HFBoards

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

CBA Negotiations III: Why Can't We All Just...Get Along?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2012, 03:14 PM
  #576
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
A lawsuit has such little chance of working. It was one thing in the NFL or NBA where you can argue those leagues essentially have a monopoly on the sport. Take one quick look at the roster of NHL players who have been paid by some other league and it's a sham of a law suit.
That not how the Sherman Act works. A monopoly doesn't have to be 100% market share.

Here's an article on how monopoly power is determined under Sherman: http://business-law.freeadvice.com/b...poly_power.htm

Some relevant portions:

Quote:
Under the Sherman Act monopoly power is considered the ability of a business to control a price within its relevant product market or its geographic market or to exclude a competitor from doing business within its relevant product market or geographic market. In order to meet this definition, it is only necessary to prove that the business had the power to fix prices or exclude competitors. The plaintiff does not need to prove that prices were actually raised or that competitors were actually excluded from the market.
First prong of test:

Quote:
Courts will usually look at a company’s market share for a particular product or service to see if a monopoly exists. If a company has a market share of greater than 75 percent, they will probably be considered a monopoly. For market share purposes, courts will make an apples-to-apples comparison by looking at identical products or products that are so similar they could be substituted to determine market share.
Second prong of test:

Quote:
The second part of the test is whether the company engaged in some type of unfair or anti-competitive conduct.


Last edited by Snotbubbles: 12-14-2012 at 03:29 PM.
Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:56 PM
  #577
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,978
vCash: 500
James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

NHL has "filed a Class Action Complaint in Federal Court in New York seeking a Declaration confirming the ongoing legality of the lockout."

and

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

"The NHL also filed an Unfair Labor Practice Charge with the National Labor Relations Board" over talk of a disclaimer of interest.

MsWoof is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:57 PM
  #578
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,565
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
I disagree I think reducing the salary cap will lower the amount of money teams have to spend and EVERYONE will take a paycut, not just the little guys. Contracts will acutally go down in year 1, stagnate in year 2, rebound by year 3 and continue to scale appropriately to the 50/50 split moving forward.
A large paycut happened a few years ago. Over time, the cap rose to the point where some teams were hard pressed to make it to the floor. What's going to stop that from happening again?

That's why I want to see more revenue sharing. Give those teams more help.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:54 PM
  #579
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
A large paycut happened a few years ago. Over time, the cap rose to the point where some teams were hard pressed to make it to the floor. What's going to stop that from happening again?

That's why I want to see more revenue sharing. Give those teams more help.
The major difference is that the players share will remain 50/50 instead of jumping up to 57% towards the end, which artifically inflated the salary cap by ~12%.

If you really think about it, cap floor teams in the old CBA will pretty much be the only ones with money for the next 3-4 years and all the contenders will be so close to the cap they they literally CANNOT afford to add another superstar free agent. I think in the next few years we're going to see the Islanders, Avs, Stars, Senators, Blues making most of the big name signings because they're the ones who have enough money.

On revenue sharing, I believe the owners conceded to give more already? But I'm not even sure what's on the table anymore after Gary Bettman's tantrum last week... and both sides are pretty mum on the issue.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:04 PM
  #580
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
A large paycut happened a few years ago. Over time, the cap rose to the point where some teams were hard pressed to make it to the floor. What's going to stop that from happening again?

That's why I want to see more revenue sharing. Give those teams more help.
If the percentage wasn't 57 percent the last few years, the league is probably in better shape

the cap situation would have been about 8-10m less if it was 50%

That extra money probably has close to 25 or so teams breaking even or profiting, which of course is much better than it is now

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:28 PM
  #581
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
If the percentage wasn't 57 percent the last few years, the league is probably in better shape

the cap situation would have been about 8-10m less if it was 50%

That extra money probably has close to 25 or so teams breaking even or profiting, which of course is much better than it is now
there's too many teams in this league. bettmans a tard. he insinuates that he was responsible for hockey in the sunbelt states but we all know it was gretzky. his expansion was atlanta (failure), winnipeg to phoenix (failure) who needed the league to pay for its life support for the last 4 years, not to mention winnipeg gets a team back and columbus which if not for that kickass stadium would cease to exist also. I'm still with the players. the best in the world out of an ever expanding talent pool. the owners created this b.s with the circumvention and somehow its the players fault. its that careless craziness to compete but then want to change the rules when they make a mess.

funghoul is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:27 PM
  #582
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
That not how the Sherman Act works.
A lot will depend on how they draw lines in the sand. What constitutes a rival league, within what distance, how big must those organizations be? There are what? 770 NHL athlete jobs?

I would need to look into the antitrust laws NA, but I would wager establishing the NHL as a monopoly will be easier said than done. It will also depend on how liberal the courts are and where the NHL is registered officially. (For instance, lots of businesses establish in DE USA because the laws there make it extremely difficult to sue them.)

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:33 PM
  #583
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,565
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
The major difference is that the players share will remain 50/50 instead of jumping up to 57% towards the end, which artifically inflated the salary cap by ~12%.

If you really think about it, cap floor teams in the old CBA will pretty much be the only ones with money for the next 3-4 years and all the contenders will be so close to the cap they they literally CANNOT afford to add another superstar free agent. I think in the next few years we're going to see the Islanders, Avs, Stars, Senators, Blues making most of the big name signings because they're the ones who have enough money.

On revenue sharing, I believe the owners conceded to give more already? But I'm not even sure what's on the table anymore after Gary Bettman's tantrum last week... and both sides are pretty mum on the issue.
They're giving more, but since sharing was incredibly small last time who knows if it'll make a difference. I want to see it because it will bring more stability to the league's financial situation. Sucks for the big owners, but could be good for the long term health of the league. It was certainly great for the NFL over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
If the percentage wasn't 57 percent the last few years, the league is probably in better shape

the cap situation would have been about 8-10m less if it was 50%

That extra money probably has close to 25 or so teams breaking even or profiting, which of course is much better than it is now
Even when the Cap was 8-10 mil less we were hearing talk that some teams weren't doing well...and the cap is being reduced by 10 mil right? That already puts us back to the beginning of the issue. It's all gonna depend on how fast the league recovers and grows.

Currently, there are some wonky sharing rules. For instance, I think I read the Islanders get almost nothing because they're in a large market. Market size shouldn't matter, imo.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:40 PM
  #584
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,415
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguy View Post
Wow, that's pretty douchey of them.

You figured if they were giving away a prize like that in a contest, that they'd already have obtained the prize they were giving to the winner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
You have my sympathy. lol. Wow. I seriously hope you get it after all that time. Must be maddening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyers28giroux View Post
That stinks, hopefully you get that autographed jersey soon.
Sent another email today. They replied saying they have the jersey and as soon as the season starts they will have it signed and shipped. If the season is cancelled I'll get it whenever it starts back up. I guess that is better than nothing.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:42 PM
  #585
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
They're giving more, but since sharing was incredibly small last time who knows if it'll make a difference. I want to see it because it will bring more stability to the league's financial situation. Sucks for the big owners, but could be good for the long term health of the league. It was certainly great for the NFL over time.



Even when the Cap was 8-10 mil less we were hearing talk that some teams weren't doing well...and the cap is being reduced by 10 mil right? That already puts us back to the beginning of the issue. It's all gonna depend on how fast the league recovers and grows.

Currently, there are some wonky sharing rules. For instance, I think I read the Islanders get almost nothing because they're in a large market. Market size shouldn't matter, imo.
When the cap was less, so was the revenue.

And if you're going to allow larger markets into revenue sharing, you need to create other rules to apply for it. Islanders spent just above the cap floor last year. They get 25m for their tv contract alone. Wang using bonuses to cut the money down that he's spending is a joke. Especially with that TV contract. Forbes has them having the lowest revenue by about 20m. The fanbase has gotten tired of Wang's cheapskating everything and they aren't turning out anymore.

The league should put a rule into the league constitution to allow the league buyouts of owners like that.

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:45 PM
  #586
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,565
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
When the cap was less, so was the revenue.

And if you're going to allow larger markets into revenue sharing, you need to create other rules to apply for it. Islanders spent just above the cap floor last year. They get 25m for their tv contract alone. Wang using bonuses to cut the money down that he's spending is a joke. Especially with that TV contract. Forbes has them having the lowest revenue by about 20m. The fanbase has gotten tired of Wang's cheapskating everything and they aren't turning out anymore.

The league should put a rule into the league constitution to allow the league buyouts of owners like that.
The Islanders weren't eligible for much sharing, I don't believe. Market size is taken into account, and being smack dab in the middle of NYC did them no favors. Wasn't Wang using personal money to keep them afloat? That's never good.

The issue is if the league keeps up it's rapid expansion rate, and outstrips the reduction in player share reduction, it's only a matter of time until even reaching the floor becomes a burden for some owners.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:55 PM
  #587
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
According to islanders fans, he was refusing to put any money into the team until they got the lighthouse project thing funded by the nassau county. After that didn't work and they wouldn't fund a stadium, they decided to move to Brooklyn in a few years. Whether or not he puts any money in in now? We'll find out in 2014 or 2015

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:58 PM
  #588
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
10 min misconduct is here now.

He can go into more detail on Wang

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:12 PM
  #589
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,565
vCash: 156
10MM! Enlighten us!

I have seen so many conflicting things on your board.

Edit: He's gone.

I'd tell you to report your own post to get his attention, but then I'd need to infract you for abuse of the report button.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:21 PM
  #590
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Is that even in the rules?

edit : anyways, sent him a PM

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:42 PM
  #591
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
#beLIeve
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 14,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
When the cap was less, so was the revenue.

And if you're going to allow larger markets into revenue sharing, you need to create other rules to apply for it. Islanders spent just above the cap floor last year. They get 25m for their tv contract alone. Wang using bonuses to cut the money down that he's spending is a joke. Especially with that TV contract. Forbes has them having the lowest revenue by about 20m. The fanbase has gotten tired of Wang's cheapskating everything and they aren't turning out anymore.

The league should put a rule into the league constitution to allow the league buyouts of owners like that.

The TV contract for the Isles increase to 30+ million in time. Wang used Bonuses to skirt the cap. I believe it was done because he saw no hope in sight for a new building in Nassau and so he had to cut expenses as much as possible. Wang has shown a willingness to spend money, but when the hopes of a building faded his wallet closed as much possible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
The Islanders weren't eligible for much sharing, I don't believe. Market size is taken into account, and being smack dab in the middle of NYC did them no favors. Wasn't Wang using personal money to keep them afloat? That's never good.

The issue is if the league keeps up it's rapid expansion rate, and outstrips the reduction in player share reduction, it's only a matter of time until even reaching the floor becomes a burden for some owners.

Wang is using his personal fund to keep the Isles afloat. I don't believe the Isles qualified for any revenue sharing in Nassau. Now that he goes to Brooklyn revenues will increase (hopefully) and I think Wang will open his wallet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
According to islanders fans, he was refusing to put any money into the team until they got the lighthouse project thing funded by the nassau county. After that didn't work and they wouldn't fund a stadium, they decided to move to Brooklyn in a few years. Whether or not he puts any money in in now? We'll find out in 2014 or 2015
The Lighthouse was solely to be funded by Wang and his partners. The referendum put to the voters on 8/1 and was voted NO was to be fronted by Nassau but ultimately repaid by Wang and the Isles. The conversation went quiet and thats when I knew something was up. Their was an RFQ and Wang didn't participate, which further led me to believe that something was up. Then news started breaking that morning of a major Isles announcement, and I said to my family the Isles are moving. More and more tweets started coming and my suspicions were confirmed.




Hope this helps.

__________________
Homeland Security is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:45 AM
  #592
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
If you really think about it, cap floor teams in the old CBA will pretty much be the only ones with money for the next 3-4 years and all the contenders will be so close to the cap they they literally CANNOT afford to add another superstar free agent. I think in the next few years we're going to see the Islanders, Avs, Stars, Senators, Blues making most of the big name signings because they're the ones who have enough money.
That's what everyone thought when the cap first arrived. Instead star players took pay-cuts to stay in the best, most desirable markets and the low-tier franchises overpaid for mediocre talent in order to reach the cap floor.

Damaged Goods is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 01:12 AM
  #593
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,565
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
Stuff
Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
That's what everyone thought when the cap first arrived. Instead star players took pay-cuts to stay in the best, most desirable markets and the low-tier franchises overpaid for mediocre talent in order to reach the cap floor.
Yes, and what concerns me is I'm not sure things will be drastically different based on what we're hearing. Seems like they're sticking some gum in the dam. I guess we find out whenever we get a CBA.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 05:42 AM
  #594
StandingCow
Registered User
 
StandingCow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 3,537
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

NHL has "filed a Class Action Complaint in Federal Court in New York seeking a Declaration confirming the ongoing legality of the lockout."

and

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

"The NHL also filed an Unfair Labor Practice Charge with the National Labor Relations Board" over talk of a disclaimer of interest.
So... goodbye season?

StandingCow is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:44 AM
  #595
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,415
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by StandingCow View Post
So... goodbye season?
Good bye season, and possibly longer depending on how the law suit goes.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:49 AM
  #596
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StandingCow View Post
So... goodbye season?
The NHL has no legal case, which I suspect they know. The point isn't to win the NLRB proceeding--they won't--but rather to ensure any ruling can be appealed to delay the punitive damages (if they were ever leveled).

This doesn't bode well for a season. That's for sure.

Jack de la Hoya is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:55 AM
  #597
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,415
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
That not how the Sherman Act works. A monopoly doesn't have to be 100% market share.

Here's an article on how monopoly power is determined under Sherman: http://business-law.freeadvice.com/b...poly_power.htm

Some relevant portions:



First prong of test:



Second prong of test:
I haven't seen what the actual lawsuit is about, but it most likely isn't suing because there is a monopoly, but rather suing under the first section of the Sherman Act relating to conspiracies to restrain trade.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 01:40 PM
  #598
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
can't this just go to arbitration?

funghoul is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 04:37 PM
  #599
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I haven't seen what the actual lawsuit is about, but it most likely isn't suing because there is a monopoly, but rather suing under the first section of the Sherman Act relating to conspiracies to restrain trade.
Especially when you have NHLers taking to twitter to voice their frustrations so liberally, I'm looking directly at Upshall, Carle, Couture, and some edgy comments made by Ryan Miller:

Quote:
“They want to see if we will take a bad deal because we get desperate or if we have the strength to push back. Decertification is a push back and should show we want a negotiation and a fair deal on at least some of our terms.”
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...uld-decertify/

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 07:10 PM
  #600
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,415
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by funghoul View Post
can't this just go to arbitration?
Anything can go to arbitration. This won't.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now  
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 08:23 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.