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.

Fehr and Loathing in Lost Wages (CBA & Lockout Discussion) - Part XV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-25-2012, 04:33 PM
  #976
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
The players will be at 50% on new contracts going fwd. This is about honoring the old contracts.

It doesn't matter what the agents came up with. No one forced the owners to sign these deals (once again, accountability). They did so, because it cost them less money to retain the players they signed. Why should they get off the hook, exactly?
cant leave all the blame on the owners, guys parise saying he'll only accept 12 year+ deals kind of force a teams hand. Same with the weber situation(pay his contract or continue with mediocre play.)

but yes it is mostly their fault, and how are they gonna accoutn for it? Well half the rules they want are crippling and attacking those kinds of deals, the owners actually proposed that they continue to get hit by the cap after the player retires, that they arent allowed longer contracts. They want to fix the loophole, otherwise they wouldnt offer it.

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:33 PM
  #977
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
I think this accurately describes both sides.
It describes the owners every single time. This time, the players got tired of it.

digdug41982 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:34 PM
  #978
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Serious as a heart attack and if he keeps this line of thinking, he will win. And it will be more than 50-50, at least initially.
Why doesnt he just offer 54 or 55% linked for the players in the first year and then 52% in the second then 50% for remainder? Why hold out and wait for the owners to make that offer, that could take along time( I really do think the owners are at the edge of where they want to go.)

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:35 PM
  #979
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
That money was just to make his contract "whole" from last season. Damn greedy owners.

That money was to bring up the players' share to 57%, not a penny more nor less.

As a rate, their share hasn't changed since revenues hit $2.7 billion.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:36 PM
  #980
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Do you think the other money helped him make that decision?

No, he took less money so the team could afford better players to play with him. This increases the chance of him winning more Stanley Cups. Winning more Cups gives him a greater legacy. For Crosby leaving a great legacy behind was more important than a few extra million that he has no need for.

Orrthebest is online now  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:37 PM
  #981
Tra La La
Registered User
 
Tra La La's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Buffalo, New York
Country: Ireland
Posts: 4,715
vCash: 500
"Make whole" won't be coming back The players will end up at 50% flat via escrow. They blew it.

Tra La La is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:37 PM
  #982
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
"It's pretty difficult, quite frankly, to come to a conclusion as to what in the world the owners expected the players to do given the positions that they took. Remember, it's massive concessions last time, enormously increased revenues, no real articulation of why they want what they want except that somebody got it in the other sports, they mumble about fair opportunity to make a profit everywhere but there's no specifics attached to that," he said. " So when we ask the question to players, when they ask it of me, when we ask it across the table, when we ask it to people in your business (media), what is there in this deal for the players? Everybody sort of looks up at the stars and scratches their heads and no answers come forth. So it's hard to figure out. Maybe this is all part of an orchestrated approach."

The continuation of their livelihoods, you **** ***!

Is this guy serious?

"Oh, but they can play in Europe, the AHL..."

Spare me.
Not sure how you come at it this way.

He's simply saying "We gave a ton in the last negotiation. Since then, revenue has gone way up. Now you're asking for us to give even more. What's the incentive for us?"

I think it makes complete sense and it's been my question all along. I mean apparently all the owners have to do is cry poor and everyone just assumes they're shooting straight. I'm pretty sure the players didn't form a union with the intent of just ceding to owners demands every time they make them.

bp13 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:37 PM
  #983
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdawg1234 View Post
Why doesnt he just offer 54 or 55% linked for the players in the first year and then 52% in the second then 50% for remainder? Why hold out and wait for the owners to make that offer, that could take along time( I really do think the owners are at the edge of where they want to go.)
They wouldn't accept that. What needs to happen is a lost season because at least half of these owners are making money and are going to say enough is enough. The players lose money too but they seem ready to weather the storm.

digdug41982 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:37 PM
  #984
ONO94
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 237
vCash: 500
Poor players and poor owners....fact is both of them are fighting over who gets to spend your money (and mine). On the owner side, they pay a higher percentage of revenue to their players than any other major sport in North America, on top of having to pay more for land, rent, taxes and everything else associated with running a business. Of course the NHLPA doesn't want to listen, because they only see revenues going up and don't really care about the rest of it.

On the player side, they just want the money--as much as you and I want to believe they would just play for fun--they wouldn't. They see revenue and they want as much as they can get because they are what people come to see and they can't play forever. And they don't trust the owners because they were in the same spot in 2004 but nothing seems to have been worked out during this time.

Personally, until the revenues are split in the NHL like the are in other sports, I don't think the players really have a leg to stand on. What they are "giving-up" aren't concessions, they are market corrections. Would you give 4-7% more in taxes to the government than your neighbor and feel good about it?

ONO94 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:37 PM
  #985
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdawg1234 View Post
There's more than 20 stars in the NHL though. And it's highly, highly doubtful the North American born players want to play over there for more than a year. Not to mention the rumors of poor quality help behind the scenes(the health benefits and other benefits are just far better in the NHL.)

The KHL will never be NHL sized and will never have the crosby's, getzlafs, Stamkos's, Tavares etc. for numerous reasons, especially because they probably dont want to have to learn Russian for the rest of their career.
I agree it won't happen because the lockout will be done within the next month or so and you are right that most Canadians will not play in Russia for the principle of the matter just to stuff it to the NHL.

I was just pointing out that money is not a factor they don't have a union squeezing out millions for salaries to guys that can barely skate better then some 15 year olds. They can pay 10 20 or 40 top tier stars and pack 1 to 2 big stars per team. The rest will be crap dudes kind of like half the NHL.

vladmyir111 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:38 PM
  #986
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Serious as a heart attack and if he keeps this line of thinking, he will win. And it will be more than 50-50, at least initially.
You cheering on Fehr like he's your hero too?

So ridiculous.

I and I think 99.99% of the hockey world just like to see what's fair and to see the NHL back, not caring to see who WINS or LOSES.

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:38 PM
  #987
Milhouse40
Registered User
 
Milhouse40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
The owners should fix their mistakes, but they seem to want to do it without taking accountability.
Mistake?.....what mistakes?

Salary cap did what it was expecting to do
Gives a chance to every team. Put an end to the dynasties.

They did a really good marketing job, so good they had record revenues.
Winter Classics generated an enormous amount of revenues (Owner's idea)

Is that their mistakes that jet fuel as risen from $1.68 US/gallon to $3.22 right now?
Is that a mistakes that medical care cost more?
Is that a mistakes that hotel rooms cost more?

Even the waterboy cost more than it did in 2005.

They only mistakes they did is to give too much money to the players to knock some sense out of them to end to lokcout and showed them that the salary cap would help THE GAME OF HOCKEY...and it did!

They did give some stupid contracts........but those contracts became only stupid when the player did not deliver the goods (althought the owners are forced to deliver the goods to that player).

But still, the owners offers a deal, in the end of that deal the players will have a salary of 22% to 24% more than what they were doing last year (Do you get 25% raises over the next 5 years?....and scream around that your boss screw you?).

Milhouse40 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:40 PM
  #988
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
You cheering on Fehr like he's your hero too?

So ridiculous.

I and I think 99.99% of the hockey world just like to see what's fair and to see the NHL back, not caring to see who WINS or LOSES.
Fair being the key word. I don't want to see the players get screwed just so I can watch hockey. That wouldn't be fair. I'm also not going to take the tired stance of "well they make millions anyway, what's the big deal about taking less?" The earned MORE and are still going to take LESS, that's where it ends for me. They need to take a hard line on this.

digdug41982 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:40 PM
  #989
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 16,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Current contracts don't last forever (well some almost do, but these owners tried to circumvent the cap, so why should they be let off the hook? Again, accountability.)
That's not what I asked Jiggy.

Many NHL teams are losing money, which means they have to cut costs. What costs do you suggest they cut if they aren't allowed to cut player's salaries?

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:41 PM
  #990
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebinne4pres View Post
Mistake?.....what mistakes?

Salary cap did what it was expecting to do
Gives a chance to every team. Put an end to the dynasties.
The salary cap was put in to insure the players could only make so much and for cost certainty, nothing more. Yes, the level playing field is a side effect, like it or not.

digdug41982 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:41 PM
  #991
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
You cheering on Fehr like he's your hero too?

So ridiculous.

I and I think 99.99% of the hockey world just like to see what's fair and to see the NHL back, not caring to see who WINS or LOSES.
Actually it's probably 100%. The trick is that somehow the owners have managed to define "fair" in the court of public opinion. this is all DESPITE the fact that the court of public ruled almost unanimously that the PA took it in the tailpipe during the last negotiation.

From my standpoint, the NHL hired a PR guy and they came up with the 50/50 press conference idea (buried the details) and bang, the public lapped it up.

bp13 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:42 PM
  #992
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
You cheering on Fehr like he's your hero too?

So ridiculous.

I and I think 99.99% of the hockey world just like to see what's fair and to see the NHL back, not caring to see who WINS or LOSES.
It really shouldn't be who wins or loses though. They should be working together to get an even deal. Still can't figure out why they don't realize this.

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:43 PM
  #993
Seanahue
Registered User
 
Seanahue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,799
vCash: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
1. It's called a lockout. The CBA is enforced until a new one is negotiated. Hence Fehr saying they should lift the lockout and play while a new one is negotiated.

2. The owners are artificially lowering the cap. The difference in the percentage between old and new doesn't have to be charged to the cap.
When Fehr stated that they should play another year under the existing CBA, it would have to signed off on by both parties. The NHL did not do this because the existing CBA does not work. I think we are arguing semantics on this but I would really like to know if the existing CBA carries any weight at all or if they are starting from scratch. I haven't been able to find any information on it. Does anyone know?

2. Once again, it sounds like the players cap hit is not going to count at it's full weight which does not work.

Seanahue is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:43 PM
  #994
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,173
vCash: 500
Post limit, new thread here:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1275649

mouser 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 03:15 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.