HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Nhl ownership

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2012, 09:39 PM
  #1
HockeyCA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Nhl ownership

Quick question. Can someone explain to me how the owners' somehow expect the players' to not only make significant concessions in regards to % of HRR, but to also drop down far enough in order to allow the owners' to not have to make significant modification's of REVENUE SHARING. Isn't that the real issue here? We have a lot of team's in this league who are making large amounts of money. Why don't the owners' decide on a system that allows for a better distribution of RECORD REVENUES among all 30 teams. The players' gave away 25% of their salaries and agreed to a hard salary cap system in the last lockout. They are willing to probably give away a 3-5% share of HRR, which equates to several million dollars. If the players' continue to be forced to continue to make significant concessions during every work stoppage, ownership will continue to get a bigger and bigger piece of the the profits. Should the NHL really be a league where the players' play under an agreement that would continue to give the player's significantly less, and ownership significantly more each and every year? This thing is only going to get resolved when the owners' collectively decide to move significantly from their original 43% offer.

HockeyCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 09:57 PM
  #2
Ron
Kings Fan Since 1967
 
Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brea, California
Country: United States
Posts: 5,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCA View Post
Quick question. Can someone explain to me how the owners' somehow expect the players' to not only make significant concessions in regards to % of HRR, but to also drop down far enough in order to allow the owners' to not have to make significant modification's of REVENUE SHARING. Isn't that the real issue here? We have a lot of team's in this league who are making large amounts of money. Why don't the owners' decide on a system that allows for a better distribution of RECORD REVENUES among all 30 teams. The players' gave away 25% of their salaries and agreed to a hard salary cap system in the last lockout. They are willing to probably give away a 3-5% share of HRR, which equates to several million dollars. If the players' continue to be forced to continue to make significant concessions during every work stoppage, ownership will continue to get a bigger and bigger piece of the the profits. Should the NHL really be a league where the players' play under an agreement that would continue to give the player's significantly less, and ownership significantly more each and every year? This thing is only going to get resolved when the owners' collectively decide to move significantly from their original 43% offer.
The Los Angeles Kings are the 2011-12 Stanley Cup Champions.

Sorry, don't mean to be flippant, but all this financial stuff hurts my head. I have to deal with it all day long, 5 days a week (sometimes more), and sports is supposed to be fun.

I just want this to be over, and watch the banner raised to the ceiling. That's all I want.

__________________
Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 10:46 PM
  #3
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,941
vCash: 500
People are so often forgetting...Revenue =/= profits

Jason Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:08 AM
  #4
HockeyCA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
People are so often forgetting...Revenue =/= profits
A significant amount of teams is making a significant profit. It's those teams are not making nearly as much that are struggling. Sounds like a Revenue Sharing Problem to me.. Why should it be the players' burden to do something the owners' cannot do themselves?

HockeyCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:21 AM
  #5
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCA View Post
A significant amount of teams is making a significant profit. It's those teams are not making nearly as much that are struggling. Sounds like a Revenue Sharing Problem to me.. Why should it be the players' burden to do something the owners' cannot do themselves?
If you can't answer this question yourself then you haven't been following these negotiations too well.

Jason Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:36 AM
  #6
KingLB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCA View Post
A significant amount of teams is making a significant profit. It's those teams are not making nearly as much that are struggling. Sounds like a Revenue Sharing Problem to me.. Why should it be the players' burden to do something the owners' cannot do themselves?
What do you consider significant? Cause unless its 4 or 5 then you are mis-informed.

Or you have different definition of significant than me.

KingLB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 01:28 AM
  #7
HockeyCA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingLB View Post
What do you consider significant? Cause unless its 4 or 5 then you are mis-informed.

Or you have different definition of significant than me.

5 sounds about right, and again is a revenue sharing issue. The NHL does not want to increase the amount that is distributed out to other franchises. It is pretty difficult for me to feel sorry for ownership when it drove Dennis Wiedemens contract value to over 30 million dollars.

HockeyCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 02:24 AM
  #8
Bandit
Registered User
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 4,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron View Post
The Los Angeles Kings are the 2011-12 Stanley Cup Champions.

... sports is supposed to be fun.

I just want this to be over, and watch the banner raised to the ceiling. That's all I want.
This. A billions times this. I didn't care if the Kings got knocked out in th 1st round this year, I just wanted to be there on opening night to see that banner go to the ceiling... finally.

Bandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 11:03 AM
  #9
Julius Caesar Milan
Lord of the Shih Tzu
 
Julius Caesar Milan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Behind you
Posts: 17,235
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCA View Post
Quick question. Can someone explain to me how the owners' somehow expect the players' to not only make significant concessions in regards to % of HRR, but to also drop down far enough in order to allow the owners' to not have to make significant modification's of REVENUE SHARING. Isn't that the real issue here?
It apparently is. The only quoye I saw from Bettman in revenue sharing referred to it as a "distraction".

Not good

Julius Caesar Milan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 01:14 PM
  #10
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bunny Foo Foo View Post
It apparently is. The only quoye I saw from Bettman in revenue sharing referred to it as a "distraction".

Not good
Yet the NHL did come back to the table with an offer that increased revenue sharing. What has the NHLPA come back with?

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 03:45 PM
  #11
Julius Caesar Milan
Lord of the Shih Tzu
 
Julius Caesar Milan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Behind you
Posts: 17,235
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Yet the NHL did come back to the table with an offer that increased revenue sharing. What has the NHLPA come back with?
I didn't read an article that mentioned that. Only that they increased the players %

We also don't know if it was meaningful revenue sharing or more of the same

Julius Caesar Milan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 04:06 PM
  #12
HockeyCA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Yet the NHL did come back to the table with an offer that increased revenue sharing. What has the NHLPA come back with?
Let's not also forget that there are certain things that are not even calculated into HRR, concession and parking being the biggest among them. Yet the NHL believes it is the players responsibility to give them a big enough piece of the pie so the Toronto maple leafs, Montreal Canadians, and New York Rangers can continue to make significant profits and the Nashville Predators can be more viable. (Although, Nashville did just give a player over 100 MILLION dollars). The players gave up almost 25% of the their salaries in the last lockout, instituted only the second hard cap system in all of professional sports, AND agreed to put a significant % of their salaries each year into escrow, virtually guaranteeing to the NHL certain income thresholds. But all that was not enough apparently. The NHL has experienced significant growth over these past years, and yet they feel we need another significant shift in how revenues are distributed. They continue to ask for MORE from the players while the players are offering CONCESSIONS, and nothing else. How can anyone argue that the players are in the wrong on this one, and the owners are the victims. That's lunacy. Fire away.

HockeyCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 04:30 PM
  #13
Julius Caesar Milan
Lord of the Shih Tzu
 
Julius Caesar Milan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Behind you
Posts: 17,235
vCash: 863
From what I read they have defined HRR. The sticking points are revenue sharing, the player percentage, length of ELCs, and to rollback or rollback

Julius Caesar Milan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 05:09 PM
  #14
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 13,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Yet the NHL did come back to the table with an offer that increased revenue sharing. What has the NHLPA come back with?
Some of these pro-union people simply expect to keep the status quo, their solution is to "spread the wealth around" (sound familiar?) and have the Montreal and Philly's of the league just subsidize the Florida and Phoenix's of the league.

I would be shocked by how out of touch the NHLPA is, if I didn't know the Fehr brothers were in charge. They already ruined one sports season, why not go for another. Not surprised they have been able to brain wash most of the players, who have nothing more than a high school education (if that), but surprised the kool-aid has worked on guys like Westgarth, who as an Ivy League educated guy, should have a better clue on economics, and how bad the economy is right now.

Herby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 05:14 PM
  #15
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 8,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCA View Post
A significant amount of teams is making a significant profit. It's those teams are not making nearly as much that are struggling. Sounds like a Revenue Sharing Problem to me.. Why should it be the players' burden to do something the owners' cannot do themselves?
Why does one business have to subsidize another when one stands to gain from the partnership than the other? If I'm an owner, I wouldn't want to send a penny to another franchise that isn't really helping me out. I mentioned this before and maybe I'm missing something but the New York Rangers benefit a lot less, if at all, from the Nashville Predators of the league than the Predators benefit from the NYR potential subsidies.

Oh and I used a word that is key above, partnership. If these franchises and players view themselves as partners, they should all be kicking in to keep things afloat. But it is the players who will benefit the most from 30 teams in the league so if I'm a big market owner, my attitude would be make the players subsidize them if they want to keep them around. It seems like an easy solution is to lower or get rid of the cap floor but we all know the players aren't going to go for that. The players are playing hardball with themselves is far as i'm concerned. They want what the owners have and good luck prying that from their hands. They didn't become billionaires by foiling a successful busines model. Anyone who thinks the owners are sitting out strictly to stick it to the players for a few extra bucks is a delusional. There would be hockey right now if there werent some serious financial issues with clubs. If everyone stood to profit, the owners would be on board. That is purely anecdotal on my part but no red blooded business man is going to choose making zero dollars to make a point.

Then after I waste all of these key strokes i think to myself this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron View Post
The Los Angeles Kings are the 2011-12 Stanley Cup Champions.

Sorry, don't mean to be flippant, but all this financial stuff hurts my head. I have to deal with it all day long, 5 days a week (sometimes more), and sports is supposed to be fun.

I just want this to be over, and watch the banner raised to the ceiling. That's all I want.
Totally agree. Why should I have to even worry about this? First world problems... ones that even this middle class American guy can't relate to.

Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 05:19 PM
  #16
Quattro
Registered User
 
Quattro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 3,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCA View Post
Quick question. Can someone explain to me how the owners' somehow expect the players' to not only make significant concessions in regards to % of HRR, but to also drop down far enough in order to allow the owners' to not have to make significant modification's of REVENUE SHARING. Isn't that the real issue here? We have a lot of team's in this league who are making large amounts of money. Why don't the owners' decide on a system that allows for a better distribution of RECORD REVENUES among all 30 teams. The players' gave away 25% of their salaries and agreed to a hard salary cap system in the last lockout. They are willing to probably give away a 3-5% share of HRR, which equates to several million dollars. If the players' continue to be forced to continue to make significant concessions during every work stoppage, ownership will continue to get a bigger and bigger piece of the the profits. Should the NHL really be a league where the players' play under an agreement that would continue to give the player's significantly less, and ownership significantly more each and every year? This thing is only going to get resolved when the owners' collectively decide to move significantly from their original 43% offer.
Short answer? The owners are a bunch of ruthless, greedy ********.

Quattro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 05:19 PM
  #17
HockeyCA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
Some of these pro-union people simply expect to keep the status quo, their solution is to "spread the wealth around" (sound familiar?) and have the Montreal and Philly's of the league just subsidize the Florida and Phoenix's of the league.

I would be shocked by how out of touch the NHLPA is, if I didn't know the Fehr brothers were in charge. They already ruined one sports season, why not go for another. Not surprised they have been able to brain wash most of the players, who have nothing more than a high school education (if that), but surprised the kool-aid has worked on guys like Westgarth, who as an Ivy League educated guy, should have a better clue on economics, and how bad the economy is right now.

Boy, have to love it when someone just spews nonsense while providing no facts, or responses any arguments being made by the other side. So just to make sure I am understanding your argument correctly, it is your contention that the players should be forced to subsidize ownership groups who are currently in markets where annual revenues are significantly less than their counterparts in other parts of the country? Somehow that is the players responsibility in all of this? Wouldn't it make more sense for ownership to pool their own resources to make sure their other "partners" in the business are vibrant and healthy? The ownership make money BECAUSE of the players. If there were no players, there would be no league, there would be no owners, and there would be no revenue. For some reason you hold the position that the players should be thankful for what they get, and shut up and cash their paychecks. That is absolute nonsense, and an absolutely unreasonable position to take.

HockeyCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 05:28 PM
  #18
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 8,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCA View Post
Boy, have to love it when someone just spews nonsense while providing no facts, or responses any arguments being made by the other side. So just to make sure I am understanding your argument correctly, it is your contention that the players should be forced to subsidize ownership groups who are currently in markets where annual revenues are significantly less than their counterparts in other parts of the country? Somehow that is the players responsibility in all of this? Wouldn't it make more sense for ownership to pool their own resources to make sure their other "partners" in the business are vibrant and healthy? The ownership make money BECAUSE of the players. If there were no players, there would be no league, there would be no owners, and there would be no revenue. For some reason you hold the position that the players should be thankful for what they get, and shut up and cash their paychecks. That is absolute nonsense, and an absolutely unreasonable position to take.
Well I share a similar position as him so I'll respond with my $0.02.

The players shouldn't just take what they have been offered but here are a few things I BELIEVE are facts and you can correct me if I'm wrong:

-The players make a bigger percentage of revenue than any other pro sports league
-The owners reached out as early as last year to start negotiations and the NHLPA decided to wait until the summer
-The NHLPA dragged its feet in the summer to make any kind of legitimate offer and hasn't backed off its original proposal by much

Now answer me this, who benefits from the flailing (did I spell that right?) franchises more, the owners of the Maple Leafs, NYR et al or the players and the 115 jobs that those flailing franchises offer the players? The NYR would make just as much money with 20 teams in the league playing 82 games as they would 30. The players would have less jobs as a result and less money.

A lower salary cap floor would keep the small market teams afloat but would also give the players less money in the pool to be earned.

The owners do make money from the players... well some of them don't apparently which is why we are in this mess. The fact is the owners are billionaires who earned their money. The players don't get paychecks without the owners so the owners have the power by default. It would behoove the union to negotiate in good faith and I'm sure the owners would bend a little further but the players appear content to play hardball. Keep in mind the players have finite careers or earning power while the owners will still be billionaires when all is said and done.

Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 05:41 PM
  #19
HockeyCA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
Well I share a similar position as him so I'll respond with my $0.02.

The players shouldn't just take what they have been offered but here are a few things I BELIEVE are facts and you can correct me if I'm wrong:

-The players make a bigger percentage of revenue than any other pro sports league
-The owners reached out as early as last year to start negotiations and the NHLPA decided to wait until the summer
-The NHLPA dragged its feet in the summer to make any kind of legitimate offer and hasn't backed off its original proposal by much

Now answer me this, who benefits from the flailing (did I spell that right?) franchises more, the owners of the Maple Leafs, NYR et al or the players and the 115 jobs that those flailing franchises offer the players? The NYR would make just as much money with 20 teams in the league playing 82 games as they would 30. The players would have less jobs as a result and less money.

A lower salary cap floor would keep the small market teams afloat but would also give the players less money in the pool to be earned.
I guess I can try and take these on one at a time. First, the players argue that they already get about 50% of revenues because the official definition of “Hockey Related Revenues” excludes several items. While I also suspect they would be fine with having the percentage drop gradually, but what they object to (and what the other leagues, despite negotiations that reduced athlete share, have NOT done) is having the existing contracts that they signed in good faith slashed dramatically. The NHL would also like achieve this, by way of increased escrow payments. The players want to be paid what the owners said they would pay them, instead of having it cut back every single time a CBA expires and the owners say “we still have unprofitable franchises, so we need you to roll back your salary another 25%," which I think is a rather reasonable position to take. The NHL keeps pointing out that the NFL and NBA reduced the player percentage, but in both of those cases existing contracts weren’t affected and the players actually gained something in terms of working conditions, pension benefits, or other factors. The NHL seems not to be offering anything as a positive for the players in return for dropping their share of HRR, and doesn’t seem to be making any changes that will not lead to another lockout whenever this CBA expires because some teams will still be losing money hand over fist.

SO, where does that leave us? Well, the position you articulated would involve the players somehow taking a % of revenue that would allow smaller market teams to become more profitable, while allowing the NYR to continue to make significant profits. It is rather strange to hear ownership describe the NHL as a "partnership" among 30 NHL owners, and yet they refuse to design a system where they are all in a position to be vibrant and healthy. I find it EXTREMELY hard to swallow thsi notion that we should take significant amounts of income away from players who in most cases will have a 5 year career or less, in order to provide Billionaire owners with more funds because they are incapable of finding a solution amongst themselves. Can we all agree now that Gary Bettman may need to go after all of this? 4 lockouts in the last 20 years, double the amount of games lost than any other professional sports.. Oh and by the way, he makes 8 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Crazy.

HockeyCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 06:09 PM
  #20
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 8,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCA View Post
I guess I can try and take these on one at a time. First, the players argue that they already get about 50% of revenues because the official definition of “Hockey Related Revenues” excludes several items. While I also suspect they would be fine with having the percentage drop gradually, but what they object to (and what the other leagues, despite negotiations that reduced athlete share, have NOT done) is having the existing contracts that they signed in good faith slashed dramatically. The NHL would also like achieve this, by way of increased escrow payments. The players want to be paid what the owners said they would pay them, instead of having it cut back every single time a CBA expires and the owners say “we still have unprofitable franchises, so we need you to roll back your salary another 25%," which I think is a rather reasonable position to take. The NHL keeps pointing out that the NFL and NBA reduced the player percentage, but in both of those cases existing contracts weren’t affected and the players actually gained something in terms of working conditions, pension benefits, or other factors. The NHL seems not to be offering anything as a positive for the players in return for dropping their share of HRR, and doesn’t seem to be making any changes that will not lead to another lockout whenever this CBA expires because some teams will still be losing money hand over fist.

SO, where does that leave us? Well, the position you articulated would involve the players somehow taking a % of revenue that would allow smaller market teams to become more profitable, while allowing the NYR to continue to make significant profits. It is rather strange to hear ownership describe the NHL as a "partnership" among 30 NHL owners, and yet they refuse to design a system where they are all in a position to be vibrant and healthy. I find it EXTREMELY hard to swallow thsi notion that we should take significant amounts of income away from players who in most cases will have a 5 year career or less, in order to provide Billionaire owners with more funds because they are incapable of finding a solution amongst themselves. Can we all agree now that Gary Bettman may need to go after all of this? 4 lockouts in the last 20 years, double the amount of games lost than any other professional sports.. Oh and by the way, he makes 8 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Crazy.
I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you are saying but think about like this. If the players miss another entire season, how much HHR are they going to have to recoup to make this all worth it? As you stated, their careers are finite and another year down the tubes will be money they will never get back.

I agree that the owners should view themselves as partners but so should the players. WHy did they stall negotiating? Why are they not compromising or trying to bridge gaps when it appears the owners have been willing to make some concessions. I guess all of those things are up for debate for what is really happening because frankly, unless you are a lawyer reading the documents, you really have no idea what is going on.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around here from the players, the owners and Bettman. And yes, I think he should go. It is failed vision that lead us to this point. However, the one thing I will never understand is what the players believe they are going to gain out of this at the end of the day. Individually, plenty of them will never recover financially from a lost season. They will never get that money back. It just doesn't seem like splitting hairs with a handful of percentage points is going to benefit them in the long run. That along with what has been reported at stalling negotations, half hearted proposals or an unwillingness to compromise is what is a real head scratcher to me. All of this with reports that the economy is on course for a double dip just makes it horrible timing on their part. Imagine if the economy does start to slide compounded with resentment from fans and they could end up with 60% of the revenue and it isn't going to matter if the pie is smaller when hockey eventually returns.

Having said all of that, I think I just need to stay away from here. It does me no good to worry about this crap. Again, first world problems.. I should be so lucky as to be able to debate the owners of my company when I don't like my 6 or 7 figure salary. I can't relate but good luck to the players and the owners. I hope it all works out for them but I don't see that being the case. Especially in the case of the players.

It truly is a shame and it makes me embarrassed to be hockey fan to be quite honest. Now instead of every person talking to me about the Kings winning the Stanley Cup it is "what is going on with the lockout?" Good riddance!

Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 06:13 PM
  #21
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCA View Post
For some reason you hold the position that the players should be thankful for what they get, and shut up and cash their paychecks. That is absolute nonsense, and an absolutely unreasonable position to take.
The players are not being very smart here. They should take what they can get, just like everyone else right now. What are they going to do, miss a season on principle? For "future" players? Ask O'Neill or Modano how that worked out. Two seasons? If that happens, they'll be some job losses because some teams would go bye-bye. Teams are for sale left and right, and it's for a reason. You think some of those owners wouldn't see that as an opportunity to get out? They want out already.

Thing is, no matter what the players do, they can't win this. It doesn't matter who is at fault. If the PA was fighting with the NHL about safety, benefits, retirement, or other employment issues, they'd stand a chance. They will never stand a chance, however, when it's about money. You aren't going to win that battle against people who are in the top .00001% of businessmen. Guys like Fehr come along, and try to get the most they can. Well, if this isn't solved in the next few weeks, I can guarantee that the players would make more money with me negotiating for them rather than the Fehr brothers.

Fishhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 06:24 PM
  #22
Julius Caesar Milan
Lord of the Shih Tzu
 
Julius Caesar Milan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Behind you
Posts: 17,235
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
Some of these pro-union people simply expect to keep the status quo, their solution is to "spread the wealth around" (sound familiar?) and have the Montreal and Philly's of the league just subsidize the Florida and Phoenix's of the league.
First, explain to me why every other league has better revenue sharing than the NHL?
The NFL which is far and away the biggest sport, has it. The MLB has it. So does the NBA.

The players have also brought up the Phoenix's and the Floridas. They are two of the teams having trouble reaching the floor and causing the problems that led to the lockout.


Quote:
I would be shocked by how out of touch the NHLPA is, if I didn't know the Fehr brothers were in charge. They already ruined one sports season, why not go for another. Not surprised they have been able to brain wash most of the players, who have nothing more than a high school education (if that), but surprised the kool-aid has worked on guys like Westgarth, who as an Ivy League educated guy, should have a better clue on economics, and how bad the economy is right now.
Why don't you explain to us what you think happened in baseball?

Because the courts all agreed that the league was really at fault on several issues, including collusion.

Julius Caesar Milan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 06:41 PM
  #23
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 13,894
vCash: 500
LBFF,

The other leagues have huge TV contracts, the NHL does not. The NHL is a gate driven league, and they are losing money because many markets are not drawing, largely in part because of the poor economic situation our country is in.

In the NFL, the Cowboys, Bears and Giants are not subsidizing the Packers, Jags and Bucs, everyone is making a killing because of the TV contract.

With the way salaries have escalated since the lockout (remember the floor is higher than the cap was 5 years ago), it is just not feasible for some of these smaller markets. And even the high revenue teams aren't making enough to support the lower level teams, and they shouldn't be expected to dip into their already small revenue to help teams like Phoenix and Florida.

The cbal needs to be fixed, and the best way to start is to cut back on player salaries.

Herby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 07:22 PM
  #24
Julius Caesar Milan
Lord of the Shih Tzu
 
Julius Caesar Milan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Behind you
Posts: 17,235
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
LBFF,

The other leagues have huge TV contracts, the NHL does not. The NHL is a gate driven league, and they are losing money because many markets are not drawing, largely in part because of the poor economic situation our country is in.

In the NFL, the Cowboys, Bears and Giants are not subsidizing the Packers, Jags and Bucs, everyone is making a killing because of the TV contract.

With the way salaries have escalated since the lockout (remember the floor is higher than the cap was 5 years ago), it is just not feasible for some of these smaller markets. And even the high revenue teams aren't making enough to support the lower level teams, and they shouldn't be expected to dip into their already small revenue to help teams like Phoenix and Florida.

The cbal needs to be fixed, and the best way to start is to cut back on player salaries.
First you skipped You skipped the NBA, MLB and their revenue sharing and Your explanation of what you think happened in baseball and how Fehr ruined it

Because there are subsidized NBA teams. The NBA lockout was over the same issue the NHL is facing. The big markets vs the small. Guess what

Quote:
The NBA Board of Governors also voted Thursday to approve a new revenue sharing plan that will quadruple the funds previously shared among NBA teams.

"The Board realized that it was imperative that our revenue sharing program be improved," Stern said. "We have found a solution that should provide our league with better competitive balance
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/12/08/l...hed/index.html



It's not the players fault that teams are in Florida and Phoenix. If you think the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers, Montreal, Vancouver, and a few other markets have small revenue pools I have a bridge to sell you.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#p_1_s_d6_

According to Forbes (who Piston has proved correct back in the day)
The Leafs made 81.8 million in profit last year
The Canadiens made 47.7 Million
The Rangers 41.4 Mil
The Canucks 23.5 Mil
Oilers 17.3 Mil
Red Wings 16.3 mil
Chicago 8.7 mil


Sports leagues aren't free markets. I can't start an NHL team in Seattle tomorrow if I wanted to. I need league and other ownership approval. The owners control where the teams are, not the players. The fact that some teams can't afford to spend to the floor is on the owners

The teams in the league all need each other. They need opponents and factors like the advertising revenue and TV money are a result of how healthy the entire league is.

Revenue sharing is practiced by the other three leagues because it is important to the overall health of the league.


Last edited by Julius Caesar Milan: 10-04-2012 at 07:30 PM.
Julius Caesar Milan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 07:41 PM
  #25
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
Some of these pro-union people simply expect to keep the status quo, their solution is to "spread the wealth around" (sound familiar?) and have the Montreal and Philly's of the league just subsidize the Florida and Phoenix's of the league.

I would be shocked by how out of touch the NHLPA is, if I didn't know the Fehr brothers were in charge. They already ruined one sports season, why not go for another. Not surprised they have been able to brain wash most of the players, who have nothing more than a high school education (if that), but surprised the kool-aid has worked on guys like Westgarth, who as an Ivy League educated guy, should have a better clue on economics, and how bad the economy is right now.
They don't teach Real world stuff at Ivy league anymore. Unless your degree deals with it. I would bet money Westgarth's degree is in Political study or some other (BullS%^T).

Pretty much all Schools teach you to not think for yourself in today's education.

College kids (Now) are some of the dumbest people I have ever worked with. They have zero critical thinking skills.

That's just a personal opinion. I am college educated, but my degree is in Accounting. I also had 7 years of Accounting experience before I went to school.


Last edited by damacles1156: 10-04-2012 at 07:58 PM.
damacles1156 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:00 PM.

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.