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
10-07-2012, 12:44 PM
  #126
stratedge
Rebuild, year 4...
 
stratedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,228
vCash: 50
Logic and reasoning would dictate this shouldn't go long, but logic and reasoning don't apply when Garry Bettman is at the table. The league has been unreasonable in it's demands for this long, I don't see why they'd suddenly stop in the next few months. I do believe they could meet half way, but I think the league will have to be the first to show some wiggle room because of how far off from reality their offer is.

To tell you the truth, I'm actually worried about next season taking a dent. The good news I hold out for is that if we do lose another season, and perhaps then some, that we could see Bettman gone.

stratedge is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:02 PM
  #127
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratedge View Post
Logic and reasoning would dictate this shouldn't go long, but logic and reasoning don't apply when Garry Bettman is at the table. The league has been unreasonable in it's demands for this long, I don't see why they'd suddenly stop in the next few months. I do believe they could meet half way, but I think the league will have to be the first to show some wiggle room because of how far off from reality their offer is.

To tell you the truth, I'm actually worried about next season taking a dent. The good news I hold out for is that if we do lose another season, and perhaps then some, that we could see Bettman gone.
where do you get your news on the lockout?

Jamin is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:02 PM
  #128
Daneo21
Registered User
 
Daneo21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 687
vCash: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratedge View Post
Logic and reasoning would dictate this shouldn't go long, but logic and reasoning don't apply when Garry Bettman is at the table. The league has been unreasonable in it's demands for this long, I don't see why they'd suddenly stop in the next few months. I do believe they could meet half way, but I think the league will have to be the first to show some wiggle room because of how far off from reality their offer is.

To tell you the truth, I'm actually worried about next season taking a dent. The good news I hold out for is that if we do lose another season, and perhaps then some, that we could see Bettman gone.
It is beyond me how you can blame bettman for this?

You do know that he is just a puppet for the owners right?

Daneo21 is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:22 PM
  #129
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratedge View Post
Logic and reasoning would dictate this shouldn't go long, but logic and reasoning don't apply when Garry Bettman is at the table. The league has been unreasonable in it's demands for this long, I don't see why they'd suddenly stop in the next few months. I do believe they could meet half way, but I think the league will have to be the first to show some wiggle room because of how far off from reality their offer is.

To tell you the truth, I'm actually worried about next season taking a dent. The good news I hold out for is that if we do lose another season, and perhaps then some, that we could see Bettman gone.
And conversely, it is amazing that the players will not waiver on the percentage of HRR that they want - too bad they aren't willing to come up with a realistic proposal that both sides can begin to negotiate. Soon as Fehr is gone this might happen...

Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:27 AM
  #130
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Displaced
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,614
vCash: 500
The league and the players can't even agree on what HRR is, so until that gets settled you won't see any movement on an agreement of how to split it.

Groucho is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:36 AM
  #131
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
The league and the players can't even agree on what HRR is, so until that gets settled you won't see any movement on an agreement of how to split it.
move Phoenix to Seattle...put a team in Markham...suddenly league revenue multiplies. Why the NHL is fighting this is comical. They whine about revenue but they hold the golden goose in their hands and for some reason choose not to use it.

Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:40 AM
  #132
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Displaced
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
move Phoenix to Seattle...put a team in Markham...suddenly league revenue multiplies. Why the NHL is fighting this is comical. They whine about revenue but they hold the golden goose in their hands and for some reason choose not to use it.
Yeah sure, but that wasn't really my point.

Groucho is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:58 AM
  #133
Seedling
Fan level 7?
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,485
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
move Phoenix to Seattle...put a team in Markham...suddenly league revenue multiplies. Why the NHL is fighting this is comical. They whine about revenue but they hold the golden goose in their hands and for some reason choose not to use it.
You can move another team to QC while you're at it. You could move another one back to Hartford too, and one to Houston (good for Dallas) and HAMILTON.

Teams that have no future in the league, opinion mine, :
Phoenix
Columbus
Florida
Tampa
Anaheim
Possibly Nashville

I wouldn't mind seeing a contraction either. Then expand and get expansion dollars in QC and Seattle instead.

Seedling is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:58 AM
  #134
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
Yeah sure, but that wasn't really my point.
But it would increase revenue for the owners...

Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 04:15 AM
  #135
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
This is a geat read
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade...snt-have-them/
Here is the main point The top three most profitable nba teams made a huge majority of the leaugues profit (more then 90%) as a result revenue sharing in the nba was tripled in this last cba, in the nhl the top three teams (nyr leafs mtl) also make up a huge majority of the nhl's profit (approximately 80%) many of the other 27 either lose money or dont profit nearly as much
About 150 million is shared in the league today the nhl propoesed increasing that to 190 the pa proposed increasing that to 250 million
This article was enlightening for me with regards to the importance of revenue sharing the pa mentioned it many times with bettman always saying that was not the most important or hardest issue to agree upon, it seems to me that heavy increases in revenue sharing would help many nhl teams become profitable or closer to it and hopefully over time it can be decreased as the game grows and more teams become profitable on their own, 27 of the leagues 30 teams should be in favour of increasing revenue sharing and the pa obviously also see this as a key issue and one that would help stabilize this league financially, but even if many teams dont want the heavy revenue sharing i see it as a way to help solve many issues because the game is becoming more populare in smaller nontraditional markets and if it is maintaina with revenue sharing many more teams will become profitable eventually and the cut to players share of revenue doesnt need to be as big as thr nhl currently is asking


Last edited by 402: 10-08-2012 at 04:21 AM.
402 is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 04:37 AM
  #136
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,932
vCash: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by 402 View Post
This is a geat read
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade...snt-have-them/
Here is the main point The top three most profitable nba teams made a huge majority of the leaugues profit (more then 90%) as a result revenue sharing in the nba was tripled in this last cba, in the nhl the top three teams (nyr leafs mtl) also make up a huge majority of the nhl's profit (approximately 80%) many of the other 27 either lose money or dont profit nearly as much
About 150 million is shared in the league today the nhl propoesed increasing that to 190 the pa proposed increasing that to 250 million
This article was enlightening for me with regards to the importance of revenue sharing the pa mentioned it many times with bettman always saying that was not the most important or hardest issue to agree upon, it seems to me that heavy increases in revenue sharing would help many nhl teams become profitable or closer to it and hopefully over time it can be decreased as the game grows and more teams become profitable on their own, 27 of the leagues 30 teams should be in favour of increasing revenue sharing and the pa obviously also see this as a key issue and one that would help stabilize this league financially, but even if many teams dont want the heavy revenue sharing i see it as a way to help solve many issues because the game is becoming more populare in smaller nontraditional markets and if it is maintaina with revenue sharing many more teams will become profitable eventually and the cut to players share of revenue doesnt need to be as big as thr nhl currently is asking

interesting, to be sure. makes Fehr's argument seem more reasonable.

good grief, i haven't got a clue what to think. just watch CHL.

Up the Irons is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 06:29 AM
  #137
oilers2k10
Yak Don't Back Down
 
oilers2k10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,378
vCash: 203
So if 27 owners would be in favour of revenue sharing wtf has it not been agreed to increase it?
Do three owners have all the say in this?
I agree with one thing the players are proposing..its the rev.sharing, however, if the NHL does that the PA need to back off on their 57% split..drop it 2% per year for the next four years and they d likely see no loss $s in their pay stubs

oilers2k10 is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 08:02 AM
  #138
bucks_oil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
move Phoenix to Seattle...put a team in Markham...suddenly league revenue multiplies. Why the NHL is fighting this is comical. They whine about revenue but they hold the golden goose in their hands and for some reason choose not to use it.
Wouldn't that just make things worse for the 'bubble' teams financially? League-wide revenue going up would just make the cap rise... which is the problem for the troubled markets. The cost of icing a team has them bleeding red ink.

That just brings us back to the revenue sharing vs HRR reduction arguments.

The big problem with the last CBA was simply a (huge IMO) oversight in assuming that if revenue went up, everyone would be happy. Revenue went up in the markets that were driving NHL growth, leaving sunbelt teams struggling against a constantly changing competition dynamic. Talent was getting more expensive than they can afford, but talent was the only way to keep bodies in the seats.

bucks_oil is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 08:10 AM
  #139
bucks_oil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilers2k10 View Post
So if 27 owners would be in favour of revenue sharing wtf has it not been agreed to increase it?
Do three owners have all the say in this?
I agree with one thing the players are proposing..its the rev.sharing, however, if the NHL does that the PA need to back off on their 57% split..drop it 2% per year for the next four years and they d likely see no loss $s in their pay stubs
Well exactly... but this is where the standoff is. NHL owners (and I believe it is more than 3 of them that "share" vs "receive") are fundamentally opposed to being the ENTIRE solution. My guess it that a few of the top earners could care less if a few of the poor teams folded... less revenue sharing = more profit.

Keeping those poorer teams afloat does more to help the players in the immediate term (keeping jobs), so the owners are adamant that the players foot some of the bill to keep those teams afloat.

It only seems reasonable to me... as an owner I'd really need to see it explained, and re-explained how having Nashville and Pheonix around is *really* going to help me with a TV deal in the near future, given i) one was just signed anyway and its terms are a certainty, and ii) new revenue models (direct NHL streaming, AppleTV, etc) are likely to shake up the industry before the next deal is ready for signature.

bucks_oil is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 09:45 AM
  #140
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Displaced
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
But it would increase revenue for the owners...
The owners and players can't agree on what revenue actually is at this point though, so increasing revenue is a moot point until they've actually put a definition on it and decided how to split it amongst themselves.

Groucho is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 09:53 AM
  #141
doubledown99
Registered User
 
doubledown99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,970
vCash: 500
Put yourselves in the rich teams position. Say you are TSN. You just paid over a billion dollars for the Leafs. Would you want to share your profits? Revenue sharing is a good idea but if im an owner why would I want to share my profits with teams that aren't financially viable?

doubledown99 is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:20 PM
  #142
Blue And Orange
#KevinLoweMustGo
 
Blue And Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daneo21 View Post
It is beyond me how you can blame bettman for this?

You do know that he is just a puppet for the owners right?
Do you believe all 30 owners are on the same page.

Blue And Orange is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 03:04 PM
  #143
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledown99 View Post
Put yourselves in the rich teams position. Say you are TSN. You just paid over a billion dollars for the Leafs. Would you want to share your profits? Revenue sharing is a good idea but if im an owner why would I want to share my profits with teams that aren't financially viable?
True but the thing is there are very few rich teams as compared to the poor. Bettman should represent the interest of all the owners and more owners would be in favor of rev sharing

At this time I don't think the owners are all on the same page nor are the players

402 is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 03:07 PM
  #144
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
The rich owners have money they could be making the poor owners (when I say owners I mean teams) would lose money but with increased rev. Sharing they can l make money maybe not much in the immediate future but they be growing they're investments

402 is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 03:11 PM
  #145
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
I'm not only blaming owners here the players need to go down on they're 57% but with the help of eev. Sharing maybe they only go down to 53%
While players seem strong they're all going to quickly realize just how much money they're losing

402 is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 06:38 PM
  #146
Daneo21
Registered User
 
Daneo21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 687
vCash: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue And Orange View Post
Do you believe all 30 owners are on the same page.
Not sure where you got that from my post?

Nobody in this lockout is on the same page... Owners and players are all divided in this lockout (obviously the poor teams owners (CBJ,PHX,etc) are in more favour of a lockout than the richer teams owners (TOR, NYR, etc)) and I was merely making a reference that Bettman isn't really to blame for this lockout (as the post I was replying to was insinuating) because he is a simple representative for the owners... Bettman's job is to look out for the best interests of the owners as well as the best interests of the NHL... He is merely doing what the majority has told him to do...

Also side note: As I recall the owners unanimously voted in favour of a lockout... So they were obviously on the same page when it came to a lockout

Daneo21 is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 06:59 PM
  #147
Blue And Orange
#KevinLoweMustGo
 
Blue And Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daneo21 View Post
Not sure where you got that from my post?

Nobody in this lockout is on the same page... Owners and players are all divided in this lockout (obviously the poor teams owners (CBJ,PHX,etc) are in more favour of a lockout than the richer teams owners (TOR, NYR, etc)) and I was merely making a reference that Bettman isn't really to blame for this lockout (as the post I was replying to was insinuating) because he is a simple representative for the owners... Bettman's job is to look out for the best interests of the owners as well as the best interests of the NHL... He is merely doing what the majority has told him to do...

Also side note: As I recall the owners unanimously voted in favour of a lockout... So they were obviously on the same page when it came to a lockout
Maybe its unanimous, but I'm sure there are a few owners that voted reluctantly FOR the lockout just so they don't get any backlash from Bettman.

Blue And Orange is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 07:00 PM
  #148
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,142
vCash: 500
So if they can get to a 50-50 split (phased in over a number of years) in revenue and increased revenue sharing to say $200 million ... what else is there left to discuss?

Soundwave is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 08:28 PM
  #149
Gret99zky
Worst Thread Ever
 
Gret99zky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gamma Quadrant
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,579
vCash: 6964
NBA and NHL are apples and oranges. Especially in the USA.

Gret99zky is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 08:43 PM
  #150
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gret99zky View Post
NBA and NHL are apples and oranges. Especially in the USA.
The games and they're popularity can not be compared however the economics can be nhl uses hrr nba uses bri or basketball related income
Also the most profitable franchises in both the nhl and nba made up the vast majority of that leagues profit the nba tripled revenue sharing to help mediate that problem the nba is a much more successful league maybe a similare approach would help our game, lower player share to something like 53% as well as doubling revenue sharing may be a good way to help move this league away from economic instability
When i say doubling and 53% these are hypothetical values i did not do the math nor do i know the proper numbers to see how much more revenue sharing can be increased and how 53% would effect player salary and thus owner profit

402 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 02:18 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.