HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2012, 09:20 PM
  #301
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Again, stop being completely ignorant, its just semantics. Its a lockout or a strike.

Without an agreement owners must initiate the lockout because their is no agreement. Damn that was difficult to understand. Either way there is no hockey. This stoppage is players initiated just as much by not negotiating along time ago and for that matter still havent negotiated.

Semantics is your only argument here for siding with the PA tooth and nail.

And no the players didnt get screwed. No job that pays you on average 2.2 million dollars has you being screwed. Thats why the PA has very little support. Arguments like that.

So what is the lockout really about? I think it is more about morals, prevention of this continuous cycle and fighting to keep what was earned.

I totally agree with the players stance that signed contracts should be honored. I mean contracts were awarded that extend well beyond the life of the CBA, if those contracts were written with the knowledge that they would never actually reach completion because of work stoppages and changes to the CBA, it cannot be deemed a contract awarded in good faith.

So is it the players that are striking because they think that their contracts aren't fair? I mean come on! The owners are essentially telling the players that they are not going to pay the players what they said they were because the owners down south (mostly) are tired of losing X amount of money. The owners have all agreed that they won't pay the players what had been agreed upon to ease these losses, and if the players don't like it, well the owners won't pay the players at all until they agree to less, hence the lockout. Now don't get me wrong, if I were an owner I would also fight to get more of the pie, but I would think that given the circumstances contracts awarded in the previous CBA at a minimum be honored. The Players have AGREED to let the owners take more of the revenue provided that current contracts are honored.

I don't have the numbers in front of me so I have no idea what amount of money is needed for the make whole, but if I were the players, the make whole provision must come from the owners and not my fellow teammates. I believe this is were there is a difference between the owners notion of this and the players, but why on earth should the players concede any of their negotiations rights on top of that when it comes to contracts? It's the owners that need control over ridiculous contracts, and I think the players are understanding of that and have given them the owners options that would prevent front loaded 10 year contracts that undermine the cap cost certainty that was fought for last time.

I just don't see how you can argue that the players are being greedy here, if you bought a TV with a 1 year manufacturers warranty and your TV broke after 6 months for no reason and you went to the manufacturer to get them to fix it and the manufacture returned to you and said we will fix it but you need to pay 30% of the cost to fix it. I would think you would be pissed off. You could just accept the fact and pay, you could fight it or you could not pay and have a broken TV (I'm sure there are more options but I'm not going to imagine them all). ultimately though, when you bought the product, the product came with a 1 year warranty and you as the purchaser have expectations of what that entails.

I think that the players acknowledge and have come up with solutions to help solve the NHL financial situation though I don't know all the details. It is my opinion that these solutions should come from both the players and owners AFTER the players have been given what has been promised in contractual form from the past CBA.

It is quite shocking that this stance of well what's the real damage of the loss of a few $100k when weighed to a few million is taken. I think on principle the actual dollar amount is irrelevant, it really is about the big guy trying to get away with as much as possible after the fact.

Returning to the TV example, if everyone just internalized being pissed off maybe the next person would need to pay 40% of the cost, until eventually there are no manufacturer warranties. The example is to illustrate a scenario of hidden intentions and frustration about having to pay for something you thought you had. It is also to try and illustrate the fact that it doesn't matter if it's only a $500 TV or a few $million dollars the sentiments are somewhat the same, you would feel ripped off!

So you tell me, what would you do if your TV broke?

Reiher is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 09:27 PM
  #302
e46330ivs*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Even if the players give the owners everything they want, most teams will be losing money in ~2018 and another lockout will be demanded.

That's an economic law, which has already been explained. In a competitive system, profits tend toward zero. Owners compete.

http://mises.org/community/wikis/eco...ee-market.aspx

What the players "deserve" is 72%, anything below the free market level is a concession. It's kind of funny that the posters siding with the owners, instinctively supporting the billionaires and the investors, hate the free market so much.
how can you say 72% when no one knows their expenses, not many things get cheaper in life either.

e46330ivs* is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 09:37 PM
  #303
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by e46330ivs View Post
how can you say 72% when no one knows their expenses, not many things get cheaper in life either.
After the last lockout, the players took a combined 24%, or maybe 25%?, paycut to have 54% of hockey-related revenue; that means that beforehand it was 72%.

[[ Later in the life of the last CBA, the 54% became 57%, I don't remember why that was. I think it was because the league was exceeding growth projections. ]]

Admittedly, it's actually less than 72% because hockey-related revenue as defined is an underestimate of genuine hockey-related revenue. They subtract a substantial amount of costs from HRR, which is fair and good in any case in my opinion. When I say 72%, I mean 72% of HRR as the league and the NHLPA have agreed to define it.

The point is, however, that in a free market the players would be making substantially more money.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 09:43 PM
  #304
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The reason why people bring up how much cash are players making is because it is one of the key point of this debate. Not sure how any of it is jealousy.

And why would they owners agree to play under an agreement they wanted to change?

Seriously, this debate has become beyond ridiculous. Both sides have handled this poorly and there is not one side who's more at fault.
The problem is the way it's brought up.

e.g. "they should be grateful to get what they can, they're just playing a game"
"for maybe 20 hours a week"
"too many chicks to bang"
etc.

It sounds like envy. To a large extent, it is envy.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 10:02 PM
  #305
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
After the last lockout, the players took a combined 24%, or maybe 25%?, paycut to have 54% of hockey-related revenue; that means that beforehand it was 72%.

[[ Later in the life of the last CBA, the 54% became 57%, I don't remember why that was. I think it was because the league was exceeding growth projections. ]]

Admittedly, it's actually less than 72% because hockey-related revenue as defined is an underestimate of genuine hockey-related revenue. They subtract a substantial amount of costs from HRR, which is fair and good in any case in my opinion. When I say 72%, I mean 72% of HRR as the league and the NHLPA have agreed to define it.

The point is, however, that in a free market the players would be making substantially more money.


The league wouldn't have record breaking revenue without the 2004-2005 lockout, thus the players wouldn't have the same salaries. Whatever they lost (the 24 % you're talking about), they gained much more financially with no time. I expect the same thing to happen with this lockout, if both camps hasn't lost the fans...I mean the only losers of the last lockout in the end were 5-10 stars players with long terms contracts at an incredible salary, because they were with the few big money teams. (Lidstrom, Jagr, Sakic, Sundin).
.
The players are so sure the owners are making big money with their teams, more of them should invest in NHL franchises.


Last edited by Forsead: 11-27-2012 at 10:21 PM.
Forsead is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 10:05 PM
  #306
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The problem is the way it's brought up.

e.g. "they should be grateful to get what they can, they're just playing a game"
"for maybe 20 hours a week"
"too many chicks to bang"
etc.

It sounds like envy. To a large extent, it is envy.
Maybe for a few minority. Others just prefer to take a step back, put things into perspective. Some players and posters talk as if are getting ripped off to the point where they'll go bankrupt and won't be able to buy themselves a good steak on a saturday night. So, ya, when some hear that, they'll call BS and say things like ''things will be alright'' or ''they will still make millions''. That's why I brought up the middle east, because I heard such nonsensical things like ''they're fighting for rights''.

It's truly ridiculous. That doesn't mean owners should take anything they want. But ya, players will keep making millions and remain rich. Owners outlast players in this league, by a lot, and they're the ones that pay that dishes out the cash, it's only logical for them to want a bigger piece of the pie and dictate things.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 10:17 PM
  #307
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
[/B]The league wouldn't have record breaking revenue without the 2004-2005 lockout, thus the players wouldn't have the same salaries. Whatever they lost (the 24 % you're talking about), they gained much more financially with no time. I expect the same thing to happen with this lockout, if both camps hasn't lost the fans...

The players are so sure the owners are making big money with their teams, more of them should invest in NHL franchises.
The players are not allowed to invest in NHL franchises. The one exception (that I'm aware of) is Mario Lemieux, who bought his team in the early 2000s under exceptional circumstance. Part of the agreement was that he would be paid exactly league average salary. In general it's a conflict of interest for active players to buy a franchise.

There are examples of former players buying pro teams, where the conflict of interest is gone. Michael Jordan is part owner of the WAshington Wizards. That said, the startup costs for owning a team are a few hundred million dollars, michael jordan can afford that, but Steven Stamkos cannot. Few former players can afford that. Superstar NHL players might make 150 million (I think Crosby will clock in at 200 million) in a career at the upper end, that's 90 million after taxes in most jurisdiction, with which you cannot buy a team.

Wayne Gretzky was a part owner of the Coyotes, but that particular team was not a good investment.

You may be right that the players benefited from greater parity. In these negotiations, the players have offered to acceopt salary cuts if the owners increase revenue sharing -- which follows the same logic. However, the owners have ruled out substantial increases in revenue sharing. Therefore, if I'm a player, I'd feel like I have no business partner.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-27-2012 at 10:23 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 10:36 PM
  #308
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Maybe for a few minority. Others just prefer to take a step back, put things into perspective. Some players and posters talk as if are getting ripped off to the point where they'll go bankrupt and won't be able to buy themselves a good steak on a saturday night. So, ya, when some hear that, they'll call BS and say things like ''things will be alright'' or ''they will still make millions''. That's why I brought up the middle east, because I heard such nonsensical things like ''they're fighting for rights''.

It's truly ridiculous. That doesn't mean owners should take anything they want. But ya, players will keep making millions and remain rich. Owners outlast players in this league, by a lot, and they're the ones that pay that dishes out the cash, it's only logical for them to want a bigger piece of the pie and dictate things.
I think this is just like someone finding out that they owe a whole more in their income tax return than anticipated. I think it's natural that people exaggerate and make it seem like the world is going to end. However having said that, the bi-polar opposite is no better either.

Reiher is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 10:42 PM
  #309
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The players are not allowed to invest in NHL franchises. The one exception (that I'm aware of) is Mario Lemieux, who bought his team in the early 2000s under exceptional circumstance. Part of the agreement was that he would be paid exactly league average salary. In general it's a conflict of interest for active players to buy a franchise.

There are examples of former players buying pro teams, where the conflict of interest is gone. Michael Jordan is part owner of the WAshington Wizards. That said, the startup costs for owning a team are a few hundred million dollars, michael jordan can afford that, but Steven Stamkos cannot. Few former players can afford that. Superstar NHL players might make 150 million (I think Crosby will clock in at 200 million) in a career at the upper end, that's 90 million after taxes in most jurisdiction, with which you cannot buy a team.

Wayne Gretzky was a part owner of the Coyotes, but that particular team was not a good investment.

You may be right that the players benefited from greater parity. In these negotiations, the players have offered to acceopt salary cuts if the owners increase revenue sharing -- which follows the same logic. However, the owners have ruled out substantial increases in revenue sharing. Therefore, if I'm a player, I'd feel like I have no business partner.
I was referring to ex-players, I mean Sakic has made almost 90 millions IIRC, he could put 10 millions of shares (nobody force him to be a majority owner), that would be in my opinion a good PR move and I can't see their owner(s) be against this. Why, this he isn't doing this ? because it's a really bad investment, like in most teams.

In term, of total money that some of theses stars earns you should not forget their advertising money.

Mario Lemieux, case IIRC is at the time the team had no money for paying his salary so they paid him in ownership shares.

I like where the negotiations are heading, but even Damphousse (who was in the head of the negociations last CBA) said that he found the last NHLPA offer was too greedy and he was understanding the NHL position in that case. The minimum salary cap is a blessing for the players and a total curse for the (poor) owners and it seems it will stay the same.

I would like to know to what exact percent of the sharing system they are talking about right now to really comment on it.


Last edited by Forsead: 11-27-2012 at 10:48 PM.
Forsead is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 10:44 PM
  #310
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The players are not allowed to invest in NHL franchises. The one exception (that I'm aware of) is Mario Lemieux, who bought his team in the early 2000s under exceptional circumstance. Part of the agreement was that he would be paid exactly league average salary. In general it's a conflict of interest for active players to buy a franchise.

There are examples of former players buying pro teams, where the conflict of interest is gone. Michael Jordan is part owner of the WAshington Wizards. That said, the startup costs for owning a team are a few hundred million dollars, michael jordan can afford that, but Steven Stamkos cannot. Few former players can afford that. Superstar NHL players might make 150 million (I think Crosby will clock in at 200 million) in a career at the upper end, that's 90 million after taxes in most jurisdiction, with which you cannot buy a team.

Wayne Gretzky was a part owner of the Coyotes, but that particular team was not a good investment.

You may be right that the players benefited from greater parity. In these negotiations, the players have offered to acceopt salary cuts if the owners increase revenue sharing -- which follows the same logic. However, the owners have ruled out substantial increases in revenue sharing. Therefore, if I'm a player, I'd feel like I have no business partner.
Lemieux never bought the Penguins, per se. He was owed deferred salary which the previous owner defaulted on when he put the franchise into bankruptcy. Mario had already retired and came out of retirement later on to save the team and his investment.

I doubt Wayne ever put a penny of his own money into the Coyotes, I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 10:46 PM
  #311
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Maybe for a few minority. Others just prefer to take a step back, put things into perspective. Some players and posters talk as if are getting ripped off to the point where they'll go bankrupt and won't be able to buy themselves a good steak on a saturday night. So, ya, when some hear that, they'll call BS and say things like ''things will be alright'' or ''they will still make millions''. That's why I brought up the middle east, because I heard such nonsensical things like ''they're fighting for rights''.

It's truly ridiculous. That doesn't mean owners should take anything they want. But ya, players will keep making millions and remain rich. Owners outlast players in this league, by a lot, and they're the ones that pay that dishes out the cash, it's only logical for them to want a bigger piece of the pie and dictate things.
Yes because "buying a steak on saturday night" is what this is all about. Why don't they just settle for 60K a year? Surely they can buy a steak on that wage! You are one of the many bringing up the nonsensical things so ya people call BS on you.

Yes owners outlast players, good reason for the players to make a good chunk of the pie actually. That and the players are the only reason there is even a pie to begin with.

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 10:50 PM
  #312
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Maybe for a few minority. Others just prefer to take a step back, put things into perspective. Some players and posters talk as if are getting ripped off to the point where they'll go bankrupt and won't be able to buy themselves a good steak on a saturday night. So, ya, when some hear that, they'll call BS and say things like ''things will be alright'' or ''they will still make millions''. That's why I brought up the middle east, because I heard such nonsensical things like ''they're fighting for rights''.

It's truly ridiculous. That doesn't mean owners should take anything they want. But ya, players will keep making millions and remain rich. Owners outlast players in this league, by a lot, and they're the ones that pay that dishes out the cash, it's only logical for them to want a bigger piece of the pie and dictate things.
I don't think 50% is truly atrocious. But in the long run, my observations of the North American business community suggest that if unions fold, management will never have enough and never be satisfied, see Hostess, see General Managers, see Bain Capital which tried to buy the NHL. The demands will go up and up in future lockout negotiations, as is the general rule.

I said to another poster that the floor for NHL salaries, beyond which owners would not be willing to cut, was whatever players can make in Europe plus a cushion to guarantee the NHL has the most talent; so that means they'd push a lot lower than 50% in future negotiations. Maybe 40%, maybe 30%, maybe 20%, I'm not sure what the exact salaries are in Sweden, Switzerland, Russia, etc. That's the floor beyond which NHL owners won't try to cut. If the players make anything above that floor, owners will request a lockout to nibble away.

If not for the European floor, the floor would be the same farm animal treatment that professional athletes in NCAA football get, who don't even get to call themselves professional athletes. I was massively into NCAA football my first three years at Ohio State; I lost interest at the end because of some revolting scandals where the players were punished. Those players produce millions of dollars in revenue and get nothing in return but meaningless scholarships. At Ohio State some players were punished for getting free tattoos, At Penn State, some players had their wins taken away because their assistant coach engaged in pedophilia ... . That system demonstrates my point, beyond any reasonable doubt, about the moral depravity of owners in professional sports leagues in North America. It is how they would behave with a pure monopoly.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-27-2012 at 10:57 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 11:31 PM
  #313
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
I was referring to ex-players, I mean Sakic has made almost 90 millions IIRC, he could put 10 millions of shares (nobody force him to be a majority owner), that would be in my opinion a good PR move and I can't see their owner(s) be against this. Why, this he isn't doing this ? because it's a really bad investment, like in most teams.

In term, of total money that some of theses stars earns you should not forget their advertising money.

Mario Lemieux, case IIRC is at the time the team had no money for paying his salary so they paid him in ownership shares.

I like where the negotiations are heading, but even Damphousse (who was in the head of the negociations last CBA) said that he found the last NHLPA offer was too greedy and he was understanding the NHL position in that case. The minimum salary cap is a blessing for the players and a total curse for the (poor) owners and it seems it will stay the same.

I would like to know to what exact percent of the sharing system they are talking about right now to really comment on it.
Right now, there is 140 million in revenue sharing. The NHLPA wanted that increased to 240 million, and the NHL has offered to increase it to ~180 million. I'm not sure how the money is distributed in any of the three proposals.

The NHLPA also wanted some sort of cap on non-player hockey-related expenses, but that was turned down by the league.

**********

I don't know that Joe Sakic could buy 3% of the Colorado Avalanche for 10 million dollars even if he wanted to. Is the team for sale? You say that nobody is forced to be majority owner, but it's not on a stock exchange, you can't just buy fractional shares.

Further, the NHL owners are not desperate for new owners. For example, Mike Lazaridis offered to end the Phoenix Coyotes annual losses of 20 million dollars to move the team to Kitchener (lol), but the NHL said no. They're not going to accept anybody into their ownership group. They're picky, as is their right. They did recently add Kenneth Thompson (Winnipeg Jets owner), which was a wise business decision, as he's one of the richest men in the world.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-27-2012 at 11:43 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 11:51 PM
  #314
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Yes because "buying a steak on saturday night" is what this is all about. Why don't they just settle for 60K a year? Surely they can buy a steak on that wage! You are one of the many bringing up the nonsensical things so ya people call BS on you.

Yes owners outlast players, good reason for the players to make a good chunk of the pie actually. That and the players are the only reason there is even a pie to begin with.
The fact you still fail to understand my posts is rather troubling. Then again, you do the same when someone disagrees with you in hockey related subjects. Focus on specific words or sentences as opposed to the idea behind them.

You know what, there would be no NHL without the fans either, I guess we should get a piece of the pie too.

Owners outlast players, by far, they pay the players and take all the financial risks, so they want a bigger piece while still guaranteeing millions of dollars to the players, oh my god, the scandal..
(Oh wait, I mentioned that the players will still remain rich, it must mean I'm jealous and envious! )


Last edited by Kriss E: 11-27-2012 at 11:57 PM.
Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:10 AM
  #315
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Owners outlast players, by far, they pay the players and take all the financial risks, so they want a bigger piece while still guaranteeing millions of dollars to the players, oh my god, the scandal..
(Oh wait, I mentioned that the players will still remain rich, it must mean I'm jealous and envious! )
We've been through this:

1) Owners do not take all the financial risks. The players and their families take on tremendous risks to become professional athletes. As an example take Louis Leblanc. He could have been a mediocre ice hockey player and used his Harvard education to get him a relatively easy (easier than becoming a pro athlete) path to a lifetime of six figure incomes --- instead he took the risk to go to the Q for a year. That's a financial risk. Every single teenage player giving what is necessary to become an NHL player, to become the top 600 in the world, is taking on financial risk.

I don't have a son in hockey camp. But my understanding is that if your kid is to play hockey regularly, you're down many thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours every year. That's a financial risk parents are taking across Canada.

Further, player salaries are cut, there's escrow, i.e. if league revenues drop due to a recession, player salaries drop, that's a risk.

You then have the fact that the NHL has been unconcerned about injuries. Players who go into the dirty areas for example are more likely to get injured; but they might also be more likely to score more goals. Playing a tough game ... that's a financial risk.

In any case, taxpayers take on a lot of the risks. Even if you are consuming mescaline and assume that players don't take on a lot of risks, meet Mr. Taxpayer please. There was a stat from a few years ago that the Montreal Canadiens pay more taxes than all other 29 franchises combined. That means taxpayers across the continent are taking on a subsidy risk. Never mind the more direct subsidies for arenas.

I want to know: who came up with this meme that owners take on all the risks? It's demonstrably false.

2) Owners for the most part do not pay the salaries, the fans do. The NHL has total operating income of 140 million dollars. The owners are intermediaries between the fans and the players.

If I go to the gas station, and I buy gas with my bank card, it is not correct to say that the Bank is the one paying for my gas, even though that is what's happening in some technical sense. I am the one paying for the gas, the bank is acting as an intermediary, a privileged and well-compensated intermediary that gets to skim 3% off the top.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-28-2012 at 12:23 AM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:37 AM
  #316
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The reason why people bring up how much cash are players making is because it is one of the key point of this debate. Not sure how any of it is jealousy.

And why would they owners agree to play under an agreement they wanted to change?

Seriously, this debate has become beyond ridiculous. Both sides have handled this poorly and there is not one side who's more at fault.
easy : record revenues.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:58 AM
  #317
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
We've been through this:

1) Owners do not take all the financial risks. The players and their families take on tremendous risks to become professional athletes. As an example take Louis Leblanc. He could have been a mediocre ice hockey player and used his Harvard education to get him a relatively easy (easier than becoming a pro athlete) path to a lifetime of six figure incomes --- instead he took the risk to go to the Q for a year. That's a financial risk. Every single teenage player giving what is necessary to become an NHL player, to become the top 600 in the world, is taking on financial risk.

I don't have a son in hockey camp. But my understanding is that if your kid is to play hockey regularly, you're down many thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours every year. That's a financial risk parents are taking across Canada.

Further, player salaries are cut, there's escrow, i.e. if league revenues drop due to a recession, player salaries drop, that's a risk.

You then have the fact that the NHL has been unconcerned about injuries. Players who go into the dirty areas for example are more likely to get injured; but they might also be more likely to score more goals. Playing a tough game ... that's a financial risk.

In any case, taxpayers take on a lot of the risks. Even if you are consuming mescaline and assume that players don't take on a lot of risks, meet Mr. Taxpayer please. There was a stat from a few years ago that the Montreal Canadiens pay more taxes than all other 29 franchises combined. That means taxpayers across the continent are taking on a subsidy risk. Never mind the more direct subsidies for arenas.

I want to know: who came up with this meme that owners take on all the risks? It's demonstrably false.

2) Owners for the most part do not pay the salaries, the fans do. The NHL has total operating income of 140 million dollars. The owners are intermediaries between the fans and the players.

If I go to the gas station, and I buy gas with my bank card, it is not correct to say that the Bank is the one paying for my gas, even though that is what's happening in some technical sense. I am the one paying for the gas, the bank is acting as an intermediary, a privileged and well-compensated intermediary that gets to skim 3% off the top.
Thank God for you, DAChampion.

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:37 AM
  #318
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
We've been through this:

1) Owners do not take all the financial risks. The players and their families take on tremendous risks to become professional athletes. As an example take Louis Leblanc. He could have been a mediocre ice hockey player and used his Harvard education to get him a relatively easy (easier than becoming a pro athlete) path to a lifetime of six figure incomes --- instead he took the risk to go to the Q for a year. That's a financial risk. Every single teenage player giving what is necessary to become an NHL player, to become the top 600 in the world, is taking on financial risk.

I don't have a son in hockey camp. But my understanding is that if your kid is to play hockey regularly, you're down many thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours every year. That's a financial risk parents are taking across Canada.

Further, player salaries are cut, there's escrow, i.e. if league revenues drop due to a recession, player salaries drop, that's a risk.

You then have the fact that the NHL has been unconcerned about injuries. Players who go into the dirty areas for example are more likely to get injured; but they might also be more likely to score more goals. Playing a tough game ... that's a financial risk.

In any case, taxpayers take on a lot of the risks. Even if you are consuming mescaline and assume that players don't take on a lot of risks, meet Mr. Taxpayer please. There was a stat from a few years ago that the Montreal Canadiens pay more taxes than all other 29 franchises combined. That means taxpayers across the continent are taking on a subsidy risk. Never mind the more direct subsidies for arenas.

I want to know: who came up with this meme that owners take on all the risks? It's demonstrably false.

2) Owners for the most part do not pay the salaries, the fans do. The NHL has total operating income of 140 million dollars. The owners are intermediaries between the fans and the players.

If I go to the gas station, and I buy gas with my bank card, it is not correct to say that the Bank is the one paying for my gas, even though that is what's happening in some technical sense. I am the one paying for the gas, the bank is acting as an intermediary, a privileged and well-compensated intermediary that gets to skim 3% off the top.
This has got to be your lamest post to date..

The players are making a conscience choice to play hockey, a sport they love. It has nothing to do with taking a risk, jesus man, what are you babbling about.
And if they don't cut it, they're not 54, they are young kids that can still go to college and university, and have a successful career. We're not talking about kids investing millions of dollars. Heck, most of them don't invest a dime, it's their parents and they do it out of love for their child.

Parents are taking risks now?? Oh my god..
My parents didn't give two craps about whether or not I made the NHL. They payed for my hockey seasons, equipment, camps, jerseys (anything hockey related) because I loved the game and it made me happy. That's not taking a risk, that's just being good parents spoiling your kid a bit, holy crap you're grasping at straws. It's pathetic.

If there's a recession, everybody would be affected by it. You would have to look at the cause of it to see who are the ones that caused it and what are the risks they took.

The only risk players are taking is getting injured, but even that is a limited risk as they still get paid. The risk is if the injury is long term and forces the player to either retire or simply gets him less money in a future contract.

You know what? The population is the one that pays for everything in this world. You talk about going to the gas station, who gets the oiling companies all the big cash? People. Why? Because we're the consumers. Without consumers, the need for product disappears. Who is Esso getting gas for? Consumers. If people stopped consuming gas, what would happen to this industry?
If people decided to live in little huts instead of houses, bye bye the real estate industry and anything related to it. People prefer to keep their cash in bags, bye bye banks. If people stuck to writing letters instead of using phones, bye bye telecommunication.
Businesses exist because of the population, and their revenue is directly linked to the population.
It always comes down to the population.

Ya, it's no different in hockey. So what? Owners are the ones bringing the show to the fans. Without the fans, there's nothing. Without players, there's nothing. Without massively rich owners, there's no league. Nothing new here. Doesn't make one side more wrong than the other.

Owners are taking the risk because they're the ones that actually commit financially. You sign a player to 50M, there's a very good chance he doesn't follow through, or the attendance drop, you still have to dish out that money. There's also no guarantee that investing 70M out of a 70M cap will provide you with profit or a winning team.


Seriously, give it a rest already. We all know you think the Players are Gods and Owners are Satan.


Last edited by Kriss E: 11-28-2012 at 08:17 AM.
Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:38 AM
  #319
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
easy : record revenues.
Apparently that's not a good enough reason.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:44 AM
  #320
MTL-rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,209
vCash: 500
The coyotes survives for the next 20 years or so.

I think it's great news for Quebec city fans. This conflict is not only about actual teams, I think that the league wants to add 2 new teams in the near future (Quebec and Seattle), but for this, they need all of their actual franchise to remain where they are and for the new CBA to drastically helps the owners and, by doing so, small franchises (or would be markets like Seattle and Quebec).

I, personnaly, think it's dumb and bad for the game to add 2 other teams, but it sure looks like it's what's going to happen.

MTL-rules is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:11 AM
  #321
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
We've been through this:

1) Owners do not take all the financial risks. The players and their families take on tremendous risks to become professional athletes. As an example take Louis Leblanc. He could have been a mediocre ice hockey player and used his Harvard education to get him a relatively easy (easier than becoming a pro athlete) path to a lifetime of six figure incomes --- instead he took the risk to go to the Q for a year. That's a financial risk. Every single teenage player giving what is necessary to become an NHL player, to become the top 600 in the world, is taking on financial risk.

I don't have a son in hockey camp. But my understanding is that if your kid is to play hockey regularly, you're down many thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours every year. That's a financial risk parents are taking across Canada.

Further, player salaries are cut, there's escrow, i.e. if league revenues drop due to a recession, player salaries drop, that's a risk.

You then have the fact that the NHL has been unconcerned about injuries. Players who go into the dirty areas for example are more likely to get injured; but they might also be more likely to score more goals. Playing a tough game ... that's a financial risk.

In any case, taxpayers take on a lot of the risks. Even if you are consuming mescaline and assume that players don't take on a lot of risks, meet Mr. Taxpayer please. There was a stat from a few years ago that the Montreal Canadiens pay more taxes than all other 29 franchises combined. That means taxpayers across the continent are taking on a subsidy risk. Never mind the more direct subsidies for arenas.

I want to know: who came up with this meme that owners take on all the risks? It's demonstrably false.

2) Owners for the most part do not pay the salaries, the fans do. The NHL has total operating income of 140 million dollars. The owners are intermediaries between the fans and the players.

If I go to the gas station, and I buy gas with my bank card, it is not correct to say that the Bank is the one paying for my gas, even though that is what's happening in some technical sense. I am the one paying for the gas, the bank is acting as an intermediary, a privileged and well-compensated intermediary that gets to skim 3% off the top.
LeBlanc never took a financial risk, before he played a single QMJHL game he signed a 3 year deal with the Habs, guaranteed $67,500 a year in the minors plus $270,000 in signing bonus. Harvard tuition is expensive but not THAT expensive. If his career were to go in the crapper in the NHL he could still go to Europe and make a good living the next 10-15 years, better than if he was working 9 to 5.

Players invest time yes but if that doesn't work out they still have the benefit of playing a sport they love, memories for a lifetime(CHL, NCAA, pro etc) and a lot of good life lessons about hard work and teamwork.

Also, the fans do pay the salaries, but the owners take all the risk when Joe Tremblay signs with the Habs for 5 years and 45 mil, the Habas still have to pay him that salary wether the fans come to the games or not.

Monctonscout is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:12 AM
  #322
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
The coyotes survives for the next 20 years or so.

I think it's great news for Quebec city fans. This conflict is not only about actual teams, I think that the league wants to add 2 new teams in the near future (Quebec and Seattle), but for this, they need all of their actual franchise to remain where they are and for the new CBA to drastically helps the owners and, by doing so, small franchises (or would be markets like Seattle and Quebec).

I, personnaly, think it's dumb and bad for the game to add 2 other teams, but it sure looks like it's what's going to happen.
By the time a new rink is built I'm sure there will be a potential team to move to Quebec.

Monctonscout is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:24 AM
  #323
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
You really disappoint me.

I tried spoonfeeding you the reasons why the owners don't "take all the risks", but even though I wrote it in terms a near-comatose individual would understand, the logic, very rudimentary here, was beyond your reach.

We're going to try again, by zooming in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The players are making a conscience choice to play hockey, a sport they love. It has nothing to do with taking a risk, jesus man, what are you babbling about.
And if they don't cut it, they're not 54, they are young kids that can still go to college and university, and have a successful career. We're not talking about kids investing millions of dollars. Heck, most of them don't invest a dime, it's their parents and they do it out of love for their child.
Return to the example of Louis Leblanc. He had a hockey scholarship to Harvard. He had a relatively easy option in life: he could have put a minimal effort into hockey to maintain his scholarship, giving him the free time to pursue a Harvard degree and get good grades, pursue summer internships, join the fraternities, etc, and thus guaranteeing him the prospect of a lifetime of six figure salaries. It was a safe bet. I am sure there are many player with promising athletic potential who take this choice when they are in a similar position.

Instead, he left Harvard. He went to the Q for a year to further his hockey skills. He is taking a risk. If this fails, he'll lose a lot. If it wins, he'll become a 2nd/3rd line forward at the NHL level, and make somewhat more money than he would have had he stayed at Harvard, and the fans will see a superior product on the ice, one more good player to enjoy. He is taking a financial risk. Not just in terms of money, but in terms of time -- I don't know if you realize, time and money are equivalent. I'm spelling it out for you this time.

Point is, Leblanc is taking a financial risk. It's from these risks that we, the fans, get to enjoy the product on the ice. In his case I suspect it will pay off, but I'm not an expert talent evaluator.

Note that your "they're not 54" comment is completely ignorant. Let's leave aside the fact that a failed hockey career will leave virtually no money behind, but probably a ton of physiological problems. Going to university at 35 is not the same as going to university at 20. You're a social outsider, and won't make as many connections, which is well-documented to be a large part of the financial benefit of these schools. Further, aside from that, older graduates face discrimination. It's harder to get into postgraduate programs. A lot of companies prefer to hire young graduates, they like to be able to mould them. I'm surprised you're unaware of this.

Finally, note the most common case:
1) Player gets drafted
2) Player goes to an NCAA school.
3) Player wants to make NHL, focuses on hockey. As such, he cannot focus in his studies, probably has a C average in a major such as communication studies or general humanities.
4) Player fails to make the NHL. Career stalls in ECHL/AHL with a few brief stints in the NHL. No hockey career to show for it. No degree worth anything to show for it.
5) Very limited options remain.

I'd say that's an incredibly ****** situation to be in at age 26. It's far, far ****tier than being a billionaire losing 2 million a year on a hockey franchise whose value appreciates by 5 million a year.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:28 AM
  #324
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
There is a very simple explanation, if it is true, this firm is the most experienced in a very specialized area of law. Why? Because they were hired by one league, which led to them having experience, and therefore, led to them getting hired by another league, and so on.

Simple. No conspiracy theory required.
American corporates are notorious for depending on 'specialists' in the professions, even as the very meaning of being a professional is to be general, not specialist.

There are only about 5 architecture offices in the US that do 90% of the work for big corporates, and all of said offices are mediocre at best. They have become 'specialists', and therefore not professional in any way, by my standards.

I'll bet therefore that the Law firm in question is far from the best.

It's called risk aversion, and it's the American Corporate disease.

bsl is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:39 AM
  #325
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
LeBlanc never took a financial risk, before he played a single QMJHL game he signed a 3 year deal with the Habs, guaranteed $67,500 a year in the minors plus $270,000 in signing bonus. Harvard tuition is expensive but not THAT expensive. If his career were to go in the crapper in the NHL he could still go to Europe and make a good living the next 10-15 years, better than if he was working 9 to 5.
Typical salaries in the European leagues are in the low six figures. Starting salaries out of the Harvard Law and MBA programs (which he could transition to after an undergraduate degree there) are in the same ballpark, and can last and increase for 40 years. Or he could have just done statistics and gone straight to Wall Street, starting salary for "quants" is $140,000/year, [less if you go to Chicago or San Francisco]; that's a riskier choice though, possibly riskier than a hockey career.

Financially, school (in Leblanc's case) is the better option to Europe. It will pay out more, for longer, and has a higher chance of success. Since he was focused on hockey, he probably got B's and C's, and if he goes back to school he'll be a mature student, so those doors will be virtually shut.

By the way, I applaud Leblanc's courage, then and now, for giving up a Harvard education to go for the brass ring. He does have the potential to have a great career in hockey, and he gave up a near-sure thing to go for it. I'm excited to see what he does in Hamilton going forward this year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Also, the fans do pay the salaries, but the owners take all the risk when Joe Tremblay signs with the Habs for 5 years and 45 mil, the Habas still have to pay him that salary wether the fans come to the games or not.
Agreed, there's no risk in being a fan. I'm merely disagreeing with the idea, expressed by Kriss E and others, that players take zero risks.

DAChampion 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 11:52 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.