HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

View Poll Results: Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
The owners 144 48.65%
The NHLPA 152 51.35%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 12:14 PM
  #776
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Some teams are losing money. But even at a 50/50 split of HRR some teams are still going to lose money.

The NHL, being a dysfunctional oligopoly, cannot deal with the fact that it needs NFL-style revenue sharing between teams in order for all teams to profit.

Charles Wang has run the NY Islanders into the ground since he became owner in 2000. With the mistakes of Mike Milbury, Alexei Yashin and Rick DiPietro on his resume, Wang deserves to make a profit just because he's an owner?

He should have a fair shot at it. The fact that his staff made colossal mistakes is irrelevant.


Last edited by IceDaddy: 10-19-2012 at 12:27 PM.
IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:23 PM
  #777
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
No, Molson isn't evil, he just deserves to be screwed over because some other owners 25-75 years ago screwed over the players.

Sigh...
That was never stated. A reference was made, however, to historical NHL - Player relations to debunk some "pendulum" theory.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:27 PM
  #778
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 27,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
I'm personally shocked (well, not really) to see fans trusting anything coming out of Gary Bettman's mouth! Too many fans are gullible, hopeless and desperate sheep hearing what they want to hear. Don't trust what he says, period. They underlying truth is far from what he's showing and thankfully this time around, the players have Fehr on their side and with them, a vast majority of the fans.
Yes, because Fehr is just that much better than the evil Bettman, and you don't sound bias at all...

Both sides are moronic.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:28 PM
  #779
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Yes, because Fehr is just that much better than the evil Bettman, and you don't sound bias at all...

Both sides are moronic.
Pretty much sums it up.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:29 PM
  #780
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
I'm personally shocked (well, not really) to see fans trusting anything coming out of Gary Bettman's mouth! Too many fans are gullible, hopeless and desperate sheep hearing what they want to hear. Don't trust what he says, period. They underlying truth is far from what he's showing and thankfully this time around, the players have Fehr on their side and with them, a vast majority of the fans.

not according to the poll on this thread

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:31 PM
  #781
habsrock76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 516
vCash: 500
These arent guys in an auto factory or steel mill, they are million dollar hockey players in an entertainment industry, so Joe Public will never relate to their "current woes" and no one will feel sorry for them.

Bottom line is it's the owners league and they can do what they want with it, if the players dont like the rules then they can screw off and get a job playing hockey elsewhere; or even scarier a real job like the rest of us.

The players better wise up to this quick because playing harball and pissing off billionaire owners will only end up with them over a barrel again. I'm honestly shocked they havent learned from the prior lockout that the owners will miss a season to get what they want, players need to realize the precedent has been set and they should negtotiate of the NHL's deal; which I believe has more wiggle room then the NHLPA specifically Don Fehr would have you believe.

habsrock76 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:32 PM
  #782
Bad Natey
#feelthelove
 
Bad Natey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Habville
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
If they get the full contracts they are back close to 57-43 which would be a non starter for the NHL.
For a couple years. The owners signed the god damn contracts, it's their own fault.

After the few years are up which is going to effect them (namely the next 2 yearsish), they owners have a big win. If I was the owners, I would have countered that with an agreement that runs 20-25 years. That way they are locked in for years and years afterwards and the players can't possibly get more.

I really hope what happens to Baseball happens to the NHL when it returns (20% attendance drop off) and the NHL takes a huge ****ing hit. This 6-year contracts are disappointing. I don't even want to watch when it comes back if in 5 years, the same crap is going to happen. It'll be funny to see them all lose money for being such greedy people.

Everyone always says "well everyone came running back last time" -- yeah because the NHL was basically a new sport. There were so many rule and game changes, that everyone was excited to see what was going to happen. I believe Bob McKenzie was the one who made the exact same point as me. This time around - there's nothing to bring back every single fan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsrock76 View Post
The players better wise up to this quick because playing harball and pissing off billionaire owners will only end up with them over a barrel again. I'm honestly shocked they havent learned from the prior lockout that the owners will miss a season to get what they want, players need to realize the precedent has been set and they should negtotiate of the NHL's deal; which I believe has more wiggle room then the NHLPA specifically Don Fehr would have you believe.
At this point, I don't think they care. They have their sights set and they are going to settle for something that greatly hurts them. They can play hockey elsewhere, they can get money deals elsewhere. I really believe this time they aren't going to back down (same with owners) - and as they don't I hope they lose about 500 fans every day.

Bad Natey is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:34 PM
  #783
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsrock76 View Post
These arent guys in an auto factory or steel mill, they are million dollar hockey players in an entertainment industry, so Joe Public will never relate to their "current woes" and no one will feel sorry for them.

Bottom line is it's the owners league and they can do what they want with it, if the players dont like the rules then they can screw off and get a job playing hockey elsewhere.

The players better wise up to this quick because playing harball and pissing off billionaire owners will only end up with them over a barrel again. I'm honestly shocked they havent learned from the prior lockout that the owners will miss a season to get what they want, players need to realize the precedent has been set and they should negtotiate of the NHL's deal; which I believe has more wiggle room then the NHLPA specifically Don Fehr would have you believe.
I think everyone knows there will be a deal, and I think everyone knows it will come close to 50-50. Its just a matter of time really. Both sides are trying to get as much as possible and/or scare the other side into giving up.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:37 PM
  #784
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkeyeCB View Post
For a couple years. The owners signed the god damn contracts, it's their own fault.

After the few years are up which is going to effect them (namely the next 2 yearsish), they owners have a big win. If I was the owners, I would have countered that with an agreement that runs 20-25 years. That way they are locked in for years and years afterwards and the players can't possibly get more.

I really hope what happens to Baseball happens to the NHL when it returns (20% attendance drop off) and the NHL takes a huge ****ing hit. This 6-year contracts are disappointing. I don't even want to watch when it comes back if in 5 years, the same crap is going to happen. It'll be funny to see them all lose money for being such greedy people.

Everyone always says "well everyone came running back last time" -- yeah because the NHL was basically a new sport. There were so many rule and game changes, that everyone was excited to see what was going to happen. I believe Bob McKenzie was the one who made the exact same point as me. This time around - there's nothing to bring back every single fan.
There is no such thing when it comes to guaranteed contracts in the NHL. Thats works for both sides too.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:38 PM
  #785
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
He should have a fair shot at it.
He did. He failed.

Quote:
The fact that his staff made colossal mistakes is irrelevant.
Unfortunately, Wang has run the Islanders by "management by committee" where hockey decisions "had to be passed before a committee which included Wang and certain other non-hockey executives".

And your above argument is a nonstarter. Owners are absolved of any responsibility for the decisions that their staff (which they chose) made? Just because they're owners and "deserve" to make a profit? Not in the real world.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:38 PM
  #786
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 33,738
vCash: 500
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
NHL is expected to cancel games thru Nov 1 only. Still hoping to have resolution and reg season back on track Nov 2.

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:39 PM
  #787
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
That was never stated. A reference was made, however, to historical NHL - Player relations to debunk some "pendulum" theory.
Really? Read your own quote:

Quote:
Do you know the 100-year history of the NHL and the 45-year history of the NHLPA? Have you read, say, Net Worth? The "pendulum" has arguably swung to the players' favour for perhaps 20 years at best and yet you have the unmitigated audacity to whine about "fairness" for owners?
Seems fairly clear that your position is that it doesn't matter if the owners get screwed now because the players had been screwed for about 80 years.

By the way, nothing was debunked, to debunk something, you have to disprove it. You didn't debunk the pendulum effect, you simply put forward that looking for it to end in the middle where it belongs is audacious whining about fairness because the owners lived in the sweet swing of the pendulum for far longer than the players have. Again, just because some garbage people used to be owners does not mean that current owners (some of whom may also be garbage for all I know) should be screwed out of their fair share of HRR. No other business exists where two partners "share" revenue while only one pays all costs.

Keep in mind, my whining about fairness INCLUDES the players, ultimately. I don't agree with the owners original intent to force a 43-57 split in their favour. I don't think that players were treated fairly throughout the previous 80 years where the pendulum hibernated in the owners' favour. I simply want both sides to be treated fairly for now and the foreseeable future. That does not make me an owner sycophant, or an audacious whiner. It makes me someone who firmly believes in ensuring things be as fair as possible in a world where fairness is almost never possible.

The truly unfair thing in all of this is that we fans are deprived of watching a beloved sport and need to get into arguments about how fair other peoples' salaries are when we should simply be enjoying hockey.

Drydenwasthebest is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:42 PM
  #788
WhiskeySeven*
Founded: BargainBin
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
NHL is expected to cancel games thru Nov 1 only. Still hoping to have resolution and reg season back on track Nov 2.
Tremendous insight from the world-class insider known as Darren Dreger.

It bothers me that the poll is getting closer after that cynical public offer (and obvious subsequent refusal) this week. The NHL has to honour existing contracts, it's downright illegal not to if you ask me.

I can't think of any other business where a contract can just be rolled-back like that. Christ almighty how can/do people disagree with this notion?

WhiskeySeven* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:43 PM
  #789
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
He did. He failed.



Unfortunately, Wang has run the Islanders by "management by committee" where hockey decisions "had to be passed before a committee which included Wang and certain other non-hockey executives".

And your above argument is a nonstarter. Owners are absolved of any responsibility for the decisions that their staff (which they chose) made? Just because they're owners and "deserve" to make a profit? Not in the real world.
I never said they deserve to make a profit. I said he deserves a shot at it. That is not the same thing

If the owners get 43% of HRR and pay 100% of the bills its not a fair shot at it. IMO


If both sides really want a fair deal. If both sides really want to be partners then split everything 50-50, including the costs.

we'll see if the players really want to be partners then.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:46 PM
  #790
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Tremendous insight from the world-class insider known as Darren Dreger.

It bothers me that the poll is getting closer after that cynical public offer (and obvious subsequent refusal) this week. The NHL has to honour existing contracts, it's downright illegal not to if you ask me.

I can't think of any other business where a contract can just be rolled-back like that. Christ almighty how can/do people disagree with this notion?
Players do not always honour their contracts either you know.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:51 PM
  #791
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
Players do not always honour their contracts either you know.
First, it is not illegal to get rollbacks if the parties being asked to accept them agree to the rollbacks. That could have been your reply without stepping onto murky ground.

Second, it doesn't matter if there are players who do not honour their contracts, in regards to our discussion, because the same principle of "two wrongs don't make a right" applies.

We do agree that the owners and players should get a fair 50/50 split of the HRR, though! We also seem to understand the notion that the guys paying 100% of everything should at least get 50% of the HRR. How other people can disagree with that notion is astounding.

Drydenwasthebest is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:57 PM
  #792
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
I never said they deserve to make a profit. I said he deserves a shot at it. That is not the same thing

If the owners get 43% of HRR and pay 100% of the bills its not a fair shot at it. IMO


If both sides really want a fair deal. If both sides really want to be partners then split everything 50-50, including the costs.

we'll see if the players really want to be partners then.
Actually, the players ONLY want to be "partners" in regards to the owners' HRR. Never mind sharing the costs, they won't even share their own HRR that they get from endorsements, appearance fees, autograph signings, etc... Keep that in mind.

The players do not want any part of paying any costs or sharing their own revenue outside of their salaries. They "only" want over 50% of the owners' HRR and 100% guaranteed contracts that are not tied to any kind of performance levels at all. Wow, talk about being "fair"...

Drydenwasthebest is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:58 PM
  #793
76ftw
24
 
76ftw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,192
vCash: 1907
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
Players do not always honour their contracts either you know.
please explain this

76ftw is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:08 PM
  #794
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 76ftw View Post
please explain this

Just off the top of my head. Rick Nash, who signed a big money, long term deal with Columbus "changed his mind" and demanded a trade. Everyone knew that he did which lowered his value and The BJs did not get fair value for THEIR asset. All because Mr Nash would not honour his contract.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:10 PM
  #795
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Actually, the players ONLY want to be "partners" in regards to the owners' HRR. Never mind sharing the costs, they won't even share their own HRR that they get from endorsements, appearance fees, autograph signings, etc... Keep that in mind.

The players do not want any part of paying any costs or sharing their own revenue outside of their salaries. They "only" want over 50% of the owners' HRR and 100% guaranteed contracts that are not tied to any kind of performance levels at all. Wow, talk about being "fair"...
its like you read my mind.......

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:14 PM
  #796
The n00b King
Kingin' since 2003
 
The n00b King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 76ftw View Post
please explain this
Alexander Radulov

The n00b King is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:16 PM
  #797
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The n00b King View Post
Alexander Radulov
Another fine example.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:30 PM
  #798
WhiskeySeven*
Founded: BargainBin
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
Players do not always honour their contracts either you know.
False. If they don't show up to practice or training camp, if they don't show up to a game, if they dishonor the CONTRACT in any way they get suspended without pay. It's right there in the CBA.

If the player just gets injured a lot, or just sucks at hockey or requests a trade it is still all perfectly acceptable in the initial contract - and both the owners and the players know this - which is why no one should sign their players to big contracts to begin with!! However, even though I'm not for guaranteed-contracts this isn't about that. This is about honouring an existing contract signed and ratified by all the required parties. There shouldn't even be a debate this time about rolling-back contracts, as HRR is nowhere near what it was before the salary cap. Wanting to roll-back the contracts is essentially the owners saying "well **** you I don't want to hold up my end of the deal that I offered, signed and ratified - tough bitties" leaving the players with their dicks in their hand. It doesn't matter if every player makes 10M dollars a year - if everyone agreed that they get 10m a year then that's it, we live in the first world we can't just run around re-negging on legal contracts at our convinence.

This is MY principle argument. Yes the players make too much, yes there shouldn't be guaranteed contracts, yes the teams of the league should all be making profits (it's absurd otherwise, if you ask me) - but NO you can't just refuse to pay someone that you previously agreed to pay. Fair is fair.

Grand-father these deals in, stick HRR at 50/50 for the time being and lets play some damn hockey.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
First, it is not illegal to get rollbacks if the parties being asked to accept them agree to the rollbacks. That could have been your reply without stepping onto murky ground.
If both parties agree it's one thing. Obviously both parties don't agree, and having the NHL keep trying to sneak that in there is criminal. This shouldn't be a point of contention, what is your or any other pro-Billionaire zealot's argument for rolling-back contracts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Second, it doesn't matter if there are players who do not honour their contracts, in regards to our discussion, because the same principle of "two wrongs don't make a right" applies.
There are very few instances of players not honouring their contracts. Don't follow down this path because your rhetoric is wrong. In terms of CONTRACT I mean the piece of paper which clearly spells out what is required of either party, the players by-and-large abide by their contracts almost universally. Even Gomez. Even Nash. Even Darche. Everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
We do agree that the owners and players should get a fair 50/50 split of the HRR, though! We also seem to understand the notion that the guys paying 100% of everything should at least get 50% of the HRR. How other people can disagree with that notion is astounding.
The guys "paying" 100% of everything aren't really the draw. They're the investors and the players are the ones doing "100%" of everything - wouldn't you agree?

Yes the sport needs investors and yes the owners should make a profit otherwise the NHL is a bad investment and will spiral down and down until no one buys or keeps their teams. But saying that it's astounding to come to a term other than 50/50 is pretty cynical. Arguments can be made for either way, I think 50/50 sounds okay but I don't know the little details of HRR - for me, if the new terms make the NHL a safer place for investors, a sustainable and growing entity in the US/Canada/World and a fair competition (in terms of sport) then I'm all for it.

The cap was tied to HRR; the Canadian dollar went up and the HRR soared but if some teams couldn't keep up then there was obviously something wrong and we should fix it. But re-negging on the current deals is NOT RIGHT.

Pro-NHLPA so far and I'm hating Bettman more and more. Also f TSN for their distinct lack of reporting about existing contracts.

WhiskeySeven* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:35 PM
  #799
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,716
vCash: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
A few key items to keep in mind:
- there are 30 owners and there are 740 players. 50/50 isn't really 50/50 when you consider this.
- owning a sports team is similar to owning real estate... You can make or loose money during the ownership period but the real value in terms of profit is when you sell.
Why is this relevant anyway?

What if there's a partnership with a group of investors, are they allowed to ask for more money now? Seems very weird that this is even brought up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Tremendous insight from the world-class insider known as Darren Dreger.

It bothers me that the poll is getting closer after that cynical public offer (and obvious subsequent refusal) this week. The NHL has to honour existing contracts, it's downright illegal not to if you ask me.

I can't think of any other business where a contract can just be rolled-back like that. Christ almighty how can/do people disagree with this notion?
The contract isn't rolled back. They need to agree to it.

The NHL doesn't NEED to honour existing contracts. The contracts exist on the basis that there's a CBA or an agreement to play games, otherwise the contract means little.

Also, they can negotiate removal of guaranteed contracts.

This is entirely different than should they honour them vs what is legal/illegal. The players have fair right to suggest these deals need to be honoured and the NHL is within it's legal right to lock players out too. I think a compromise is the best solution as older contracts refer to a marketplace which may be altered and as such it's not unreasonable to suggest that the workings within it are altered as well.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:39 PM
  #800
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,905
vCash: 500
Drydenwasthebest had it right.

The owners should ask for 43% of all HRR the players get too. Its fair for one side its fair for both.

IceDaddy 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 01:33 PM.

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.