HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Whose Side Are You On? Oct. 24 Edition

View Poll Results: Whose Side Are You On?
Players 67 21.00%
Owners 172 53.92%
Neither 80 25.08%
Voters: 319. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-24-2012, 07:44 AM
  #26
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 500
I am on the side that is advocating fiscal restraint, taking responsibility, and living up to your commitments.

i.e. the players.

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 07:47 AM
  #27
spudnick
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I am on the side that is advocating fiscal restraint, taking responsibility, and living up to your commitments.

i.e. the players.


Its quite sad, this whole mess is soley on the owners yet the players are the only ones paying for it. Talk about mismanagement. I thought these retards were supposed to be astute businessmen who went to Harvard,Yale, etc...

spudnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 07:48 AM
  #28
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spudnick View Post


Its quite sad, this whole mess is soley on the owners yet the players are the only ones paying for it. Talk about mismanagement. I thought these retards were supposed to be astute businessmen who went to Harvard,Yale, etc...
Seems like most inherited their money..........

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 08:03 AM
  #29
Rooverick*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Aw I wanted to click players and clicked on owners
About as honest as the players representatives...nice.

Rooverick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 08:07 AM
  #30
urho
Registered User
 
urho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oulu
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,682
vCash: 695
Finally there's a "neither"-option. I think this is equally ridiculous from both sides. A disgrace for the sports and its fans. I'm just really angry that it's gone to this.

urho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 08:20 AM
  #31
Retail1LO
Registered User
 
Retail1LO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 5,151
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Retail1LO Send a message via AIM to Retail1LO Send a message via MSN to Retail1LO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I am on the side that is advocating fiscal restraint, taking responsibility, and living up to your commitments.

i.e. the players.
LOL Fiscal restraint.... Because, you know...the owners shoved Weber, Suter, and Parise's contracts down their throats. Because the three of them said "Hey man...what about the health of the game?"

Living up to your commitments.... You mean like playing out your contract instead of structuring it so that you grab all of our cash up front and retire before the end of the contract when your salary goes down to next to nothing? Taking responsibility? You mean like not making yourself look like an idiot to every human being in the civilized universe every time you feel the need to Tweet your infinite wisdom and opinion on the CBA? Responsibility like...being part of the solution and taking an active role in negotiations instead of heading to Europe to play for less than you'd be making here if you accepted the owners proposed deal?

How the **** can you advocate fiscal restraint while having worked yourself out a deal where you're paid 57% of the pot, while assuming none of the risk, then fighting against ownership trying to real in their costs. That's the opposite of advocating fiscal restraint.

Retail1LO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 08:44 AM
  #32
SweetStormRising
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 71
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I am on the side that is advocating fiscal restraint, taking responsibility, and living up to your commitments.

i.e. the players.
Those same players who signed contracts specifically tied to HRR/CBA with Escrow KNOWING that these could change with new CBA and are now demanding that these terms/facts be ignored? Perhaps when they hired Fehr they told him he was being hired to sever linkage. Then who is the dishonest one in signing the contract?

I started out on the players side, I thought 43% was ridiculous given the recent NFL/NBA contracts. I changed to the owners once the NHLPA made their 3 proposals. I felt the most recent offer from the owners was a good framework for negotiations (did not expect the players to agree outright) and would have remained on players side had they come back with reasonable counter offer.

If the players want to sever linkage then they should give up guaranteed contracts and go to a system where they can be released. Otherwise, negotiate on HRR/Linkage by offering a percentage drop off. Linkage is the way the owners can ensure the financial stability of the league.

Also, players need to understand that Revenue <> PROFIT. If it costs you more to have more money coming in, then your profits are stagnant. Your revenues can grow significantly while profits grow at a much slower pace.

SweetStormRising is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 08:55 AM
  #33
Haj
Registered User
 
Haj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,572
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Those so called greedy owners still provide decent jobs to thousands of NA people in different sectors in a world recession. The idiots with mere high school diplomas and no business acumen only provide a replaceable form of entertainment and think they deserve more than half of the pie while shielding themselves from any risks. Now people till wonder why jobs are going overseas? WTF is wrong with them?
There is so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin. So you're saying that because elite hockey players want to get paid and not take any risk, Apple is shipping its manufacturing jobs to Asia ?

NHL players may not take fiscal risk, but they take health risks. They are also the product that that is being sold, and have a limited amount of time to take advantage of their talent. They should be trying to get paid as much as possible over this limited amount of time. If my boss told me to take that level of a pay cut, I'd tell him to GFY.

People who have just a high school diploma are not idiots. The amount of diplomas someone has does not indicate intelligence or talent. Not everyone has to go to college to be successful.

I don't have a problem with owners or the players POV in the this conflict. I have a problem with their approach. Waiting till the last minute to negotiate, imposing arbitrary deadlines, constantly apologizing to fans. All the while losing money.

I would never allow arguing about the size of my dick to get in the way of making money.

Haj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 08:56 AM
  #34
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,944
vCash: 500
Both sides knew this was going to be a long fight when Fehr came into the picture.

Half a cup of an ownership group that was willing to cancel an entire season for the thing Fehr dislikes the most. Half a cup of a PA that never wanted a cap in 94-95, or 04-05. Mix in one full helping of Donald Fehr. It's not a recipe for playing hockey.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 08:57 AM
  #35
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,002
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I am on the side that is advocating fiscal restraint, taking responsibility, and living up to your commitments.

i.e. the players.
Care to elaborate on how the players proposals advocate fiscal restraint? A set cap regardless of what revenues are seems to be the opposite of fiscal restraint. It could dictate owners spending over 60% of revenues purely on salary. To me it seems a proposal that has salaries linked directly to revenues is far more fiscally restraining. So please elaborate

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 08:57 AM
  #36
Cashville
RIP Lindback
 
Cashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 1225
On neither side, just make a deal. You're at 50/50 on both sides conceptually; meet in the middle on the mechanism by which existing contracts would be guaranteed and call it a day. I have to believe contract limits, ELC issues, and so forth can be ironed out fairly quickly thereafter. It is unbelievable that we are likely ~36 hours from likely going off a cliff that sees the whole season cancelled. Not sure how you support either side in this.

Cashville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 10:48 AM
  #37
zero8771
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 765
vCash: 500
I like how everyone has pity for the owners since their "record expenses". maybe their expenses are too high because they make poor business decisions? Last time I checked their piece of the pie has doubled $ wise since the last lockout. You mean to tell me that the costs of running a team have more then doubled in 5 years? If they have maybe the owners need to evaluate how they spend their money

zero8771 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 10:58 AM
  #38
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,690
vCash: 8000
last time I was pro-owners but now I am neither. Both sides should be ashamed.

MikeK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 10:59 AM
  #39
RaiderDoug
Registered User
 
RaiderDoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Knoxville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Owners.

I see no problem with them asking the players to take a small paycut (one that would make zero difference in quality of life) in order to make sure that there are 30 healthy franchises.

If they were trying to install draconian working conditions or if it was a huge paycut, I'd be more sympathetic.

RaiderDoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:08 AM
  #40
jbeck5
Registered User
 
jbeck5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaiderDoug View Post
Owners.

I see no problem with them asking the players to take a small paycut (one that would make zero difference in quality of life) in order to make sure that there are 30 healthy franchises.

If they were trying to install draconian working conditions or if it was a huge paycut, I'd be more sympathetic.
This right here.

jbeck5 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:10 AM
  #41
Rooverick*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by boardin087 View Post
I like how everyone has pity for the owners since their "record expenses". maybe their expenses are too high because they make poor business decisions? Last time I checked their piece of the pie has doubled $ wise since the last lockout. You mean to tell me that the costs of running a team have more then doubled in 5 years? If they have maybe the owners need to evaluate how they spend their money
Players pay is the major source of increases in their operating costs. They are trying to control them.

Rooverick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:18 AM
  #42
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 704
I picked "neither" as the owners and players are basically dickering over ~$220 million (the make whole provision) over the six year deal.

The sad thing is neither side realizes that if about 15 games are lost, so is that amount of revenue - without considering the impact of lost revenue from a cancelled all-star game....

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:25 AM
  #43
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
I side with the players. It was the owners and Bettman that got the league in this mess, and it shouldn't be up to the players to get them out.

7 years ago, the 57/43 split worked. Why does it not work now despite revenue growth? Because revenues have grown in the upper half of the league at a greater rate than the bottom half. That means when you set the salary cap based off of the macro revenues, on a micro "team by team" level there will be certain teams that have their player costs rise. What may be 57% for the league as a whole could very well be 80% for certain teams individually. The failed non-traditional hockey market expansion has led to a league with a huge range in revenues, and those teams are suffering financially as expected. The league is expecting the players to pay for this which is utterly ridiculous.

Lowering the players share to 50% will work now, but if the trends that we have experienced from 2005 to now continue, the league will be back in the same position in a decade where they will have to ask the players to bump down to 40%. The only solution (assuming the league doesn't want to relocate a bunch of teams, or collect and distribute revenues/profits centrally) is to de-link players costs from macro league revenues.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:35 AM
  #44
dr robbie
Let's Go Pens!
 
dr robbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,450
vCash: 500
equally upset at both sides.

dr robbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:41 AM
  #45
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,760
vCash: 1300
Owners.

There's not one single player that's not being well compensated under any of the owner offers (even the 57-43 "slap-in-the-face" the NHL originally offered). There are however many owners (half?) losing money. The owners are offering the players $1.7 billion more over the next 6 years than they were paid over the last 6 years, and it's not enough...?

Gm0ney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:48 AM
  #46
JF55JF
Registered User
 
JF55JF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 125
vCash: 500
I could never side with Donald Fehr. Not during the baseball shutdown in the 90s nor now.

JF55JF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:48 AM
  #47
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Aw I wanted to click players and clicked on owners
I just discovered that if you click on the number of votes in the poll, it provides a list of which members voted for which option. I don't know if you were mistaken or if you're trying to be deceiving but the poll shows you voted for the players, lol.

I voted neither.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 12:07 PM
  #48
Milhouse40
Registered User
 
Milhouse40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,031
vCash: 500
Owners baby!!!
Always be on the owners side.

And my reasons got nothing to do with this negociations. I said it before and i'll say it again:

Last time around, 2005, the players fought against the salary cap.
Salary cap was actually the best things to happens to the game of hockey.
Owners were right on this, players were wrong

They accepted the cap in exchange for "no restrictions on contract"
This part was a really bad thing for the game...almost ruined it.
Players were wrong again.

And they threw the 2004-2005 season out of the window.....and ended up being the ones who get the most out of the last CBA, not the owners.

So it's payback time....players threw 2.2 billions and a full season for NOTHING, and ended up being wrong about everything they fought against.....and they got paid for that???

Milhouse40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 12:10 PM
  #49
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
i was in the middle till the owners decided they didn't want to honour existing contracts ... lame

mr gib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 12:19 PM
  #50
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib View Post
i was in the middle till the owners decided they didn't want to honour existing contracts ... lame
When did that happen?

LickTheEnvelope 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 05:13 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.