HFBoards

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

2012 CBA Discussion III (Lockout Talk)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 09:06 PM
  #176
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
All the more reason to come to an agreement on length of contracts. It's difficult for owners, in a competitive environment, to turn their backs on pressure to match personnel moves by clubs in their division or conference.
I don't know- it's managements job to manage these things. It's all they're asked to do. Shouldn't we assume they can do it? And if they cant shouldn't ownership fire them and hire people who can?

JMiller is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:11 PM
  #177
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
Leopold signed a deal that was competitive under the old cba that he had to operate under. He has to reach the cap floor anyhow. Other teams were offering the same contract. One way or the other.. Suter and Parise were going to get paid. Leopold operated under the insane cba and ponied up to try to help his team be competitive. Suter and Parise got to hand pick where they wanted to go... and got HUGELY overpaid to do it. But they were going to get hugely overpaid no matter where they went cause the old CBA was insane.

Now the league as a whole is going to have a reduced split of revenue. Leopold isnt getting anything different then Detroit or Philly or Phoenix are. Whether it was him that gave Suter 100 mill or anyone else... the reduction would be the same. All the owners operate under the same CBA.

The owners arent saying they want to pay the players less then is owed. They are very willing to pay what is owed. 50% of revenues will be owed. it will go to the players as a collective and be alloted to them as best as possible to honor the individual deals signed. Ultimately it might not stretch. At that point maybe the union should decide which contracts dont get honored???

should suter volunteer to give up half of his gigantic contract so that some 4th liners dont have to give up their escrow on their 900k salaries?

I wonder if that would make him happier?
You mean the CBA that the owners insisted upon after locking out the players for a season?

Artemis is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:13 PM
  #178
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
they owe the players 57% of the revenue. If they dont sign the big contracts they still owe the players 57% of the revenue. If they sign the players to even bigger contracts, they still owe the players 57% of the revenue.

its completely irrelevent what size contracts the owners hand out. Poor teams are obligated to reach the cap floor and have no choice but to spend to the cap floor. This causes them to lose money

as for the rich teams... obviously they dont mind giving out big contracts but it doesnt cause the teams to lose money. Theyd have to give the players the money anyhow.

This is completely and only about there not being enough money going around to continue to give the players 57% and still expect the poor teams to stay in business.

Now it only comes down to who makes the difference... should the players get cut back or should the rich owners pay? I dont care but I know for a fact the rich owners arent going to pay. They dont have to pay. The players will ultimately pay and its only a question of how long do they let us all suffer before they deal with reality
No it isn't irrelevant.

12 teams spent more above the floor than they lost. Had they all spent less they may have had to come up with a little money to get back to 57% but that would also come out of the large owners pockets that already spent to the cap. Not out of the lower revenue teams pockets directly which they do by directly overspending.

Contracts were for over 57% so there was a lot of wiggle room for lower teams to spend less before having to pay a 1/30th share to reach 57%.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:15 PM
  #179
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: HFL 4 Life
Country: United States
Posts: 35,036
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
That ten million Ryan got up front should ease some of those wounds one would imagine...He's in a hell of alot better position then most of these locked out players,

WBC8 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:18 PM
  #180
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
Leopold signed a deal that was competitive under the old cba that he had to operate under. He has to reach the cap floor anyhow. Other teams were offering the same contract. One way or the other.. Suter and Parise were going to get paid. Leopold operated under the insane cba and ponied up to try to help his team be competitive. Suter and Parise got to hand pick where they wanted to go... and got HUGELY overpaid to do it. But they were going to get hugely overpaid no matter where they went cause the old CBA was insane.

Now the league as a whole is going to have a reduced split of revenue. Leopold isnt getting anything different then Detroit or Philly or Phoenix are. Whether it was him that gave Suter 100 mill or anyone else... the reduction would be the same. All the owners operate under the same CBA.

The owners arent saying they want to pay the players less then is owed. They are very willing to pay what is owed. 50% of revenues will be owed. it will go to the players as a collective and be alloted to them as best as possible to honor the individual deals signed. Ultimately it might not stretch. At that point maybe the union should decide which contracts dont get honored???

should suter volunteer to give up half of his gigantic contract so that some 4th liners dont have to give up their escrow on their 900k salaries?

I wonder if that would make him happier?
Minnesota is close to the salary max now and he is crying poor. He didn't give those out to reach the cap floor. If he can't afford to pay them then don't.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:37 PM
  #181
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
Owners have made a couple proposals... players havent come close to responding to either. Players have talked nonsense in response to the owners offers. I guess the owners are saying that when the players want to grow up and not waste time, that they will be there to negotiate.

If that doesnt happen.. I sense that alot of owners actually save money by being shut down this time of year anyhow. So that can tell you how good the current deal is... if its cheaper to not play the games then...

if the deal was actually any good... then obviously the owners wouldnt be so willing to shut it down. I know the deal was super awesome for the players. I dont blame them for wanting to keep it going. If they can keep their part and also force the owners to screw themselves even more... then I cant blame them for wanting that...

but

i guess they need to grow up and face reality before the owners want to waste more time with them at the negotiation table
The players have made responses and given 3 very good offers. 2 that depending on revenue growth get to 50/50 within 3 to 5 years. One that goes to 50/50 immediately but with a make whole provision as the owners offer did. Except theirs was a real make whole where they actually get paid the 13% shortfall by the owners, not from their own pocket. The players are giving concessions in every other area of the CBA as well. And then the owners will lockout the players in 7 years and take another 10%.

Each offer was going to give the owners more than $150M more per year which is more than enough to cover all losses the poor teams claim to have.

And if you extend each offer out over 10 years as you should show how things work once they are at 50/50 for a while the number per year grows to $225M to almost $300M per year more for the owners. I guess $10M more per owner isn't enough for them.

I see why there is a 99% and a 1%. Because the 99% are sheep. They buy the billionaires claims of losses so they can take from the poor and the poor give it to them because they are idiots. If people had stood up to the rich throughout history instead of giving in then there wouldn't be as many problems in the world as there are now.

Owners made $126M this year or almost twice per owner what the players did. Including franchise value they gained $493M or 7 times what the average player makes. Their proposal will give the owners another $346M per year, meaning they would make $839M per year or more than 12 times the average player. Yeah that 50/50 is really "fair".

Take from the "poor" (in this case millionaires) to give more to the billionaires. Good idea.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:41 AM
  #182
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Minnesota is close to the salary max now and he is crying poor. He didn't give those out to reach the cap floor. If he can't afford to pay them then don't.
im guessing that minnesota made a 'hockey/business' decesion that putting a winning team on the ice and making the playoffs could help keep the franchise healthy and let it eventually turn a profit??? to get to this point, they thought they needed to step up in the market as it exists under the CBA and get a some attractive gate draws who can also help the team win???

But relying on winning to be profitable is a LOSING game to play. 14 teams ARENT going to make the playoffs every year even if they do give 2 players 100 million dollar contracts. This was a move by a sad-sack franchise to try to give their fans something worth cheering for... but it brings no guarantees. If the players stink it up they will still get their 100 million dollar contracts. There is no guarantee that signing them will add one red cent to the profit line of the ownership.

The players got the money anyhow... and now they are crying 'poor me???' Really??? Would it have been better if they signed their new deals after the new CBA and gotten 25-40% less maybe on a realistic term of 5-7 years? Would mr Suter be a lot happier then?

He got overpaid well over 12% on this last deal and props to him. Someone was willing to pay it and he was able to get it. Im not jealous or anything. Im SO GLAD my team wasnt STUPID enough to give this very average top tier d-man such a RIDICOULOUS contract. But I dont cruxify Minnisota for being DESPERATE enough to do it themselves. I think this contract will rival the Scott Gomez and Wade Redden deals for stupidty before its done, but the future isnt written in stone. Maybe Suter will be a decent 22 min a night guy for the Wild and manage his 35-40 points for the duration of the deal?

I hope for the sake of the Wild that Suter is at least 12% better as a hockey player then I think he is.

As for the Wild though and spending near the cap... isnt that what fans like you DEMAND your team to do? If the Bruins didnt spend near the cap, wouldnt you post all year here how CHEAP the team was? Wouldnt you cry and scream how Jacobs was too CHEAP to win a cup? Wouldnt you start to say you were going to stop buying tickets to watch a LOSER team cause the owners cared more for profits then winning?

I have been a fan of this team for over 35 years so I know this is EXACTLY how our fans think. Either we MUST spend to the cap here, or our fans are going to FREAK. Dont blame the owners for trying to give the fans what is DEMANDED {often at the expense of their own pockets.} Blame the system that fans DEMANDS cant be satisifed under the current system without driving 1/3 of the teams into bankruptcy. And if the teams try to avoid bankruptcy by not spending to the cap... thats a DAMED IF YOU DO path too because then the team gets that LOSER label and is unable to continue to draw support anyhow. I would argue that Leopold had no other option then to pay a 'fair market price' when two hometown boys hit UFA this offseason and said they wanted to come home to play. He obviously wished that fair market price was less but he ponied up under the existing terms of the CBA that was in force and matched the offer of the big market Detroit team so that the players could pick and choose which city they wanted to go play in.

Even if the players had choosen to play for Detroit, they still would be facing the 12% reduction. The players were going to face the exact same 12% reduction no matter who they played with. You cant accuse Leopold of bargaining in bad faith because all 29 other teams were bargaining under THE EXACT SAME RULES. If Leopold had told Suter/Parise that signing with him would result in his fighting against rollbacks then that could be considered bad faith. But instead he front loaded the hell out of the deals with maximum amounts of bonus money. For Suter to try to say he has been badly dealt with is the HIGHT of HYPROCRICY and makes me want to vommit. I might think its bad faith for someone to join an employer and be given gold glove treatment... and then immediately bad mouth that employer over this issue strictly do to an emotional response that he feels pouty that he might only average 7 mill a year for the next 15 years instead of 7.5 mill {or whatever his numbers actually are}

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:53 AM
  #183
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,283
vCash: 50
lol @ guys like Suter being mad. Don't worry buddy you already got your signing bonus and you won't lose 12% of your front loaded crap. As if he's worth 7.5 mil anyway lol

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:59 AM
  #184
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
No it isn't irrelevant.

12 teams spent more above the floor than they lost. Had they all spent less they may have had to come up with a little money to get back to 57% but that would also come out of the large owners pockets that already spent to the cap. Not out of the lower revenue teams pockets directly which they do by directly overspending.

Contracts were for over 57% so there was a lot of wiggle room for lower teams to spend less before having to pay a 1/30th share to reach 57%.
you are completely avoiding the REALITY that teams that spend less... have less chance of winning. Teams that win less draw less support from their fans. Teams that get less support from their fans cant raise ticket prices and often see ticket sales drop. Losing teams are less attractive to sponsors. Losing teams draw lower ratings on TV. Losing teams dont get playoff paydates.

Its all part of a downward spiral. Columbus and NY Islanders and Atlanta Thrashers and a few of the other bad market teams are called bad market teams because they never make the playoffs. Whenever someone says if these cities can support hockey or not... they quickly add that if the market had a playoff team then it would be a good market.

BUT you dont make the playoffs on a regular basis if you are at the floor of the cap. No floor team regularly makes the playoffs. Spending money IS NOT A GUARANTEE of winning, but spending to the floor is a very safe bet that you arent going to regularly make the playoffs and as a result your franchise will get a 'loser' label and end up losing appeal to your fanbase.

I doubt you will see this, because you are clearly determined to DAMN the owners and support the players without much objectivity. I personally by no means say that the owners are in the 'right' here. I just call it down the middle as I see it. Owning sports teams is a 'public trust' where you are reliant on the fan's emotional support in order to stay in business. Sports teams are selling dreams to fans. They dont feed us... they dont educate us... they dont keep us safe from danger or let us live in nicer homes. The ONLY VALUE of a sports team is to provide us some entertainment. Teams that dont win... provide alot less entertainment. This is simple human nature. Owners MUST ice 'winning' teams {or at least be percieved as trying to do so} or the team is doomed to failure. Even teams in great markets like Boston and Chicago cant remain profitable if they go years between making the playoffs. Detroit was a crap organization before Illitch took over and got them back into the playoffs.

Owners do stupid things... I will admit it, but they do them for us the fans cause we have egos just like they do. When Jacobs gives Chara 7.5 million to join the Bruins I am just as happy as he is. When we fail to land Marian Hossa, I wonder if we should have offered more money. Even I as a fan that wants to see the league be healthy... still ***** and moan when my team doesnt sign the top UFA in the offseason to give us a better chance of winning.

If we hadnt signed Lucic and Seguin to these monster deals... I would have freaked. I freaked when we let Allison/Guerin walk before the cap came into effect. I am a typical fan as far as that goes... I want my owner to SPEND SPEND SPEND to give my team a chance to win, and I get upset if they dont do it.

So all of us that point the finger at the owners and say its all on their heads... we have some soul searching to do. And I hope we can be honest about it and realize it's really ourselves that demand the owners use every hook and crook under the CBA rules to try to gain a hometown advantage for us when they are handing out these contracts.

That doesnt stop me from saying that the loopholes should be shut to protect the owners from OUR DEMANDS on them though... and their own egos. A healthy league is more important to me in the longterm then seeing Boston have a chance to trade for Bouwmeister this year is. Id love to see Bouwmeister and his cap hit here... but Id rather see the CAP/REVENUE split brought under control even if it meant Boston is a bit screwed on keeping our team together.

Its a whole other story whether or not we should have given guys like Boychuck/Peverly/Kelly such outrageous contacts. I guess it will cost us a couple guys like Krecji/Horton as we move forward. But that is done... and we will just have to live with it now. Personally speaking selfishly... without a rollback in salaries... us Bruin fans are going to see at least 2 of our favorite players sacraficed to try to get down to the new cap numbers here in the near future. Im sad for that... but I still support the need to do it anyhow. Im not acting on emotional here... its just the cold hard facts that you simply cant carry forward with 10-12 teams constantly up for sale and scrambling for a new SUCKER to step in and take the millions and millions of annual loses in those markets. Something has to give... and player salaries is the OBVIOUS fix

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:00 AM
  #185
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
You mean the CBA that the owners insisted upon after locking out the players for a season?
yes that one

cause when you make a mistake 7 years ago and get a chance to fix it 7 years later you too MUST MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN

LOL

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:11 AM
  #186
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
I don't know- it's managements job to manage these things. It's all they're asked to do. Shouldn't we assume they can do it? And if they cant shouldn't ownership fire them and hire people who can?
hockey is very emotional when it comes to whether fans will support a team or not... if the fans feel the owners/management arent trying, they can easily turn on the team.

I was a Montreal Expo fan in baseball... I loved that team as much as I did the Bruins. The jacket/cap I wore were Expo theme when I was a kid... not Bruin theme.

But it got to the point I couldnt feel the team was still trying. I quit being an Expo fan even before the franchise moved. Ultimately, the team just stopped competing on an even playing field with the competition they faced... and all my favorite players left the team every single chance they got because the Expos werent giving out contracts that could keep them.

In a sports league.. you are always in competition against your most STPID/or desperate competitor. If they are giving out INSANE contracts then ultimately either you must too... or you become the next Montreal Expo story. If players evern did say 'I took 50% less here because I felt the managers showed restraint with the contract they offered me' then maybe the managers would start offering 50% less on contracts lol... but...

players are human. They will go play for the team that gives them the 10 year front loaded contracts at 5-7 million dollars. As long as even one of your competitors is willing to pay this type of money... then everyone must pay it. Its M.A.D.

Mutually Assured Destruction

No one owner or no ten owerns or no twenty five owners can stand up and refuse to participate in going against the trend [OR THE PLAYERS FILE COLLUSION CHARGES}

if the CBA allows for owners to give out 10-15 year deals for 100 million dollars then they MUST do it or they are breaking the law under the rules of how COLLUSION works. In fact you could argue that the players have a legal case to make with reguards to why RFA dont get more hijack offers too.

This is just the nature of how CBA works in pro sports... once signed the FANS expect/DEMAND the owners/managers to use every trick at their disposal to gain advantage on the competition to get the best players into the fold... and those best players ONLY COME if you are the high bidder for them. So unless the CBA is ironclad to be safe for the owners/managers to protect them against their ego and desperation {and the expectations of their fans} then we get this mess we are in now.

The last CBA was a FAIL for the owners. This one cant be or several more teams will be needed to relocate {or be simply killed} before the next chance pops up to fix the FAIL.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:28 AM
  #187
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
It was less than two weeks between when half the league was falling over itself to throw money at Suter and Parise and when it was crying poverty and putting up their first "offer" of a 25% reduction in the cap because they just couldn't "afford" the salaries players were making. Two weeks between promising guys like Prust 10 mil dollar contracts and saying their hands are tied and they're being run out of business. It's horse ****.
maybe the owners have no problem paying 'gate attraction' players like Parise and Suter the money? I have to admit... giving Prust 10 mill would make me BARF if my team did that... but there is an argument for how DESPERATE some teams get under the old system to show their fans that they are 'trying.'

In movies... or singing... big talents like Tom Cruise and the Rolling Stones will get outrageous amounts of money from the producers to sign on to a project and maybe for some reason the producers will lose money... who knows? But big gate attractions end up with the power to get paid whether they are worth it or not in all forms of entertaiment.

So I personally dont care if the top UFA of the offseason end up in a bidding war... and end up with 100 million dollar deals or not. All the more power to these elite players I say.

The owners are probably like me... they love 500 thousnad dollar sports cars... and 5000 dollar bottles of wine. So I dont personally believe the owners mind spending a premium for 'the best life has to offer.' And all the more power to them if they want to spend 10 million on a home... or on a hockey player. Its not me spending it... but if they do spend it on a hockey player I will be glad, cause I like to get the best players on my team as much as any fan does...

Where the problem actually lies though... and i guess alot of you guys/gals cant understand this... is that the OVERALL PICTURE IS COMPLETLY UNWORKABLE. Guys like Parise and Suter will always get paid top dollar no matter what CBA is ultimately agreed to... so its ridicoulous to get tied up in them as to whether the owners screwed up the last sytem or not.

The last system got screwed up REALLY when third line guys jumped from 1 mill a year contracts to 3-4 mill a year contracts. AND when very marginal players with a good year under their belts were suddenly being given 5-6 mill a year contracts.

None of us has to try hard to find 100 names of players getting overpaid by at least 2 million per year on their last/current deals. These guys got their huge deals mostly because teams had to get to the cap.. and had to hand over 54-57% of revenues anyhow. In rare cases you might say it was some idiot GM clueless that gave these players a crazy deal... but usually the player would have got the same money from someone else.

If Boston didnt give Boychuck/Peverly/Kelly their 3 million dollar+ deals then someone else would have. Im not saying it wasnt 'fair market value' for these guys. I am ONLY SAYING THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE UNDER THE OLD CBA WAS KILLING THE LEAGUE.

So the end game plan of the owners now isnt to deny Ovechkin and Crosby and Parise and Suter and that company the money they are entitled too... and its not to reduce the minimum wage of the 4th line guys who do struggle to make enough to take care of their families... BUT RATHER this is CBA that has to take aim at the middle class and say that Boychuck and Peverly and Kelly dont deserve to make more money this year then Jacobs does. BUT they will if Boston doesnt make the playoffs. You cant have a business where third liners like these guys make more 50% of the time then the owner of the business will make with his 200-300 million in capital tied up.

Yes the players are the product... but when I go buy diapers at Walmart its the product too. There is a limit how much I will pay for them before I decide to cover my child's bum in leaves from the tree instead. And ultimately if I cant afford to put a roof over my child's head and food in their belly... then diapers are going to be the least of my concern.

I will only pay 20 dollars for that box of pampers if its affordable under the big picture. And guys like Boychuck and Peverly and Kelly are not worth 3 mill a year playing in a league where half the teams lose money even while making 3.3 billion in gross revenues. gross revenus IS NOT PROFIT. It is only gross revenues and fans still dont understand that distinction either.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:51 PM
  #188
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
Yes the players are the product... but when I go buy diapers at Walmart its the product too. There is a limit how much I will pay for them before I decide to cover my child's bum in leaves from the tree instead. And ultimately if I cant afford to put a roof over my child's head and food in their belly... then diapers are going to be the least of my concern.

I will only pay 20 dollars for that box of pampers if its affordable under the big picture. And guys like Boychuck and Peverly and Kelly are not worth 3 mill a year playing in a league where half the teams lose money even while making 3.3 billion in gross revenues. gross revenus IS NOT PROFIT. It is only gross revenues and fans still dont understand that distinction either.
In your diaper scenario, the owners are the consumers. False comparison.

Also, I'm pretty sure most fans know the difference between revenue and profit. But since we're on the theme of condescension, here are a couple of things that people ARE confused about:

1) That the smaller markets are losing tons of money and that the league isn't financially stable. The smaller markets are almost exclusively nearly breaking even - as are the stronger markets. THAT is the problem.

2) That the cap floor is somehow screwing teams. Most teams have their own internal caps set higher than the floor anyway. It's a red herring.

3) That the players want "more." Every single proposal from the PA's side of the issue has them accepting to take less than this past CBA affords them.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:56 PM
  #189
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
In your diaper scenario, the owners are the consumers. False comparison.

Also, I'm pretty sure most fans know the difference between revenue and profit. But since we're on the theme of condescension, here are a couple of things that people ARE confused about:

1) That the smaller markets are losing tons of money and that the league isn't financially stable. The smaller markets are almost exclusively nearly breaking even - as are the stronger markets. THAT is the problem.

2) That the cap floor is somehow screwing teams. Most teams have their own internal caps set higher than the floor anyway. It's a red herring.

3) That the players want "more." Every single proposal from the PA's side of the issue has them accepting to take less than this past CBA affords them.
Needed more RANDOM capital letters to ADD smugness.

EverettMike is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:34 PM
  #190
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
Needed more RANDOM capital letters to ADD smugness.
I'd chime in here, but I'm kinda guilty of it too.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 04:45 PM
  #191
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
Needed more RANDOM capital letters to ADD smugness.
in this era of the twitter age, i guess most forum members cant wade through a wall of text? I can be accused of over enthusism when it comes to trying to express my thoughts in a comprehensive manner. I feel I wouldnt bother being here at all, if my ability to discourse with the other members here wasnt meaningful to me. I do take the time to put thought and passion into my posts. I dont come here to just say 'A sucks and B is great.' If I make a post, it will have some of my soul in it.

But as a concession to the Twitter people, I have taken to trying to bold out my main point words so they can 'scan' my wall of text. When I dont do this, they seem incapable of getting past my first sentence and respond to me with critism that their heads hurt trying to read my posts.

I just feel bad for all of you that get SO WORKED UP over this issue and CRY that you are going to STOP BEING FANS because the owners dont care. You seem to think the owners have no clue you are feeling this way. You seem to think the owners are willing to let you runaway without any reason. You seem to think they have no freaking clue at all how to protect a profitable business.

But these are billionares who are billionares for a reason. They actually do know how to make cost/benefit analysis. They actually do know how to shut down unprofitable parts of their operation... or at least restructure them to become profitable again if they were losing money before. They do understand the value of their consumers and the need to keep their consumers happy.

If the owners did have a very profitable operation already then THEY WOULD NEVER BE SHUTTING IT DOWN NOW. The truth is that around 10 franchises are constantly in peril. They are constantly up for sale. They constantly need to find new suckers to come in and bail the team out by taking it off the hands of the last dupes who were tricked into trying to run the club under the last CBA. Run down the list of teams sold and/or moved and/or unable to be sold over the past decade now. See how many have had to go through multiple owners. See what happened to the ownership groups in Tampa.. in Nashville.. in Dallas... in Atlanta... in Phoenix. See what is currently happening in Edmonton where most people claim the Oilers should be very profitable.

The owners claim to have a healthy league WHEN THEY ARE TRING TO SUCKER IN NEW INVESTORS for these crap teams. They dont ever release their books to the public. Forbes GUESTIMATES their numbers. Everyone and their mom, has differenent numbers for how profitable teams are. Doug MacLean has gone on record about Columbus when he was there. Bill Watters who was an ex assistiant GM with Toronto tosses around a set of numbers he claims to be privy too. Reports are San Jose sold out every game last year and still lost around 15 million dollars.

As fans we dont have access to the numbers. We can only make our judgements on actions. YES, the owners do hand out big contracts even after they sign the last CBA that sucked for them. YES alot of teams spend above the cap floor. Is this because they can afford to do so and still make a profit... or is it because they do it for their ego???????? Is it to try to win???????? Is it to make the fans happy??????

I have never for one second said that the owners ARENT willing to lose money. They wouldnt own sports teams if they werent willing to lose some money. They overspend on their wine.. on their cars... on their homes... it is just the way rich people live. So YES, Owners will be willing to lose some money on sports teams too. BUT this fight is about them having control of the money they will lose. They dont want the 'employees or the product' coming to them and dictating to them that they MUST lose X amount of money whether they make they want to lose that amount or not...

If you give the owners the option to spend... they will spend. I dont know why this is hard for anyone to understand. But the owners need to know its their choice. They need to know they have the ability to stop spending when the price becomes too much. Owners are willing to lose money on sports teams BUT they are not willing to go broke on the loses.

The Islanders are moving now... the owner claims to have lost 200 million running the team in Long Island. He didnt just sell the team. His ego feels he is willing to lose some money to own the team.. just not 200 million. He is an isolated case but he isnt alone in this mess. Many owners have lost similar amounts of money.

I guess you might say the answer is just to revenue share. Most billionares dont believe in communism though. Most of them are capatalists. Revenue sharing will not solve this problem because many owners who answer to stock holders cant agree to it. Nominal revenue sharing funded by leage revenues like tv deals... can be split up but the owners of the Maple Leafs could never justify to their stock holders that profits from their home operations are being sent to Phoenix and Florida instead of being brought home as a return on that 1.6 billion purchase price that was paid for the team this year.

Revenue sharing would have been adopted already if the owners actually felt it was a viable way to fix the problem. They dont. They want to cut costs. This is what billionares do with any business that is losing money. Ultimately the players/and some fo you fans will have to wake up and realize that the owners will either get costs cut OR THEY WILL CANCEL THE SEASON. They know their books. They arent stupid when it comes to figuring out cost/benefit of their actions. They have egos and they want their teams to win.. but they also have accountants. They wouldnt cancel the season unless it was financially beneficial to do so.

The players have time and time again said they will play under the old system. Im sure theyd agree to put it in writing and just sign the old system again. And why not? They did AMAZING under that system.

The owners were devastated under that system. It is the owners who are wanting to either radically change the system or lock out the season. It is the owners who need the concessions before a new deal gets done here.

None of us have to like it... but the owners know the truth how much they are losing and they feel its worth it to lock out the season. The 3.3 billion revenue number is a red hearing. If it meant anything at all, the owners wouldnt be willing to alianate customers and sponsors with a lockout. Revenues without profits mean nothing. And there are no profits on the current revenues under the current system.

Some teams will always make money... but they will make money after a lockout too. No one has to worry about these teams. So no one is worried about them. Two of the owners of these teams are among the most militiant to get this new deal. We can try to accuse Jacobs/Snider of all sorts of sinister agendas... or we can give them credit for putting the good of the game ahead of their own team's needs.

Leopold gets crap here too from alot of you. He is the only owner that lost his shirt in one city and was still willing to buy another team. He is obviously a passionate owner of an NHL team and now he is spending alot of money to try to give his fans a winner. He is exactly the type of owner Id love if I was a fan.

if anyone here... says they would cheer their owner for staying at the cap floor just to turn their loses from 20 mill a year down to 15 mill a year... I will call that poster a LIAR and DELUSIONAL. We all cry and scream at owners not willing to spend. We all do. Every single one of us.

And then most of us say a player is overpaid every single time a new contract is signed... or we say 'well its fair market value.'

I doubt theres more then 10 players in the last 10 years that I was shocked what a cheap contract they got tricked into. Alex Burrows? Adam Oates? Is there anyone else?

I usually say... players got fair market value on the deals they get... but I never ever ever ever say they got screwed... or worry how they will support their families now.

I see several billionare owners go bankrupt owning teams recently. The guy in Phoenix. The guys in Nashville. The guys in Dallas. YES they have other problems too, but the team didnt bail them out. No one will step in and buy Phoenix cause everyone realizes they will lose 10s of millions of dollars trying to operate that team. Phoenix was badly operated because of where the arena was built.. so its a special case. The Islanders played in a very bad arena so its a special case. Atlanta just never cared about hockey so its a special case. BUT that doesnt stop the players in those cities being able to DEMAND 57% of the revenues under the old deal.

There are at least 10 owners of teams right now that will be forced to sell their teams in the next 2-3 years because they are losing too much money UNLESS the current sytem is radically fixed. It is better for these owners to lock out this season and get a long term deal in place that would please new perspective owners.

No one has to like this reality... but I wish you could understand it. Either the owners get the deal they are happy with now or there will be a lockout. A lockout will not hurt the rich owners much, and the poor owners get hurt more by playing. A lockout is in the best interest of the owners unless the players see reason.

of course, a lockout/strike is DEVASTATING to the players. A pay cut is distasteful but a lockout is CRAZY. No one has ever accused unions of being very logical. Unions operate on emotion. The players right now are very emotional as our their supporters. They seem unable to understand why the owners are willing to lose 3.3 billion in revenues. They seem unable to understand why the owners are willing to give out big contracts and then cry poor.

Its really not very difficult to understand once you cut out the emotion and deal with reality. Billionares dont bail on profitable businesses and even if they sell a profitable buisness for a profit... they do turn around and invest in it again. No one other then Leopold is investing in the NHL a second time. And even the very good franchises like Toronto and Montreal are going up for sale.

The NHL is a house of cards. Bettman/Daly and company can be damned for false rethoric when they say crap like Phoenix is a good market and that expansion into non traditional markets is a huge success. They have an agenda and now its biting them in the rear end cause their words hurt their arguments in this CBA. BUT THE PLAYERS GET JOBS from all these bad markets.

What is best for the union? A 12% cut to an average salary of over 2 million dollars per season.. or the elimination of 33% of their jobs {200 players suddenly unemployed?} Unless the bottom 10 teams can become viable in this next decade... that is the path we are headed. But the owner will never say this publically because the current owners of those teams are trying to bail out and dump the club on a new sucker before that happens.

so dont get all stuck on what is said... try to read by the actions of those invovled what is really going on. If there is panic sale after panic sale after panic sale of teams by billionares... then the billionares arent making any money on those teams.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:26 PM
  #192
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,285
vCash: 500


See this book?



Quote:
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
In other words, OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to find some aspirin.

Artemis is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 07:30 AM
  #193
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post

I see several billionare owners go bankrupt owning teams recently. The guy in Phoenix. The guys in Nashville. The guys in Dallas. YES they have other problems too, but the team didnt bail them out. No one will step in and buy Phoenix cause everyone realizes they will lose 10s of millions of dollars trying to operate that team. Phoenix was badly operated because of where the arena was built.. so its a special case. The Islanders played in a very bad arena so its a special case. Atlanta just never cared about hockey so its a special case. BUT that doesnt stop the players in those cities being able to DEMAND 57% of the revenues under the old deal.
I guess I won't get an answer on the tax situation you kept bringing up a couple of pages back and now have turned to billionaires.

So here's a list of teams that have gone bankrupt:

Pittsburgh Penguins (1998)
Ottawa Senators (2003)
Buffalo Sabres (2003)
Phoenix Coyotes (2009)

Is that recent enough for you? Prior to that it was the LA Kings which wasn't really a bankruptcy and the Cleveland Barons who ended up merging with the Minnesota North Stars and ending up with control of the team anyway.

There have been more MLB franchises go into bankruptcy than NHL franchises - fact.

Now- you mention Nashville. It was minority owner (27%) William Del Biaggio that filed for bankruptcy in 2008 after some suspected fraud to secure a loan. He was also investigated by several US government agencies including the FBI but it was all personal, not the Predators. The only effect that had on Nashville is that they had to seek another investor. Enter Jim Balsillie and his attempt to move the team to Hamilton. Del Biaggio ended up with an 8 year jail sentence.

The Dallas Stars bankruptcy was a little more complicated. Tom Hicks was in financial trouble. His group defaulted in over $500 million dollars in loans and he then put the team up for sale. He found a potential owner in Tom Gaglardi. He also went to his creditors (who buy this time were also helping run the team- and no creditor wants to run a team) long before filing for bankruptcy. All, including the creditors, were in an agreement on a sale to Gaglardi. Gigliardi had guaranteed a $50 million dollar payment to another NHL owner who loaned Hicks money and $100 million to other creditors - all in cash. It was all arranged in advance, including the bankruptcy, to prevent any stumbling blocks that surely would have come up if he simply filed for bankruptcy like Hicks did with his Texas Rangers.

Now, how many of those NHL teams that did go into bankruptcy were owned by "billionaires"? Zero. Not a one. Zilch.

How many "billionaires" do you actually think own NHL franchises? Do the research and I think you will be surprised at how few there are.

I think if you spent half as much time doing the research before posting as you do posting, that you would be far better off and more knowledgeable.

I will now anxiously await the "several billionare owners go bankrupt owning teams recently" list as once again, I want to be informed and add it to my list so I can be better prepared next time.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:24 AM
  #194
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
 
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,053
vCash: 500
cue overwrought, long-winded reply in 3...2...1....

RussellmaniaKW is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:28 PM
  #195
jahbrations
Registered User
 
jahbrations's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
in this era of the twitter age, i guess most forum members cant wade through a wall of text?
Reading a concise point is naturally more preferable than wading through a rambling wall of text. Twitter has nothing to do with it.

jahbrations is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 10:15 PM
  #196
TheSeguinEra2010*
 
TheSeguinEra2010*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Amesbury, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 474
vCash: 500
When does everyone think this whole thing will end. I want hockey I cant take it anymore

TheSeguinEra2010* is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 10:17 PM
  #197
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
I guess I won't get an answer on the tax situation you kept bringing up a couple of pages back and now have turned to billionaires.

So here's a list of teams that have gone bankrupt:

Pittsburgh Penguins (1998)
Ottawa Senators (2003)
Buffalo Sabres (2003)
Phoenix Coyotes (2009)

Is that recent enough for you? Prior to that it was the LA Kings which wasn't really a bankruptcy and the Cleveland Barons who ended up merging with the Minnesota North Stars and ending up with control of the team anyway.

There have been more MLB franchises go into bankruptcy than NHL franchises - fact.

Now- you mention Nashville. It was minority owner (27%) William Del Biaggio that filed for bankruptcy in 2008 after some suspected fraud to secure a loan. He was also investigated by several US government agencies including the FBI but it was all personal, not the Predators. The only effect that had on Nashville is that they had to seek another investor. Enter Jim Balsillie and his attempt to move the team to Hamilton. Del Biaggio ended up with an 8 year jail sentence.

The Dallas Stars bankruptcy was a little more complicated. Tom Hicks was in financial trouble. His group defaulted in over $500 million dollars in loans and he then put the team up for sale. He found a potential owner in Tom Gaglardi. He also went to his creditors (who buy this time were also helping run the team- and no creditor wants to run a team) long before filing for bankruptcy. All, including the creditors, were in an agreement on a sale to Gaglardi. Gigliardi had guaranteed a $50 million dollar payment to another NHL owner who loaned Hicks money and $100 million to other creditors - all in cash. It was all arranged in advance, including the bankruptcy, to prevent any stumbling blocks that surely would have come up if he simply filed for bankruptcy like Hicks did with his Texas Rangers.

Now, how many of those NHL teams that did go into bankruptcy were owned by "billionaires"? Zero. Not a one. Zilch.

How many "billionaires" do you actually think own NHL franchises? Do the research and I think you will be surprised at how few there are.

I think if you spent half as much time doing the research before posting as you do posting, that you would be far better off and more knowledgeable.

I will now anxiously await the "several billionare owners go bankrupt owning teams recently" list as once again, I want to be informed and add it to my list so I can be better prepared next time.
im lost on this one.. didnt see anything about taxes but if i get time ill go find it and reply. as for the term billionares, its a term that is tossed around by the other side. I dont feel the need to change it. If it offends you then please accept my apology. I dont understand why it offends you.. but if it doesn then thats ok.

I do realize none of these billionares live in a vacuum. i do realize that their going bankrupt has other factors involved besides just the hockey team. the hockey team might be the least of it? thats not the point i was making though

im just saying that owning hockey teams doesnt stop them from going bankrupt. you have to understand the point im trying to make before the words i use can be correctly challanged. my point is that theres a common mistake made that owning hockey teams is very profitable. my point is... that it isnt. if it was, then alot more people that are hungry to make money... would buy teams.

people that want to make money... dont buy teams. its not profitable

the few teams that are profitable are well known to all of us. they are profitable because of the city they are in... not because of the business model. They are profitable in spite of themselves.

then theres a whole ton of teams.. that may or may not be run correctly... that wouldnt make a profit even if they were run correctly.

thats the issue here...

as long as there is even 1 team that is doomed to lose money no matter what they do... there is a problem. If it was only 1 team then thered be many ways to fix it... but its not only 1 team now

now... its more

you can tell me that im crazy.. that i have no facts... that that that that...

but i dont make the decesion to do a lockout.. i only try to help some people here understand it because they themselves say they cant understand it. I only look at the sky and say its blue. I only feel the water and say its wet. Im not trying to reinvent the wheel.

there is a lockout... I am not shocked. I dont like it. I have suggested several ideas myself how to fix it. Some give the players a very good deal. I dont mind star players getting paid. I do have a problem with the middle class of players getting star money... i always say i have a problem with that... but i think minimum wage guys should get much better pensions.

im not totally against the players... but i am in favor of taxpayers not footing the bill. I am in favor of teams making enough to pay their own way. I dont see how my position is so crazy

if players werent averaging 2.5 mill a year... id probably be a tiny bit more sympathetic. If you or anyone else wants to make a case how they are living in some slavery situation... or needing poverty relief... then id be willing to read that argument.

i think players should be paid the money they are promised... i have no problem with that. but the players want a formula that gives them the money they are promised ONTOP of the 50%. I say give it to them out of the 50%. The owners say give it to them over time... i never once said i support that. Players should get what is promised.

im not anti player... i just want the taxpayers off the hook... and i want owners and players to live within their means. and i want owners to make enough money that teams wont fold or move as often.

im not that crazy but you have to read what im saying i guess

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:25 PM
  #198
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
AOF - before I get to this thread I want to respond to this post to me last thread that I haven't had a chance to yet. Responses in bold

Quote:
i dont think you are going to be able to understand this but ill try again... they need the money because they are losing their shirts.

I understand fine thanks. Owners are not losing their shirts. When you combine profit with franchise value gain over the last CBA only a couple of teams are really struggling. Owners show losses so they can: Take tax write offs, keep their cash in other investments which outweigh their losses, cry poverty to take more from the players, cry poverty to get cities to fund new stadiums, etc. It is economically impossible for franchise values to keep rising if they are truly losing money year after year. Only 4 teams had values go down over the last CBA.

even if they sell the teams for more then they pay... the loses still kill them and they never buy new teams to flip again. its a money losing deal

No, see above. Leipold was owner of Nashville before becoming owner of Minnesota. He paid $80M and sold for $193M. He claimed he lost $70M while owner of Nashville. So you lose $70M and buy another team? You have claimed there aren't people willing to buy multiple franchises and there aren't enough people interested in owning an NHL team. There is always interest from numerous bidders per club.

You realize that at least 25 current NHL owners have either - previously owned, currently own, or have tried to own other sports franchise across many leagues - NHL, AHL, junior, NFL, NBA, MLB, MLS, Premier League. If owning sports is a losing proposition why do so many owners own more than 1 franchise? Why aren't 18 owners trying to sell right now? Why wasn't Phoenix moved?


they need the money because even though they are willing to lose some money... they are losing too much.

ultimately, this house of cards was able to float for the last few years because the taxpayers have been getting hijacked to cover the artificial nature of the financial system here. the past 10-15 years has been a time of new buildings being built and has come at the tail end of an expanion period that created 9 new franchises. even with this franchise money and arena money, the league has still seen contant turnover in ownership among the bottom 10-15 teams. they are running out of owners. the ownership situation in nashville/dallas/atlanta/tampa/phoenix/florida has been somewhat of a joke over the past 5 years or more.

A majority of owners have owned their teams more than 10 years. If you include Leipold who owned another franchise and the Molsons whose family has owned Montreal for most of the last 60 years it is close to 2/3 who have owned more than 10 years. Others were sold to make a profit. Others were sold because the owner ran the franchise like crap and/or had other problems forcing them to sell.

as i said earlier and you cant comprehend... owners are the type of people that might pay 5000 for a bottle of wine and 500 000 for a car. and if thats what they want to do then all the more power to them. they got the money so they can decide to spend it on what they want as far as im concerned.

Again, I comprehend perfectly well. So you agree that it is the owners fault for spending too much? They are 100% the cause of their problems, yet you want to take from the players.

but it is there money. we cant spend it for them. the players cant spend it for them either. if the players actually were earning the owners proft... then their would be a real bargaining position. the owners would be needing to share a fair part of the profit with the players BUT THEY ARENT!!! the players are shunny toys that help the owners feel good. As a result the players are only going to get whatever the owners are willing to spend on their ego.

The players make the owners plenty of profit. $126M in cash this year - while mostly running their teams like crap. $493M in cash profit and franchise value gain this year. Almost double what the average player makes and 7 times when you include franchise value. So you want to take a small amount from each player so that owners can make another $10M per year? You want to take from the players so owners can make an average of $26M/year?

the way the players have gotten around this in the past is that the owners have been getting gobs and gobs and gobs of taxpayer dollers. rightfully so, this is coming to an end. So fix the cba... get the costs under control. Ithere is no need for players to average 2+ million per year in salary. The only competition for the nhl is khl and other euro leagues that dont pay anything remotely close to NHL contracts. The majority of the best players in the world will still play in the NHL at even 75% of current wages.

OOG addressed your taxpayer dollars and the cities profit from teams being there. It is a good idea to have a sports team in your city. So the players who are both the employee and the product aren't worth $2M per year but the owners who no one pays to see are worth $26M/year. They can't share a little more of that with other owners? They can't pay the 13% shortfall to honor players contracts out of the extra $300M/year? How is that fair?

if there really was enough money to give the players 2 mill average salary without the taxpayers paying 10-20% of each teams budget then I wouldnt care less what the players were making... but as long as teams come to every city and ask for 5 million for this and 10 mill for that and 100 mill for this and 20 mill for that... then im going to care and im going to tell the owners they are off the gravy train and they better get the players under control too for the whole thing is going down the toilet.
You should care less then because taxpayers aren't funding the players. Cities may be funding the owners because it is profitable for them to do so.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:33 PM
  #199
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
snip...

Now, how many of those NHL teams that did go into bankruptcy were owned by "billionaires"? Zero. Not a one. Zilch.

How many "billionaires" do you actually think own NHL franchises? Do the research and I think you will be surprised at how few there are.
OOG you are right that it is the ones who shouldn't really own an NHL team and run the team into the ground that go bankrupt.

I think you are wrong about the billionaire part though. From what I can tell at least 19 individual or group ownership teams are billionaires and I couldn't find info on 4 owners plus the Coyotes. So 19 of 25 that I found info on are billionaires. The average is almost 3 billion/owner.

In this context I think we can say this is billionaires arguing with millionaires even though not every owner is a billionaire and not every player is a millionaire.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:31 AM
  #200
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
im guessing that minnesota made a 'hockey/business' decesion that putting a winning team on the ice and making the playoffs could help keep the franchise healthy and let it eventually turn a profit??? to get to this point, they thought they needed to step up in the market as it exists under the CBA and get a some attractive gate draws who can also help the team win???

They were turning a profit until 2 years ago. They have made money over the latest CBA. They had a ton of injuries this year or they probably would have made the playoffs. They also have a lot of good young talent coming up. 4 players in the top 28 prospects. They had no reason to spend on 2 insane contracts. And when you say you are losing money and then spend $13M more than the year before then you don't take from the players. You made the choice to overspend, so you suck it up and take the losses. Leipold negotiated in bad faith knowing he was never intending to pay those amounts out.

But relying on winning to be profitable is a LOSING game to play. 14 teams ARENT going to make the playoffs every year even if they do give 2 players 100 million dollar contracts. This was a move by a sad-sack franchise to try to give their fans something worth cheering for... but it brings no guarantees. If the players stink it up they will still get their 100 million dollar contracts. There is no guarantee that signing them will add one red cent to the profit line of the ownership.

So they made a $200M gamble that might not pay off. That isn't the players problem. Minnesota isn't a sad sack franchise as I show above. They have made money over the CBA, have a good young team, pretty much sell out every game and get over the average ticket price. They made $6.5M per year in franchise value over the life of the CBA and made cash profit as well until 2 years ago. I would guess they are making money now despite showing a loss. Just because you show a loss doesn't mean that you lose money. If they do make the playoffs they won't recoup the extra they are paying to Suter & Parise. That was a losing proposition right from the start.

The players got the money anyhow... and now they are crying 'poor me???' Really??? Would it have been better if they signed their new deals after the new CBA and gotten 25-40% less maybe on a realistic term of 5-7 years? Would mr Suter be a lot happier then?

They players aren't crying poor. They just want their currently negotiated contracts. The owners are the only ones crying poor. They were smart to sign the deals when they did. I don't care what makes Suter happy but he has a right to question his owner giving out that money, crying poor, and then demanding players take less and contract limits of 5 years.

He got overpaid well over 12% on this last deal and props to him. Someone was willing to pay it and he was able to get it. Im not jealous or anything. Im SO GLAD my team wasnt STUPID enough to give this very average top tier d-man such a RIDICOULOUS contract. But I dont cruxify Minnisota for being DESPERATE enough to do it themselves. I think this contract will rival the Scott Gomez and Wade Redden deals for stupidty before its done, but the future isnt written in stone. Maybe Suter will be a decent 22 min a night guy for the Wild and manage his 35-40 points for the duration of the deal?

I hope for the sake of the Wild that Suter is at least 12% better as a hockey player then I think he is.

As for the Wild though and spending near the cap... isnt that what fans like you DEMAND your team to do? If the Bruins didnt spend near the cap, wouldnt you post all year here how CHEAP the team was? Wouldnt you cry and scream how Jacobs was too CHEAP to win a cup? Wouldnt you start to say you were going to stop buying tickets to watch a LOSER team cause the owners cared more for profits then winning?

I don't demand anything from Jacobs. What I would like from him since he is clearly a profitable owner is to field a competitive team every year. He should spend close to the cap if he is still profitable doing so. If not then he should spend less. I would think that he was being a little cheap if he was making tons of money and not willing to spend but I wouldn't be on here whining about it. I thought he should have spent a little more to help Bourque and Neely back in the day but it wasn't a guarantee they would have won.

I live in Phoenix so I don't buy tickets to the Bruins. I don't demand Phoenix spend more than they do and I have bought tickets win or lose when I could afford it. I have had season tickets to the Coyotes before. I'm only going to say the owner is cheap and cares more about profits than winning when they are spending very little despite making huge profits. They deserve to give themselves a chance to make profits so if an owner has to spend less that is fine. If they start spending to the floor year over year and are pocketing $16M/year then yes I would think they were cheap and like them to spend more.


I have been a fan of this team for over 35 years so I know this is EXACTLY how our fans think. Either we MUST spend to the cap here, or our fans are going to FREAK. Dont blame the owners for trying to give the fans what is DEMANDED {often at the expense of their own pockets.} Blame the system that fans DEMANDS cant be satisifed under the current system without driving 1/3 of the teams into bankruptcy. And if the teams try to avoid bankruptcy by not spending to the cap... thats a DAMED IF YOU DO path too because then the team gets that LOSER label and is unable to continue to draw support anyhow. I would argue that Leopold had no other option then to pay a 'fair market price' when two hometown boys hit UFA this offseason and said they wanted to come home to play. He obviously wished that fair market price was less but he ponied up under the existing terms of the CBA that was in force and matched the offer of the big market Detroit team so that the players could pick and choose which city they wanted to go play in.

Again your bankruptcy claims are preposterous. Fans only demand money be spent if the owners have it. Leipold had plenty of options and was an idiot for paying what he did. I would have let someone else overpay. He could have replaced most of that production on short term deals for far less money, made the playoffs and made far more money.

Even if the players had choosen to play for Detroit, they still would be facing the 12% reduction. The players were going to face the exact same 12% reduction no matter who they played with. You cant accuse Leopold of bargaining in bad faith because all 29 other teams were bargaining under THE EXACT SAME RULES. If Leopold had told Suter/Parise that signing with him would result in his fighting against rollbacks then that could be considered bad faith. But instead he front loaded the hell out of the deals with maximum amounts of bonus money. For Suter to try to say he has been badly dealt with is the HIGHT of HYPROCRICY and makes me want to vommit. I might think its bad faith for someone to join an employer and be given gold glove treatment... and then immediately bad mouth that employer over this issue strictly do to an emotional response that he feels pouty that he might only average 7 mill a year for the next 15 years instead of 7.5 mill {or whatever his numbers actually are}

They wouldn't be facing that reduction if the owners would honor their current contracts. I can accuse Leipold of whatever I want. It is obvious he negotiated in bad faith and so did other owners. The height of hypocrisy is actually Leipold crying poor and wanting 5 year restricted contracts after spending $200M on two 13 year deals.
Here is Suter's quote,

"It's disappointing. If you can't afford to (sign contracts) then you shouldn't do it. (Owner Craig Leipold) signed us to contracts. At the time he said everything was fine. Yeah, it's disappointing. A couple months before, everything is fine, and now they want to take money out of our contracts that we already signed."

I don't think that is bad faith at all. He was told things were fine and now the owner is crying poor and doesn't want to live up to the contract. Leipold is worth $2.8B and you would rather he get 13% or $26M instead of that going to Parise and Suter. Sorry I just don't see how that is right. There is a reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is because the rich keep screwing everyone over every chance they get and the poor take it. The players have a chance to stand up for what is right. If more people did that or had that chance everyone (except the 1% people) would be better off.

sjaustin77 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 03:37 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.