 500
Yes, the players all or nothing approach doesn't make sense to me either.

The league's 50/50 proposal was really just a forced savings plan to the players. So what if you don't get 12% of your contract upfront. It will be paid back with interest once the old contract expires.

The league's proposal states that

Quote:
The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL’s proposal retains all current Players’ SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA.
Quote:
Any such “shortfalls” in Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA will be computed as a percentage reduction off of the Player’s stated contractual compensation, and will be repaid to the Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the Player’s SPC (or if he has no remaining years, in the year following the expiration of his SPC).
Quote:
The objective would be to honor all existing SPCs by restoring their “value” on the basis of the now existing level of Players’ Share dollars.
I guess this isn't good enough. Players need the money now now now! Can't wait an extra couple years to be made whole.

The NHL has offered them a "get out of jail free" card for the games they have already missed. I'm at a loss as to why they still cant seem to agree to terms.

Matador is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:02 PM
  #494
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,962
vCash: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornKicker View Post
if the players want more money then they should say they will take 50/50 but the nhl has to relocate or disolve the 4-6 weak teams. move them to markets where they will flourish and the HRR will increase dramatically.
That is part of the major issue isn't it? The owners are crying over the fact there are losing money franchises. There solution to the problem is to cut there employees pay.

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:04 PM
  #495
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matador View Post
Yes, the players all or nothing approach doesn't make sense to me either.

The league's 50/50 proposal was really just a forced savings plan to the players. So what if you don't get 12% of your contract upfront. It will be paid back with interest once the old contract expires.

The league's proposal states that

I guess this isn't good enough. Players need the money now now now! Can't wait an extra couple years to be made whole.

The NHL has offered them a "get out of jail free" card for the games they have already missed. I'm at a loss as to why they still cant seem to agree to terms.
I am probably biased because I have been mostly pro-owner this whole time, but looking at this as objectively as I can, I have to think this is more than the PA could have hoped for the NHL to come back with.

Everyone knew that the end goal was 50-50 a long time ago. The tricky part was how to do that without screwing the players out of contracts they just signed - and this is about as good a solution as could be expected is it not?

EDIT: Pro-owner, not pro-player

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:09 PM
  #496
OilerNut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornKicker View Post
if the players want more money then they should say they will take 50/50 but the nhl has to relocate or disolve the 4-6 weak teams. move them to markets where they will flourish and the HRR will increase dramatically.
If the NHLPA ever accepted 4-6 teams being dissolved, they would have some pretty pissed off members.

OilerNut* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:15 PM
  #497
Seedling
Tier 7 fan (ballcap)
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,525
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
Whiffcoff has some strong words for the NHL:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/10/1...al-not-serious

“Gary says whatever is conducive to say at the time that puts him in a better light,” said Horcoff. “But right when the meeting is done you can’t walk out and say the players never came close to 50%.

“We watched his press conference in another room and we were going irate. He (appeared deceptive) about four or five different things. We were looking at each other: ‘What did he just say!?!’ Our first two proposals take some time to get to 50, but they get there, and our third starts at 50 right away. It was blatantly false. It was unbelievable that he said that. None of our proposals come near 50%? Guys were going crazy.

“Their first move has always been, ‘Let’s just lock them out, make them miss some paycheques and hope they cave,’ ” said Horcoff, adding players are prepared to wait as long as it takes. “We’re willing to sit the year out if it means getting the right deal.

“We’re not going to sell everybody’s future short just so some guys can collect their salaries this year. That’s just not going to happen among hockey players.”
Says the poster boy for overpaid ungrateful and under skilled athletes. When I saw him there yesterday I knew the PA was gonna be all self righteous and not offer anything decent.

The fact that he is our captain really pisses me off. Of all the players who should keep their mouths shut, Horcoff is at the top of the list.

Seedling is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:21 PM
  #498
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,962
vCash: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedling View Post
Says the poster boy for overpaid ungrateful and under skilled athletes. When I saw him there yesterday I knew the PA was gonna be all self righteous and not offer anything decent.

The fact that he is our captain really pisses me off. Of all the players who should keep their mouths shut, Horcoff is at the top of the list.
What did he say that was wrong exactly?

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:22 PM
  #499
ThePhoenixx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..

Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.

To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.

Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"

Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres common cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.

go figure

Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.

Suck it up.

rant done
100% agree with this post.

It's too bad you can't get onside in the arena debate. They'd probably be digging by now.

ThePhoenixx is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:26 PM
  #500
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Displaced
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
What did he say that was wrong exactly?
Their 3rd offer in particular never even comes close to 50/50 (with contracts honored). Fehr didn't even run his numbers. Daly did, and then 2 hours later after everybody flapped their gums on twitter they all looked stupid, and Fehr admitted he never ran any numbers.

Hell their 3rd proposal wasn't even on paper.

Groucho 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 05:12 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.