HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-24-2012, 07:38 AM
  #626
Spooner st
Registered User
 
Spooner st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Does anyone know which owner is on the hook to lose the most money on either make whole provisions (now called transitional payments by the NHLPA) ?
I would say Leopold, then Predators group owners and JJ.

Spooner st is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 07:58 AM
  #627
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by finchster View Post
Ticket prices are irrelevant considering all the new and other streams of revenue compared to 1994 to 2012. So revenues rise 725% and players’ salaries rise 425% and their salaries are a problem why?

I don’t have any sympathy for the owners, if they showed half as much resolve not handing out stupid contracts as they are in the lockout we wouldn’t be in this mess. Also, if they didn’t expand to so many long term project markets so rapidly the league would be in better shape.
So your option for those owners is to let their players walk to teams that will pay the money? That sounds like a great business model. "We'll grow em, you pay them and get their best years." Not caring about icing a competitive team would be counterproductive to a team struggling to make money. If Nashville had of let Weber walk to Philly for instance it would have done quite a bit of damage to that franchise.

Also, there has been a ton of back and forth on the "Southern Strategy" Bettman has employed and stuck to at his own peril. In the end, it's hard to deny the fact that NHL revenue has grown exponentially, and that at least some of that growth needs to be attributed to massive broadcasting deals that wouldn't have happened without the presence of some of those southern market teams. Still plenty of room to grow as well, and with more and more exposure, more and more games being broadcast in the States each year it's not difficult to figure out where the NHL wants this to go. TV deals make up what, about 12% of the leagues revenue? In the NFL it's 60-70%. In the NBA it's what, 20-30%?

Problem of course is that even though those teams are helping to bring in those TV contracts, they are for the most part losing money and struggling to remain competitive with the larger markets. The best case scenario for everyone, player, owner and fan alike is if those teams can become competitive and the only way to realistically accomplish that is to get them to a point where they turn a profit. If players were really worried about future generations (well first, "make whole" wouldn't be anywhere near the sticking factor it currently is) but also they'd be interested in making these teams profitable long term as well and interested in growing those markets, and therefore the sport. It means more money for future generations, and it means more stability due to a healthier league.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 09:21 AM
  #628
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 26,804
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicSpoon View Post
Joe Hags was on csn last night and believes the owners have a date in mind to begin the season that is why they are canceling in weeks he stated that january is when the league starts.
heard same thing but not from Haggs....want players to miss the Dec 13th check; no way Ed Snyder, Mike Illitch, and James Dolan are going along with this if there is not a plan. These guys aren't 40 years old.

The owners already won this thing handily

DKH is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 12:11 PM
  #629
ap3lovr
Registered User
 
ap3lovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moncton
Posts: 3,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
heard same thing but not from Haggs....want players to miss the Dec 13th check; no way Ed Snyder, Mike Illitch, and James Dolan are going along with this if there is not a plan. These guys aren't 40 years old.

The owners already won this thing handily
I've made significant investment in my man cave so I could watch hockey last year. I got 1 round of playoff hockey out of it. It really ticks me off that either side would want to put off making a deal just to screw the other side out of more money. I'd like to be watching hockey on my 120" HD screen, not Duck Dynasty.

ap3lovr is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:52 PM
  #630
BMC
PerJohan Axelsson
 
BMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Northeastern CT
Country: United States
Posts: 20,115
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
So, per the bolded, are you in favor of a league where many teams can't and won't reach the cap ceiling, while others are more then capable of and do? Maybe I misunderstand this section of your post, I can't imagine a fan honestly in favor of such a scenario. Would you be OK for instance if Jacobs came out and said based on the numbers we're setting our internal cap 10 million lower then the ceiling and therefore have to let players like Tyler Seguin, Patrice Bergeron, Milan Lucic and Tuukka Rask walk or trade them so that our budget makes sense financially? Or would you like to see teams like Columbus, Islanders and Phoenix at more of a disadvantage roster wise? I'd think it'd make it even harder for an owner to turn those teams into profitable enterprises in such scenario. Or are you talking about them cutting costs other then player expenses? Either way, that'd be a step back for this league imo. The one good thing about the last lockout and I believe one of the major reasons revenue grew so much after it, was the fact that it created parity and a level playing field for all. People want to see a competitive hockey league, not one with a couple of consistent top tier teams and a bunch of er teams.

I think I was looking at the post you were talking about in regards to a soft landing, and I think at least part of the answer you'd be looking for in that scenario is "because they were so far apart on make whole". Even the players latest of $393 million is significantly off the owners offer of $211 million. As this drags on the owners will no doubt lower that number and the gulf widens.

Another issue of course is that in most PA proposals the players percentage gets to the 50/50 mark in 4 or 5 years (assuming revenue continues to grow which is no sure bet). The owners want the 50/50 split now, not later as teams are losing money now.

Yet another issue, players use a projected growth in revenue to show an eventual 50/50 split in most cases. What this achieves is that the players guarantee themselves raises in each season. Even in their latest proposal in which they offered a 50/50 split right off the hop they were very careful to add verbage stating that starting in year 2 the players share can never be lower then the year previous. So this is supposedly to protect players from long term issues caused by the lockout. Some may think that's fine as it doesn't protect them from immediate issues caused by the lockout (I think it's ridiculous as both parties are responsible)... right. But they were also sure to include more verbage stating "The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement. This is half way between the 11/12 Upper Limit (64.3 M) and the 12/13 UL (70.2 M)." This of course removes all the risk from their end, and is already higher then last years ceiling. Of course they mask that by saying it's between last years ceiling and what the ceiling would have been this year, even though this years ceiling was theoretical. Guaranteed raises even if revenue goes down. Of course the owners aren't going to agree to that. That'd be completely ludicrous on their parts.

Owners don't want to guarantee anything, if they can't guarantee themselves revenue growth why would they want to guarantee it for the players?

End of day, make whole and lack of a true 50/50 split right from the get go are what's preventing an agreement. The owners want it, no doubt they'll eventually get it on their terms. One need only look to the other two leagues to see that if the owners are truly committed it's an inevitability, and one need only look at what happened in the other two leagues to realize make whole is a plus for the players offered up freely by the owners right off the hop. The players could use that to their advantage and make the owners give on quite a few other concessions if they agreed to these two points, perhaps really looking after past and future generations as opposed to just saying they are, maybe even getting the NHL to foot the bill on setting up a better benefits plan for retired players... the cost would be miniscule compared to a 400million make whole demand. Instead they insist on a higher "make whole total" which really only benefits the higher paid players in the NHL the next few years, not future generations or past, and also on setting themselves up in a position to continue to grow their current share year to year regardless of how the NHL fares financially. I agree completely with Neuvirth's view:


IMO it is always about the superstars with the big $$$ deals. They want theirs and if that means third & fourth liners end up getting paid next to nothing so be it. Ditto for future generations of players. I've seen this in the NFL, NBA & MLB. As Gee Wally says "its all about the money".

If the NHL had any brains they would exploit the division between the Sidney Crosbys and the Greg Campbells of the league. And there is a division, there always is between the haves and have nots. I give Neuvirth major props for having the guts to say so publicly.

BMC is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:57 PM
  #631
Lost Horizons
Crying Waiting Hopin
 
Lost Horizons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Everywhere
Country: United States
Posts: 7,896
vCash: 500
The whole "Make Whole" thing was never an issue and never discussed until Ovie started talking about honoring contracts and staying in Russia if they weren't. I suspect the NHLPA saw that and thought they could use the threat of Ovie staying in Russia to their advantage to get owners to honor big money star deals.

Lost Horizons is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:02 PM
  #632
BMC
PerJohan Axelsson
 
BMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Northeastern CT
Country: United States
Posts: 20,115
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Horizons View Post
The whole "Make Whole" thing was never an issue and never discussed until Ovie started talking about honoring contracts and staying in Russia if they weren't. I suspect the NHLPA saw that and thought they could use the threat of Ovie staying in Russia to their advantage to get owners to honor big money star deals.
"make whole" my ***. No games were played so the players do not get paid. Period.

And before they whine about it remember this- no games played means no money coming in for the owners to pay them.

If NHL & NHLPA come to an agreement then the players get paid for the games they play. Very simple and fair for all.

BMC is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:29 PM
  #633
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,652
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMC View Post
"make whole" my ***. No games were played so the players do not get paid. Period.

And before they whine about it remember this- no games played means no money coming in for the owners to pay them.

If NHL & NHLPA come to an agreement then the players get paid for the games they play. Very simple and fair for all.
Make whole ( or transitional payments as the NHPLA now calls it ) is about making sure the players get what their contracts that they signed for in future years as well as this year. And remember, this was first brought up by the league not by the PA. It was their offer to the players, albeit, not what it was made out to be. I would also argue the no money coming in. Such as $200 million from NBC.

However, there have been no talks about pro-rating make whole this season so you can expect two things to happen:

1) The NHL completely pulls make whole right off the table

2) The NHL's next offer will be less than the $211 million they last proposed.

I'll place my bet on number 1

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:37 PM
  #634
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMC View Post
[/B]

IMO it is always about the superstars with the big $$$ deals. They want theirs and if that means third & fourth liners end up getting paid next to nothing so be it. Ditto for future generations of players. I've seen this in the NFL, NBA & MLB. As Gee Wally says "its all about the money".

If the NHL had any brains they would exploit the division between the Sidney Crosbys and the Greg Campbells of the league. And there is a division, there always is between the haves and have nots. I give Neuvirth major props for having the guts to say so publicly.
That makes no sense. The superstars in any sport will always make their money, regardless. And regarding union cohesiveness, the top stars are vastly outnumbered. Fans may think what someone like Crosby says carries extra weight, but players don't have that attitude; when it comes to union matters, George Parros is probably more respected.


Last edited by Artemis: 11-24-2012 at 02:43 PM.
Artemis is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 03:11 PM
  #635
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
That makes no sense. The superstars in any sport will always make their money, regardless. And regarding union cohesiveness, the top stars are vastly outnumbered. Fans may think what someone like Crosby says carries extra weight, but players don't have that attitude; when it comes to union matters, George Parros is probably more respected.
Are you seriously kidding? This can't be serious, can it? Did you just say what George Parros says carries more weight/is more respected within the union then what Crosby is? Mind... blown.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 03:27 PM
  #636
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Are you seriously kidding? This can't be serious, can it? Did you just say what George Parros says carries more weight/is more respected within the union then what Crosby is? Mind... blown.
Parros has an economics degree from Princeton. Crosby is a great hockey player. If you're an NHL player, who would you respect more when it comes to union matters?

Crosby isn't stupid, and he is without a doubt someone who makes news when he speaks publicly. But when it comes to dealing with the nuts and bolts of CBA negotiations, I doubt he's making policy. And I REALLY doubt he's in NHLPA meetings saying he doesn't care about third-liners as long as he gets his money.

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 04:03 PM
  #637
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Does anyone know which owner is on the hook to lose the most money on either make whole provisions (now called transitional payments by the NHLPA) ?
I only looked at the 1st 5 years but if they each pay what they owe for contracts the top 5 are - LA, Tampa, Chicago, Vancouver & Minnesota. Boston is 6th.

Bottom 5 are Edmonton, Colorado, St Louis, Phoenix, & Anaheim.

Teams with some long contracts would owe more than what I show. Minnesota, Washington & Detroit would jump over some teams. Boston would drop a couple spots.

At $211M they are only paying out about 35% of what they owe so every team is between 1 to 2 million per year (averaged over 5 year CBA). It would bump up in the range of 2 to 4.5 million per year if they pay $393M and add in contract years 6 to 14 to the teams that have long contracts.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 04:35 PM
  #638
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
heard same thing but not from Haggs....want players to miss the Dec 13th check; no way Ed Snyder, Mike Illitch, and James Dolan are going along with this if there is not a plan. These guys aren't 40 years old.

The owners already won this thing handily
The only plan I see is trying to make the players cave and breaking the union. That didn't happen. I don't think the owners won at all. Everyone knew things were headed to 50/50. The owners by paying make whole are actually over 50/50. They started at 43 then 46-47, then 50% with the players paying make whole, then 50% with owners paying $211M make whole.

Every proposal gives the owners $300M to $400M in cash profits alone. Add that to increasing franchise values from every team making money. Add that to other revenue owners are losing on hockey related income - cable, arena, concession deals. I would say owners are giving up over $800M if they lose a year. Between just 30 owners!! They are actually losing far more per person than players.

Add the damage they are doing to the game especially in the markets they say this is about and they aren't winning ****. A couple of contracting issues and 50/50 which is where things were going anyway.

I would be pissed if I was an owner - any owner - that we lost games over what boils down to about 1 million per year each. I think it is ridiculous that 8 owners can block this thing.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 06:20 PM
  #639
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
So, per the bolded, are you in favor of a league where many teams can't and won't reach the cap ceiling, while others are more then capable of and do? Maybe I misunderstand this section of your post, I can't imagine a fan honestly in favor of such a scenario. Would you be OK for instance if Jacobs came out and said based on the numbers we're setting our internal cap 10 million lower then the ceiling and therefore have to let players like Tyler Seguin, Patrice Bergeron, Milan Lucic and Tuukka Rask walk or trade them so that our budget makes sense financially? Or would you like to see teams like Columbus, Islanders and Phoenix at more of a disadvantage roster wise? I'd think it'd make it even harder for an owner to turn those teams into profitable enterprises in such scenario. Or are you talking about them cutting costs other then player expenses? Either way, that'd be a step back for this league imo. The one good thing about the last lockout and I believe one of the major reasons revenue grew so much after it, was the fact that it created parity and a level playing field for all. People want to see a competitive hockey league, not one with a couple of consistent top tier teams and a bunch of feeder teams.
I'm in favor of reality. There are too many inequalities in sports markets. You would need a cap at about 35 million to make sure any team can make money without revenue sharing. All that really does is put more money into rich guys pockets. That would see the players making about 32% of revenue. You would lose many foreign players (talent that people want to see).

With enough revenue sharing you could see a cap around the midpoint of last year. 56 million range. There really wouldn't be a cap or floor just make every team spend the same amount. It is no guarantee teams are competitive either. The NFL makes teams spend about 90% of the cap. They can do that because they share almost all of their revenue. There are many teams that aren't competitive. You have the same top teams most years. The NBA isn't competitive with a floor at 85% of the cap. You have the same top teams each year in the NBA too.

You would end up with the NBA where players just go play together to form superteams. Keeping a floor that high also doesn't let teams rebuild easily - you can never go with youth, harder to get good draft picks. Also drives up salaries. Teams overpay just to reach the floor. If the NHL wants to go to these models they need to share almost all revenue. They don't seem to want to. I don't think it makes it a better league and I wouldn't want them to share all revenue. I believe you need to keep some free market principles for both the owners and players to make what they are worth.

The floor started out at 55% in the last CBA and was 75% this year. The players offer would have it at 66.6% staying the same each year. That is enough to compete in the NHL which is the ultimate team sport. 7 different teams won the cup with 12 different teams in the finals. Remember most teams wouldn't be at the floor either. They would mostly be over 80% of the cap as they were this year.

If Jacobs couldn't afford that $10M then fine with me. He could probably get players to sign slightly cheaper. Thomas and Boychuk are probably the first ones he lets go. Trade a Krejci for someone who can produce 75% of his offense that makes half. Or trade him for prospect and save a few bucks on an older player - Whitney, Jagr. Incorporate young players more. Spooner could get a shot. Maybe they would guarantee Soderberg a spot.

Quote:
I think I was looking at the post you were talking about in regards to a soft landing, and I think at least part of the answer you'd be looking for in that scenario is "because they were so far apart on make whole". Even the players latest of $393 million is significantly off the owners offer of $211 million. As this drags on the owners will no doubt lower that number and the gulf widens.

Another issue of course is that in most PA proposals the players percentage gets to the 50/50 mark in 4 or 5 years (assuming revenue continues to grow which is no sure bet). The owners want the 50/50 split now, not later as teams are losing money now.
There would be no make whole in a soft landing scenario. The owners proposal is already over 50%. It is 50% plus $149M in 1 year and then 50% plus $62M. They have also de-linked. If revenues drop they could end up paying over 57%. While it is very unlikely it is also unlikely in the players scenario. If revenues are hurt it will be this year and next. Then the NHL will continue to grow as it has been.

Quote:
Yet another issue, players use a projected growth in revenue to show an eventual 50/50 split in most cases. What this achieves is that the players guarantee themselves raises in each season. Even in their latest proposal in which they offered a 50/50 split right off the hop they were very careful to add verbage stating that starting in year 2 the players share can never be lower then the year previous. So this is supposedly to protect players from long term issues caused by the lockout. Some may think that's fine as it doesn't protect them from immediate issues caused by the lockout (I think it's ridiculous as both parties are responsible)... right. But they were also sure to include more verbage stating "The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement. This is half way between the 11/12 Upper Limit (64.3 M) and the 12/13 UL (70.2 M)." This of course removes all the risk from their end, and is already higher then last years ceiling. Of course they mask that by saying it's between last years ceiling and what the ceiling would have been this year, even though this years ceiling was theoretical. Guaranteed raises even if revenue goes down. Of course the owners aren't going to agree to that. That'd be completely ludicrous on their parts.
The owners believe the NHL will grow at 5% themselves. Maybe they should pay attention to the players revenue projections. Isn't that why poor teams couldn't keep up? Because revenue grew too fast? They aren't guaranteeing raises. They want the same amount as the previous year. It will only matter in years 3 to 5 in the latest proposal and only takes a small growth rate before it hurts the owners 1 cent. Their new cap calculations didn't change the midpoint from last year. I think it is actually dumb that the owners are so against that de-linking for 3 years when it is very unlikely to hurt them and their own proposal is de-linked and can hurt them most in the first 3 years when they say they need the money.

Quote:
Owners don't want to guarantee anything, if they can't guarantee themselves revenue growth why would they want to guarantee it for the players?
I think they actually can 99% guarantee revenue growth. I have laid out some reasons in previous posts. Especially years 3 to 5. The lockout will hurt in years 1 and 2. Then there will be some momentum again with new fans and old fans who swore off the game will be coming back.

Quote:
End of day, make whole and lack of a true 50/50 split right from the get go are what's preventing an agreement. The owners want it, no doubt they'll eventually get it on their terms. One need only look to the other two leagues to see that if the owners are truly committed it's an inevitability, and one need only look at what happened in the other two leagues to realize make whole is a plus for the players offered up freely by the owners right off the hop. The players could use that to their advantage and make the owners give on quite a few other concessions if they agreed to these two points, perhaps really looking after past and future generations as opposed to just saying they are, maybe even getting the NHL to foot the bill on setting up a better benefits plan for retired players... the cost would be miniscule compared to a 400million make whole demand. Instead they insist on a higher "make whole total" which really only benefits the higher paid players in the NHL the next few years, not future generations or past, and also on setting themselves up in a position to continue to grow their current share year to year regardless of how the NHL fares financially. I agree completely with Neuvirth's view:
Their own proposal is not 50/50 immediately or over the life of the deal. They haven't gotten what they wanted. They have already lost these negotiations and damaged the game and the markets that need to be playing. Players are looking at the future and the benefits of all current players. Make whole isn't just for big contracts. It is for every player who currently has contracts big and small. It is also a way to help prevent rollbacks in the next CBA when owners will inevitably want more money. They are getting higher minimum salaries, higher playoff payouts, comfort and safety issues, fighting for contract rights, arbitration, waivers, RFA's, UFA's. They are helping all players going forward not just the stars as so many have claimed.

I believe the owners could have gotten what they wanted with a soft landing. 55,53,51,50,50,50,50,etc. The numbers work out almost exactly as they do now but I believe the players would have given up all de-linking language. There would have been no make whole, no lost games. The owners could have worked off soft landing from the start. They could have worked off the players 50/50 last month and asked for a full offer then. They could have come back with a new proposal based off the players last offer. I agree with others that says they have had a game plan the whole time to start in December or January. I really don't know why. They haven't gotten what they wanted and are only costing everyone money. Except the fans. I guess they are saving money. Maybe the owners and players are thinking of the fans.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 06:36 PM
  #640
Mancini0518
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Parros has an economics degree from Princeton. Crosby is a great hockey player. If you're an NHL player, who would you respect more when it comes to union matters?

Crosby isn't stupid, and he is without a doubt someone who makes news when he speaks publicly. But when it comes to dealing with the nuts and bolts of CBA negotiations, I doubt he's making policy. And I REALLY doubt he's in NHLPA meetings saying he doesn't care about third-liners as long as he gets his money.
Im sure players look to him for advice but there is no way in hell that he has the same say as Crosby or Ovechkin etc. If Parros had said that he would stay in the KHL (i know he isn't playing there) it wouldn't have even been news. Ovechkin says it and it blows up.

Mancini0518 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 06:42 PM
  #641
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancini0518 View Post
Im sure players look to him for advice but there is no way in hell that he has the same say as Crosby or Ovechkin etc. If Parros had said that he would stay in the KHL (i know he isn't playing there) it would have even been news. Ovechkin says it and it blows up.
I don't know what you mean by "say." Saying something that creates chatter on Twitter isn't influencing anything. It's just noise.

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 06:48 PM
  #642
Mancini0518
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
I don't know what you mean by "say." Saying something that creates chatter on Twitter isn't influencing anything. It's just noise.
It was covered by every major hockey publication in NA. Im not sure how you can say a superstar with multiple Hart trophies, a 9 million dollar AAV contract and the 4th highest selling Jersey (most of this is about HRR right?) has as much influence as a 4th liner, regardless of where he went to school.

Mancini0518 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 07:29 PM
  #643
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancini0518 View Post
It was covered by every major hockey publication in NA. Im not sure how you can say a superstar with multiple Hart trophies, a 9 million dollar AAV contract and the 4th highest selling Jersey (most of this is about HRR right?) has as much influence as a 4th liner, regardless of where he went to school.
If you believe Ovechkin is influencing the CBA negotiations by making comments reported on by major hockey publications, there's nothing I can say to that.

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 07:39 PM
  #644
Mancini0518
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
If you believe Ovechkin is influencing the CBA negotiations by making comments reported on by major hockey publications, there's nothing I can say to that.
That was an example to refute your point that George Parros had as much pull within the NHLPA that the highest paid players do. Im sorry the only way you can argue your points is to attempt to twist words and examples and not actually debate the point.

Mancini0518 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 07:51 PM
  #645
ranold26
Get off my rink!
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,282
vCash: 500
Anyone with half a brain would listen to Parros over most people within the union.
Most NHL hockey players are not university educated. Its funny here in Canada, as most educated players don't make it, as education comes second. Dr. Randy Gregg is the perfect example.

ranold26 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 07:56 PM
  #646
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancini0518 View Post
That was an example to refute your point that George Parros had as much pull within the NHLPA that the highest paid players do. Im sorry the only way you can argue your points is to attempt to twist words and examples and not actually debate the point.
I don't know how much more clear I can be. The original point, BTW, was a rejection of the notion that there was a "significant gap between the haves and the have-nots" that the NHL should exploit, which IMHO does not exist, other than in some fans' imaginations. Guys like Crosby will always get paid, no matter what. If anything, they should be pushing for a settlement, because fairness would mean little to them.

As far as negotiations go, of course the media and fans will listen to the stars, but if I'm a player, I'm giving my attention to my player rep or someone who understands the process.

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 07:58 PM
  #647
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Parros has an economics degree from Princeton. Crosby is a great hockey player. If you're an NHL player, who would you respect more when it comes to union matters?

Crosby isn't stupid, and he is without a doubt someone who makes news when he speaks publicly. But when it comes to dealing with the nuts and bolts of CBA negotiations, I doubt he's making policy. And I REALLY doubt he's in NHLPA meetings saying he doesn't care about third-liners as long as he gets his money.
You think George Parros is in there running the show because he received an economics degree in 2002? They have lawyers and people that don't get punched in the head for a living to handle that. When it comes to weight, the guy the league has dubbed the face of the NHL no doubt carries a touch more as the players likely realize what Crosby says carries more weight with the general public and the league. Crosby and Fehr are real good buddies as well. They all know who the media wants to talk to, and it isn't George Parros. When someone wants a players opinion, they go for Crosby's.

It's why you've seen Crosby speak on behalf of all players during this lockout. It's why he's the guy making all the statements. It's why players of Crosby's caliber and 9 times out of 10 Crosby himself are flanking Fehr in just about every interview. It's why Fehr has brought Crosby to the bargaining table with the NHL.

Don't believe me though:
Cox: When Crosby speaks, NHLPA listens
Quote:
It was the 22-year-old Crosby, arguably the highest-profile player in the sport today, who raised his voice last Sunday on a union conference call and firmly told interim executive director Ian Penny to hang up the phone because union members wanted to have a players-only discussion. Penny, who had first been rebuffed in his efforts to have baseball union leader Donald Fehr speak to the NHLPA team representatives, finally had to relent and get off the line.
Crosby embraces leadership role in NHLPA
Quote:
NEW YORK -- Sidney Crosby was front and center Thursday as 283 NHL players wrapped up two days of meetings ahead of the impending lockout, with the planet's top player lending unfettered support to his brethren in what may be a prolonged labor impasse.

His presence, and his willingness to talk about the issues, shows the leadership and responsibility that he has continued to accept in his superstar career.
With no Penguins to captain, Crosby leads NHLPA

Now don't get me wrong, I think George Parros is likely one of the smarter players to look to for actual knowledge on the subject of labor disputes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the NHL superstars that have the pull. Why? Because their opinions actually count. Sad yes, but true.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 08:15 PM
  #648
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,516
vCash: 500
Sure their opinions count, just as every other player's.

I really don't think we fundamentally disagree here.

Signing off here for now as I'm at a game and my phone is dying.

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 09:23 PM
  #649
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
I'm in favor of reality. There are too many inequalities in sports markets. You would need a cap at about 35 million to make sure any team can make money without revenue sharing. All that really does is put more money into rich guys pockets. That would see the players making about 32% of revenue. You would lose many foreign players (talent that people want to see).
The only players you might lose would be a few to the KHL, and even then not likely. When the cap WAS at 39 million the NHL didn't have any more of an issue then they usually do keeping the Russians here. Ovechkin and Malkin broke into the league under such numbers.

Also, your 35 million projection is a tad low. All teams spent upwards of 49million last season on salaries, even the ones with internal caps. Set the bar at 50 million and all teams are at least capable of making it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
With enough revenue sharing you could see a cap around the midpoint of last year. 56 million range. There really wouldn't be a cap or floor just make every team spend the same amount. It is no guarantee teams are competitive either. The NFL makes teams spend about 90% of the cap. They can do that because they share almost all of their revenue. There are many teams that aren't competitive. You have the same top teams most years. The NBA isn't competitive with a floor at 85% of the cap. You have the same top teams each year in the NBA too.

You would end up with the NBA where players just go play together to form superteams. Keeping a floor that high also doesn't let teams rebuild easily - you can never go with youth, harder to get good draft picks. Also drives up salaries. Teams overpay just to reach the floor. If the NHL wants to go to these models they need to share almost all revenue. They don't seem to want to. I don't think it makes it a better league and I wouldn't want them to share all revenue. I believe you need to keep some free market principles for both the owners and players to make what they are worth.

The floor started out at 55% in the last CBA and was 75% this year. The players offer would have it at 66.6% staying the same each year. That is enough to compete in the NHL which is the ultimate team sport. 7 different teams won the cup with 12 different teams in the finals. Remember most teams wouldn't be at the floor either. They would mostly be over 80% of the cap as they were this year.
The NFL is able to share revenue because nearly all their revenue comes from their national broadcasting contracts. They aren't taking a ton of profit directly from the rich teams and giving it to the poor. You really need to stop touting an NFL style revenue sharing system in the NHL, this isn't the NFL. Here's an article analyzing the legitimacy of setting up a similar revenue sharing system as what the NHL employs in the NBA and MLB. When reading it you quickly realize you can also include the NHL in that group.

Quote:
<---snip---->
Big Brother NFL is at it again with revenue sharing. Football teams split about 75% of all league revenue, which is the main reason teams like the Green Bay Packers are able to compete with large-market revenue-generating monsters like the Jets, Giants, Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots. Of course, the NFL plays just 16 games in a season, and all of those games are broadcast by national networks like CBS, NBC and ESPN. The bulk of the league's revenue comes from those national deals. Major League Baseball and NBA teams play a lot more games: 162 in baseball, 82 in basketball. The best teams in the league might appear on national television a dozen or so times; the worst teams might not make an appearance at all. The bulk of those leagues' games are carried by local broadcast partners... the YES Networks and MSGs and regional Fox Sports channels and NESNs of the world. And that's also where the bulk of the money is generated. And that's the fatal flaw with any NFL-style revenue sharing system.
<---snip---->
As for the rest, the NHL doesn't want to go to these models and is far from it now, They have a hard cap in place. NBA's is soft with more loopholes then Heinz has pickles, and while the NFL's is hard they don't have guaranteed contracts (which I'm sure owners would love to explore". They already have a hard cap, they just have it tied in at 57% of the revenue which right now, is too high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
If Jacobs couldn't afford that $10M then fine with me. He could probably get players to sign slightly cheaper. Thomas and Boychuk are probably the first ones he lets go. Trade a Krejci for someone who can produce 75% of his offense that makes half. Or trade him for prospect and save a few bucks on an older player - Whitney, Jagr. Incorporate young players more. Spooner could get a shot. Maybe they would guarantee Soderberg a spot.
If Jacobs couldn't or the Bruins couldn't? You need to separate the two and the issue has always been that people don't. When a team like Boston doesn't spend as much as others do the billionaire owner (who made his money elsewhere) is labeled cheap and decades of failures are blamed on his unwillingness to spend as much as teams like New York. There is already a precedent established for this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
There would be no make whole in a soft landing scenario. The owners proposal is already over 50%. It is 50% plus $149M in 1 year and then 50% plus $62M. They have also de-linked. If revenues drop they could end up paying over 57%. While it is very unlikely it is also unlikely in the players scenario. If revenues are hurt it will be this year and next. Then the NHL will continue to grow as it has been.

The owners believe the NHL will grow at 5% themselves. Maybe they should pay attention to the players revenue projections. Isn't that why poor teams couldn't keep up? Because revenue grew too fast? They aren't guaranteeing raises. They want the same amount as the previous year. It will only matter in years 3 to 5 in the latest proposal and only takes a small growth rate before it hurts the owners 1 cent. Their new cap calculations didn't change the midpoint from last year. I think it is actually dumb that the owners are so against that de-linking for 3 years when it is very unlikely to hurt them and their own proposal is de-linked and can hurt them most in the first 3 years when they say they need the money.

I think they actually can 99% guarantee revenue growth. I have laid out some reasons in previous posts. Especially years 3 to 5. The lockout will hurt in years 1 and 2. Then there will be some momentum again with new fans and old fans who swore off the game will be coming back.

Their own proposal is not 50/50 immediately or over the life of the deal. They haven't gotten what they wanted. They have already lost these negotiations and damaged the game and the markets that need to be playing. Players are looking at the future and the benefits of all current players. Make whole isn't just for big contracts. It is for every player who currently has contracts big and small. It is also a way to help prevent rollbacks in the next CBA when owners will inevitably want more money. They are getting higher minimum salaries, higher playoff payouts, comfort and safety issues, fighting for contract rights, arbitration, waivers, RFA's, UFA's. They are helping all players going forward not just the stars as so many have claimed.

I believe the owners could have gotten what they wanted with a soft landing. 55,53,51,50,50,50,50,etc. The numbers work out almost exactly as they do now but I believe the players would have given up all de-linking language. There would have been no make whole, no lost games. The owners could have worked off soft landing from the start. They could have worked off the players 50/50 last month and asked for a full offer then. They could have come back with a new proposal based off the players last offer. I agree with others that says they have had a game plan the whole time to start in December or January. I really don't know why. They haven't gotten what they wanted and are only costing everyone money. Except the fans. I guess they are saving money. Maybe the owners and players are thinking of the fans.
The players haven't yet made a proposal or discussed one without "make whole" have they, even in their soft landing proposals? I believe the owners came up with the idea in the original proposal and it's been carried through ever since. I honestly expect it to go away before all is said and done and an immediate drop to 50% within the first two years, it's what they want and what they haven't gotten. The closest I believe would have been the last proposal from the PA, but of course they had to practically double the "make whole" money being offered.

I also don't remember the offer from the NHL that was de-linked. I had thought every offer they'd made so far had been linked to revenue? Unless you're counting the static make whole payment in this regard, to which I would have to disagree. That doesn't make any of their offers delinked, rather it's a completely different concession the owners offered players in an effort to get the situation resolved. One likely to go away as the possibility of a season dwindles. The very fact that they offered it even up to this point actually surprises me.

As for helping all players, they haven't gotten anything yet. It appears to me in the owners and PA's offers the contractual issues are fairly split. Owners insist on a 5 year contract limit to which the players countered a cap benefit recapture proposal, sounds like the players are giving on that concession. The Goepfert rule, another one most players likely don't care a lot about but that closes a loophole younger players were exploiting. The only thing you really see the players trying to take the owners to task on in their proposals seem to be the players share, the make whole sum, and revenue sharing, all with no real success so far. I'm fairly sure the owners will gladly give ground on the contractual issues but they haven't really had to yet as the PA seems to be so focused on make whole and share percentages.

What's the over under on the next owner proposal throwing out an even smaller amount of make whole monies in an attempt to get the players to jump before that concession is taken completely off the table?

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 09:27 PM
  #650
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Sure their opinions count, just as every other player's.

I really don't think we fundamentally disagree here.

Signing off here for now as I'm at a game and my phone is dying.
Quote:
It was the 22-year-old Crosby, arguably the highest-profile player in the sport today, who raised his voice last Sunday on a union conference call and firmly told interim executive director Ian Penny to hang up the phone because union members wanted to have a players-only discussion.
He's didn't say "hey Ian, just my opinion, but you should get off the call so we can talk... eh guys?" The 22 year old kid told the interim executive director to get off the phone... and he did. Sounds like pull to me. Neuvrth sure thinks there's a gap between the star players and the every day ones. He should know being a player himself shouldn't he?

Kaoz 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 04:12 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.