HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

CBA Negotiations II: This is the song that never ends...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 02:04 PM
  #551
Krishna
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,010
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
Ok, didn't get those details included. So an extra year on the contract with no payment for it? Makes more sense.
Yep, the last year is unpaid if it happens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Does that money not go into escrow? It's HRR, no? Why would the owners get the full share?

I can't quite remember, but wasn't there something similar in the NFL that the owners got tagged for before their labor dispute?
If there's no season, there's no rules to choose where the money goes. So it goes to the nhl.

__________________
Krishna is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:05 PM
  #552
Krishna
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,010
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
Why are they threatening to cancel the WC so early? Pressure or is there a payment to be made for the stadium use?
Payment for stadium use is coming up very soon. Plus, it takes a lot of man power to get the event up and running

Krishna is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:06 PM
  #553
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
If there's no season, there's no rules to choose where the money goes. So it goes to the nhl.
So, hypothetically, if the league never goes back into operation, but never technically folds, NBC would be on the hook for a full ten year deal, even if they never air a single broadcast?

I'd assume the NHLPA will insist on language addressing it in the CBA, in the event the whole season is lost. Otherwise, they would be looking at a year down the road with no TV money to split, and the owners already pocketing the cash. If I'm the NHLPA, whatever share the owners think they are getting is being docked the full TV contract, with interest.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:07 PM
  #554
Krishna
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,010
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
So, hypothetically, if the league never goes back into operation, but never technically folds, NBC would be on the hook for a full ten year deal, even if they never air a single broadcast?
I'm not even sure. Let's just hope we never have to find out

Krishna is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:09 PM
  #555
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
I'm not even sure. Let's just hope we never have to find out
Regardless, it will be a bit of a PR coup for the players when the full season gets cancelled.

Owners pocket $6 million a piece for cancelling the season? Sheesh.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:14 PM
  #556
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
So, hypothetically, if the league never goes back into operation, but never technically folds, NBC would be on the hook for a full ten year deal, even if they never air a single broadcast?

I'd assume the NHLPA will insist on language addressing it in the CBA, in the event the whole season is lost. Otherwise, they would be looking at a year down the road with no TV money to split, and the owners already pocketing the cash. If I'm the NHLPA, whatever share the owners think they are getting is being docked the full TV contract, with interest.
Players wouldn't dare touch it. You would open up a can of worms with that one. At the end of the day, TV contracts pay for the league.

Spongolium* is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:16 PM
  #557
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Players wouldn't dare touch it. You would open up a can of worms with that one. At the end of the day, TV contracts pay for the league.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I was asking, in the event of a lost season, the owners will have already pocketed the full $180 million, and the "free" year that came later would, by extension, basically be solely at the players expense, right? The owners already received their share of TV money from that year, as well as the players. I'd assume the NHLPA won't let that stand. I'm not talking about altering the TV contract (which couldn't be done via the CBA anyway)--simply about how the money already paid out (in the event of a lost season) is dealt with. The NHLPA would be well within their rights to demand that the owners account for it in a new CBA by insisting that some future year account for that lost revenue.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:30 PM
  #558
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I was asking, in the event of a lost season, the owners will have already pocketed the full $180 million, and the "free" year that came later would, by extension, basically be solely at the players expense, right? The owners already received their share of TV money from that year, as well as the players. I'd assume the NHLPA won't let that stand. I'm not talking about altering the TV contract (which couldn't be done via the CBA anyway)--simply about how the money already paid out (in the event of a lost season) is dealt with. The NHLPA would be well within their rights to demand that the owners account for it in a new CBA by insisting that some future year account for that lost revenue.
The owners will counter with "well you should of accepted our deal to start negotiations in november".

Spongolium* is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:32 PM
  #559
Krishna
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,010
vCash: 50
Someone on the business board sums up the PA perfect :

The PA strategy is like that Seinfeld episode where George holds out for less money from NBC

Krishna is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:35 PM
  #560
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
The owners will counter with "well you should of accepted our deal to start negotiations in november".
Starting negotiations earlier =/= earlier deal.

There was always going to be a lockout with this level of NHL demands on a range of issues because the players weren't going to accept the massive cutbacks / new restrictions being demanded of them without the pressure of lost paychecks.

As to your point, I can't imagine that the owners are either that dumb or that petty, but who knows anymore. The players have every right to demand their share of that money / refuse to play a "free" year later so that the owners can pocket double their share now. If we get to the point where there's a deal in place, I can't imagine the NHL drawing a line there--it would be an insanely stupid PR move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Someone on the business board sums up the PA perfect :

The PA strategy is like that Seinfeld episode where George holds out for less money from NBC
...is the place that overrun with trolls, because that's absurd.

That logic literally dictates that the players take whatever the owners decide to offer them. What's too low? A 20 percent share? After all, they'd still be making well above the average income. Maybe 15 percent?

On the other hand, as long as the owners can pocket $6 million a piece for the next decade without playing a period of hockey, there's no reason for half the owners to take a deal.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:41 PM
  #561
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,806
vCash: 500
Nashville's owners must be crapping themselves after having to pay Weber all that signing bonus money and getting no incoming revenue.

MsWoof is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:50 PM
  #562
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackStevens View Post
This is my issue. Even if 10-12 teams are REALLY losing money, what's the excuse for the rest of the teams to ask for player cuts? Snider, Dolan, Jacobs, etc don't need to save on player expenses. In fact, the cap is probably keeping their spend lower than it would be naturally

It's clear the real problem is a market revenue imbalance. The richer owners have no ground to stand on asking for player reductions. They should be upping the revenue sharing amount if those markets are going to be sticking around.
My problem is also with Bettman boasting about what great shape the league is in when he does his "state of the union" addresses, yet when it comes down to negotiate it's all doom and gloom.

MsWoof is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:53 PM
  #563
Krishna
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,010
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Starting negotiations earlier =/= earlier deal.

There was always going to be a lockout with this level of NHL demands on a range of issues because the players weren't going to accept the massive cutbacks / new restrictions being demanded of them without the pressure of lost paychecks.

As to your point, I can't imagine that the owners are either that dumb or that petty, but who knows anymore. The players have every right to demand their share of that money / refuse to play a "free" year later so that the owners can pocket double their share now. If we get to the point where there's a deal in place, I can't imagine the NHL drawing a line there--it would be an insanely stupid PR move.



...is the place that overrun with trolls, because that's absurd.

That logic literally dictates that the players take whatever the owners decide to offer them. What's too low? A 20 percent share? After all, they'd still be making well above the average income. Maybe 15 percent?

On the other hand, as long as the owners can pocket $6 million a piece for the next decade without playing a period of hockey, there's no reason for half the owners to take a deal.
It's become pretty unreadable recently with everyone coming and jumping into the conversation without knowing anything

Krishna is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:54 PM
  #564
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
My problem is also with Bettman boasting about what great shape the league is in when he does his "state of the union" addresses, yet when it comes down to negotiate it's all doom and gloom.
Do you not understand business at all.

Why in the hell would bettman be spouting at how badly the league is doing if he wanted to increase revenue, and gain more popularity with the bigger sponsors of this world?

Spongolium* is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:29 PM
  #565
Go For It
Registered User
 
Go For It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Collegeville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,006
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
It's become pretty unreadable recently with everyone coming and jumping into the conversation without knowing anything
Yeah. It's a fun place to visit during the season, but during the off-season (especially this year with the lockout) the place turns into a troll fest.

Go For It is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:50 PM
  #566
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Do you not understand business at all.

Why in the hell would bettman be spouting at how badly the league is doing if he wanted to increase revenue, and gain more popularity with the bigger sponsors of this world?
Snookums, I own my own successful business and have for ten years. Next question?

MsWoof is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:52 PM
  #567
Krishna
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,010
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
Snookums, I own my own successful business and have for ten years. Next question?
OH SNAP.

But, he was right in a sense. You being successful in one business doesn't mean if you owned 30 of them that all would be successful.

Krishna is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:56 PM
  #568
BleedOrange
BuildThroughTheDraft
 
BleedOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oshawa Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,044
vCash: 500
Both the owners and players are going to start to lose money now lets see who folds first like a game of high stakes poker it will be the NHLPA i say..

BleedOrange is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 04:00 PM
  #569
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
Nashville's owners must be crapping themselves after having to pay Weber all that signing bonus money and getting no incoming revenue.
Did he ever sign the contract with Nashville? If not, then he wouldn't get that 10M signing bonus?

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 04:07 PM
  #570
BleedOrange
BuildThroughTheDraft
 
BleedOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oshawa Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
It is set in stone unless they agree to a rollback. The owners are locking them out to force them to give into their demands.




There has been discussion on the BOH board in the past about how the Flyers under report their revenues. Someone pointed out how the Flyers only receive $10M from their local television contract with CSN when comparable sized markets receive around $30M. Ed Snider and Comcast Spectacor are making a lot more than $10M from their television deal since they own CSN and the Flyers. They can make it look like the Flyers are bringing in less money through their television deal when in actuality Snider is profiting big time.

The owners can find these accounting tricks to make them appear as if they generate less. They aren't sharing the money they are hiding with the players and they use it to cry poor. The players have no such tricks.

I do have a problem with the owners like Snider who are asking the players for a salary reduction for no other reason than they want more money. I also don't have a problem with the players asking for more when the owners are dishonest about their revenues. They *are* the league when it is all said and done.
:tmi :

BleedOrange is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 04:29 PM
  #571
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
Snookums, I own my own successful business and have for ten years. Next question?
Then don't play dumb...........

Spongolium* is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:15 PM
  #572
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
My problem is also with Bettman boasting about what great shape the league is in when he does his "state of the union" addresses, yet when it comes down to negotiate it's all doom and gloom.
I suppose since you own a business, then you also understand that you can have record revenues and still have a negative in operating costs.

What you bring in =/= What it cost to do it.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:19 PM
  #573
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
I would need it shown that they are truly under-reporting, instead of classifying Flyers revenue from CSN revenue, which are different entities.
Ask yourself why CSN is paying the Flyers far below market value for their television rights.



Quote:
This is simply false. It has also been detailed at length why the owners are taking the position that they are.
This is a big market versus small market issue. This is not a players issue. The owners don't have a reasonable position for a lockout.

Haute Couturier is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:25 PM
  #574
Krishna
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,010
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
Ask yourself why CSN is paying the Flyers far below market value for their television rights.




This is a big market versus small market issue. This is not a players issue. The owners don't have a reasonable position for a lockout.
The owners have a reasonable position for a lockout. If you can't see that, I don't know why you are posting here. Maybe they should just give all of the revenue to the players.

Krishna is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:28 PM
  #575
Gert B Frobe
Registered User
 
Gert B Frobe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Morgantown PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,440
vCash: 500
I truly do not understand the financial ins and outs of this lockout and I do not know who is right or wrong. However - I am certain that a lost season is bad for both sides. I like to think that I'm good at reading people - and though I've never met Gary Bettman - I've seen him behave like a petulant, vindictive little turd on TV.

So I'm on the side of the players. It's not exactly a scientific way of deciding but my God - I've read some posts from the most arrogant little windbags on this site - and I like my method a lot better. Two pages and I think I've added 5 to my ignore list. At least.

I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong or who the arrogant windbags are on here - but I'm sure the reasonable members of this forum know who I'm talking about.

This lockout sucks on so many levels.

Gert B Frobe 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 03:03 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.