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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Whose side were you on, whose side are you on now

View Poll Results: Whose side?
Started Player side, still Player side 70 23.57%
Started Owner side, still Owner side 159 53.54%
Started Player side, now Owner side 59 19.87%
Started Owner side, now Player side 9 3.03%
Voters: 297. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2012, 04:24 AM
  #101
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
More than half the teams in the league lost money last year. It's not just PHO and CBJ...
but how much did those teams lose ? and how far over the cap floor were they ?

my point being, maybe a lot of those teams didn't need to lose money at all....

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 05:46 AM
  #102
Primrose Everdeen
Terrible Hockey Fan
 
Primrose Everdeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 71,672
vCash: 564
Send a message via Skype™ to Primrose Everdeen
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK17 View Post
Started owners, went to the players after the owners ridiculous 43% offer, been owners after their next offer and the PA refusal to talk the same language.

IF the PA would of offered a gradual drop to 50%(54-52-50 etc) and Bettman wouldn't of even negotiate it and I would of gone back to the players. However since they're insisting on the dream notion of only giving back future growth they can rot. Owners till the end.
Exactly this for me. The 43% offer was ridiculously stupid. I thought the 50/50 offer made was reasonable and could have, at the very least, been something to start from on negotiations rather than being flat-out dismissed.

Primrose Everdeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 07:54 AM
  #103
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Way back I was neutral. Then NHLPA and Fehr said no to realignment and it was obvious what they were all about and they have proven it ever since.

I don't really see how anyone can be on Fehr's side. There are many moderate players who are getting screwed who I have a lot of sympathy for but they made their bed.
Fehr is the major obstacle, the guys rep is right up there with cancer, that being said, the owners need to look at a better systemic way of revenue sharing...hiring Fehr was a huge blunder by the PA.

BLONG7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 09:12 AM
  #104
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
but how much did those teams lose ? and how far over the cap floor were they ?

my point being, maybe a lot of those teams didn't need to lose money at all....
And if they didn't spend above the cap, they'd lose all their talent to the Rangers, Canadiens, Leafs, and Flyers of the world. They decided to take losses in the short term to try and bridge the gap to the next CBA where they could fix the problem.

People on the players side just don't seem to have any business experience. Owners cannot continue to operate a business at a loss. It will eventually no longer be able to sustain itself, much like the KHL will eventually collapse because it is currently being propped up by outside money. People talk about why can't owners make money splitting 50/50 of revenues. Remember, this is REVENUES, not PROFITS. There are very few industries out there were the workforce salaries (excluding management) are 50% of revenues. Take a look at another company in the entertainment industry. Lionsgate is a $1.6B business that payed $800M in "operating expenses" which for the most part included all actor, writer, film crew, management compensation. That is about 50/50, and that included managements' salaries as well. They showed a $30M loss last year. Do you think they would be bad if they tried and negotiated cheaper contracts going forward to try and become profitable again?

Say what you want about owners, but owners cannot continue to operate at a loss. I don't care how much revenues have increased, if costs have increased at a greater rate, the business is in trouble. Player costs at 50% of revenue is a great deal for the players. It is almost unheard of in any other industry. Take it.

And that doesn't even deal with the fact that by continuing to remain locked out, they are shrinking the total pie. The deal that the owners offered would likely give the players more money over the life of the deal than they will now. That is because the total pie will be shrunk by cancelling games and losing sponsorships. While players make ultimately get a higher percentage, 52% of $3.8B is less than 50% of $4B. They will never be able to recoup this money lost. They should have negotiated off this last owner proposal to save the 82 game season. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

jmwc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 09:39 AM
  #105
habs_24x
Registered User
 
habs_24x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Players side for me. They both agreed on the 50-50, now the owners must own up to the player contracts they agreed to.

Its hard to feel sorry for teams that put themselves into huge holes by poor management and signings.

habs_24x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 09:44 AM
  #106
Inkling
"Let's win it all"
 
Inkling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
More than half the teams in the league lost money last year. It's not just PHO and CBJ...
That hasn't been established. We don't know for sure how many teams lost money. Some sources say 13 out of 30 lost money.

A lot of the problem here is that there is zero transparency. The players and owners just don't trust each other and probably for good reason.

Inkling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 10:00 AM
  #107
Sour Shoes
lol u mad cam?
 
Sour Shoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Home of Black+Gold
Posts: 2,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Fehr is the major obstacle, the guys rep is right up there with cancer, that being said, the owners need to look at a better systemic way of revenue sharing...hiring Fehr was a huge blunder by the PA.
agreed. hiring the clown that runied MLB for fans in all but 2 (maybe 4) markets rubbed me the wrong way. $200 million payrolls don't guarantee WS titles (because anything can happen in a 7 game series), but over 162 games big money will get you a ticket to the dance. i hate the notion that because the yanks don't win it all every year, the system is "fine". it's not always about what the yanks gain, but moreso about the damage left behind on the other side. its a ****ty system, and i too believe the guy's rep is comparable to cancer.

Sour Shoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 10:14 AM
  #108
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Geographical Oddity
Country: United States
Posts: 9,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post
That hasn't been established. We don't know for sure how many teams lost money. Some sources say 13 out of 30 lost money.

A lot of the problem here is that there is zero transparency. The players and owners just don't trust each other and probably for good reason.
Has it been established that every player made money last year? about $2.45m??

I'm glad the players have 100% transparency - thx for that guys!

(I assume you're not holding out hope that it will be revealed "at some time in the near future" that only 2 teams lost money last year, and the NHL is taking the entire hockey world thru this rabbit hole to fix 2 or 3 teams... it's either a serious problem or it's not, your pick)

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 10:18 AM
  #109
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habs_24x View Post
Players side for me. They both agreed on the 50-50, now the owners must own up to the player contracts they agreed to.

Its hard to feel sorry for teams that put themselves into huge holes by poor management and signings.
of course they agreed to 50-50 because if the current contracts are honoured it's impossible to have 50-50.....It's PA smoke and mirrors.


Last edited by JAX: 10-28-2012 at 10:18 AM. Reason: hungover
JAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 03:17 PM
  #110
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 500
Where's the 'started neutral, now owners side' option?

FanSince2014 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 03:20 PM
  #111
Qurpiz
Unregistered Abuser
 
Qurpiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,748
vCash: 500
Started on the players side, now hate them all equally.

Qurpiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 03:39 PM
  #112
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Owners of course. Their goals mesh the best with the goals of the fans - if the owners' can keep salaries to a manageable level then the fans can have a league where their favorite teams can compete.

The players are just out to line their own pockets. That doesn't benefit the fans in any way.

Also, the players would be better off if they all just shut up - they come off sounding like unintelligent ****** when they talk about the lockout - with the exception of Ryan Miller. He actually sounded intelligent with his recent comments.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 03:43 PM
  #113
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,314
vCash: 500
The funny thing about this poll, In no other poll on this site at no time did the players come close to having 42% of the fans in support of their position. Yet that's what this poll shows us.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 03:45 PM
  #114
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habs_24x View Post
Players side for me. They both agreed on the 50-50, now the owners must own up to the player contracts they agreed to.

Its hard to feel sorry for teams that put themselves into huge holes by poor management and signings.
Sounds like you are drinking the PA kool-aid.

Blood-sucking agents extort teams when they try to acquire talent. Every loophole is explored and demand is made to ensure that ridiculous contracts are negotiated. The teams are held hostage - sign my guy for $100m or you will continue to lose games and fans. It is BS.

The CBA needs to be fixed so that ridiculous contracts cannot be demanded by the players.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 03:46 PM
  #115
MapleLeafsFan4Ever
Go Leafs Go
 
MapleLeafsFan4Ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,575
vCash: 500
I was on the players side from the start and today I'm still on their side. I believe Bettman is trying to bully Fehr and the NHLPA into making a deal they don't want and one that will benefit the owners a lot more. Bettman must think it worked last time, however I think this time the players are more united and learned their lessons.

MapleLeafsFan4Ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 03:57 PM
  #116
SkiesOfArcadia
Legends
 
SkiesOfArcadia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Shark Tank
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,870
vCash: 500
There needs to be a neither option. I was formerly on the players side until I realized that both sides are a mess at this point. Fehr and Bettman have got to be huge idiots at negotiations, what kind of stance is this "they didn't accept my offer, so it has to be my way or the highway, or else no hockey for the season." Instead of "let's work together, see what we can cut/add." The owners are not to be innocent either, with their attempts to stick it to the players by forcing a rollback on them and not honouring their contracts.

It's all a huge convoluted mess of hard-headed and bull-headed egomaniacal people. As a wise person once said, there's no I in Team.

SkiesOfArcadia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 04:56 PM
  #117
who_me?
Registered User
 
who_me?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JS19 View Post
There needs to be a neither option. I was formerly on the players side until I realized that both sides are a mess at this point. Fehr and Bettman have got to be huge idiots at negotiations, what kind of stance is this "they didn't accept my offer, so it has to be my way or the highway, or else no hockey for the season." Instead of "let's work together, see what we can cut/add." The owners are not to be innocent either, with their attempts to stick it to the players by forcing a rollback on them and not honouring their contracts.

It's all a huge convoluted mess of hard-headed and bull-headed egomaniacal people. As a wise person once said, there's no I in Team.
But there is 'me'

who_me? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:38 PM
  #118
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,551
vCash: 500
Started players, still players... they IMHO have the "moral high ground"... but... there is still the math, and I don't see how they are ever going to win this one... sitting out a year is going to cost them as much as anything they wanted to gain (well, or preserve, or not-lose-so-badly), so it seems like a pointless exercise. Of course, that's what the owners want them to think. But nevertheless, the owners have the real high ground, morals be damned, so they're going to win in the end IMHO. It makes the whole thing extra frustrating and pointless.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 07:14 PM
  #119
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,723
vCash: 500
The PA continue to claim they lost last time, but yet want to continue under that CBA, and play...anyone else see the irony???

BLONG7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:46 PM
  #120
Bologna 1
Formerly AirheadPete
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 7,539
vCash: 500
Was player side last lockout and for the beginning of this one. Until I started reading.up and learning.more of the specific.details. now completely owners side.

Bologna 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 06:33 PM
  #121
Hammer Time
Registered User
 
Hammer Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
I started on the players' side after seeing the initial lowball offer from the NHL.

Then the NHLPA decided to present two offers with de-linkage and guaranteed contracts (an obvious no-no from the owners' POV) and one "fake" offer which doesn't even make any accounting sense, while failing to address any of the other issues, on October 18. They tried to say "no escrow" at the same time as they said "we are willing to play under the old CBA". At the same time they continued to claim that they "just wanted to play". That removed any sympathy I had for the players.

Now, I dislike the owners less than the players' union. At least the owners are consistent with what they want and they can actually do math. I guess that means I'm on the owners' side?

Hammer Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 07:31 PM
  #122
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meteor View Post
I started on the players' side after seeing the initial lowball offer from the NHL.

Then the NHLPA decided to present two offers with de-linkage and guaranteed contracts (an obvious no-no from the owners' POV) and one "fake" offer which doesn't even make any accounting sense, while failing to address any of the other issues, on October 18. They tried to say "no escrow" at the same time as they said "we are willing to play under the old CBA". At the same time they continued to claim that they "just wanted to play". That removed any sympathy I had for the players.

Now, I dislike the owners less than the players' union. At least the owners are consistent with what they want and they can actually do math. I guess that means I'm on the owners' side?
So far Fehr has only submitted 2 conditional offers that won't reach 50/50 till several years down the line based certain projections while keeping their salaries. Even a chimpanzee could have drafted the 3rd offer with no actual numbers.

The players clearly care less about the game than the owners.

CN_paladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 08:28 PM
  #123
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
So far Fehr has only submitted 2 conditional offers that won't reach 50/50 till several years down the line based certain projections while keeping their salaries. Even a chimpanzee could have drafted the 3rd offer with no actual numbers.

The players clearly care less about the game than the owners.
Like the owners care about the game All they care about is how much more they can take.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 08:37 PM
  #124
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Like the owners care about the game All they care about is how much more they can take.
They don't care about how much they can take, they care about how much they can make. If owners succeed in stabilizing their own individual franchises, how is this not good for the league? When the Florida Panthers are raking in tens of millions of dollars in profits and still spend at the cap floor and sacrifice the quality of their team all so they can keep some extra money in their pockets, then you can complain all you like about how the owners only care about 'taking'.

Owners serving their own best interests has a higher probability of a healthier league than the probability of a healthy league with the players only serving their own best interest.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 09:07 PM
  #125
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
So far Fehr has only submitted 2 conditional offers that won't reach 50/50 till several years down the line based certain projections while keeping their salaries. Even a chimpanzee could have drafted the 3rd offer with no actual numbers.

The players clearly care less about the game than the owners.
The players care a great deal... their union on the other hand...

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.