HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Lockout II - Moderated: Talk about your plenty, Talk about your ills...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2012, 04:12 PM
  #201
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
I'm calling BS.

The current players don't give a damn about future players. Just look at their spitball proposal that paid 57% to current contracts and 50% on future contracts.
This. Anyone who claims that PA is looking after future contracts is, well, misinformed.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:15 PM
  #202
M A K A V E L I*
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: van Coevorden
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Your money argument might makes sense if owning a NHL team was the main income of the 30 owners in the league.

It's not. For any owner.
Your argument might make sense if NHL players were your average worker making $3000 per month.

They're not. For any player.

They'll do just fine with another lost season.

M A K A V E L I* is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:23 PM
  #203
Fire Sather
Play Like a Pug
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 18,876
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Quote:
Originally Posted by M A K A V E L I View Post
Your argument might make sense if NHL players were your average worker making $3000 per month.

They're not. For any player.

They'll do just fine with another lost season.
They'll do a lot better if they sign the owners worst offer

But we can't expect knowledge from the PA

Fire Sather is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:28 PM
  #204
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by M A K A V E L I View Post
Your argument might make sense if NHL players were your average worker making $3000 per month.

They're not. For any player.

They'll do just fine with another lost season.
Your argument might make sense if these players had the expenses of someone making 3K/month. In fact, these players have the expenses of millionaires, which are huge.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:28 PM
  #205
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
The only owners making any real big money are the guys in Toronto, Montreal, New York, Boston, and maybe Philly.

And hockey is only a side-project, peanuts-profit for them, they make a ton of money elsewhere. The Rangers are just a nice little feather in MSG's cap for example, the Knicks are a much bigger draw, the Rangers just ride shot gun.
Chicago.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:34 PM
  #206
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,546
vCash: 500
Any real news lately or just more BSing around until the 11th hour?

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:34 PM
  #207
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by M A K A V E L I View Post
Your argument might make sense if NHL players were your average worker making $3000 per month.

They're not. For any player.

They'll do just fine with another lost season.
Really? How fine will those fringe NHL players do? AHL for 50-80K per season for few years, after that what?

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:57 PM
  #208
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
If they really cared about future players they wouldn't demand so much money that teams will have to fold, causing hundreds of NHL jobs disappear. If they really cared about future players, they'd swallow their pride and accept a deal that would give 30 teams a fighting chance to survive and would have done it in the summer before HRR was destroyed.
Interesting take. I might buy that if the owners proposal was in any way shaped toward strengthening 30 teams, it wasn't. Nor do I think the players are asking for so much money that it's going to put the league out of business. Nor do I think getting hammered on contract rights is about the strength of 30 teams. Agree to disagree.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:00 PM
  #209
Some Other Flame
Registered User
 
Some Other Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Interesting take. I might buy that if the owners proposal was in any way shaped toward strengthening 30 teams, it wasn't. Nor do I think the players are asking for so much money that it's going to put the league out of business. Nor do I think getting hammered on contract rights is about the strength of 30 teams. Agree to disagree.
This. It's hilarious how people keep trying to spin the owners proposal as a cure all when it's nothing more than a band-aid.

Some Other Flame is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:00 PM
  #210
normalpsychology
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Mass
Posts: 907
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Really? How fine will those fringe NHL players do? AHL for 50-80K per season for few years, after that what?
after that you get a real job like the rest of the world and consider yourself lucky you got to travel and play an effing game for your living for a few years. god forbid they had to live on the same level as 99.99 percent of the rest of the world.

normalpsychology is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:29 PM
  #211
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Interesting take. I might buy that if the owners proposal was in any way shaped toward strengthening 30 teams, it wasn't. Nor do I think the players are asking for so much money that it's going to put the league out of business. Nor do I think getting hammered on contract rights is about the strength of 30 teams. Agree to disagree.
Huh?

Taking the salary costs down doesn't strengthen all 30 teams?

Increasing revenue sharing to what (or close to) NHLPA wante doesn't strenghten 30 teams?

Players asking money that currently keeps 13-18 teams in the red is not too much?

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:38 PM
  #212
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Taking the salary costs down doesn't strengthen all 30 teams?
It'll help teams lose less money, they'll still be losing money. This isn't a solution to the leagues problem, just a band-aid. I haven't seen any kind of plan from the league to have 30 strong clubs, have you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Increasing revenue sharing to what (or close to) NHLPA wante doesn't strenghten 30 teams?
You want me to give the league credit for something the players insisted on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Players asking money that currently keeps 13-18 teams in the red is not too much?
The players have conceded money going forward. The problem is that they can't give enough back to make all the teams profitable, at some point those teams need to help themselves.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:51 PM
  #213
AlienLanes82
Registered User
 
AlienLanes82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: South Africa
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Watching MLS Cup final, and ESPN had a graphic showing that finalist Houston Dynamo has a payroll of something like 3.8 million.

The future for the NHL, perhaps?

AlienLanes82 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:57 PM
  #214
Disgruntled Observer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Interesting take. I might buy that if the owners proposal was in any way shaped toward strengthening 30 teams, it wasn't. Nor do I think the players are asking for so much money that it's going to put the league out of business. Nor do I think getting hammered on contract rights is about the strength of 30 teams. Agree to disagree.
The league has offered to lower the cap ceiling and basement, and increase revenue sharing.
How on earth does that not strengthen the poorer teams?
What the hell is going on?

Disgruntled Observer is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 06:03 PM
  #215
WinterEmpire
Unregistered User
 
WinterEmpire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienLanes82 View Post
Watching MLS Cup final, and ESPN had a graphic showing that finalist Houston Dynamo has a payroll of something like 3.8 million.

The future for the NHL, perhaps?
Maybe if the NHL existed solely in the US. Which it doesn't

WinterEmpire is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 06:06 PM
  #216
Disgruntled Observer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
It'll help teams lose less money, they'll still be losing money. This isn't a solution to the leagues problem, just a band-aid. I haven't seen any kind of plan from the league to have 30 strong clubs, have you?
The leagues initial plan would have helped the poor teams substantially. But the players of course turned it down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
You want me to give the league credit for something the players insisted on?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The players have conceded money going forward. The problem is that they can't give enough back to make all the teams profitable, at some point those teams need to help themselves.
The players conceded money going forward?
To quote you from above: "You want me to give the players credit for something the league insisted on?"

About half of the owners are losing millions per year while the players minimum wage is half a million.
It SHOULD be the players making all of the concessions.

Disgruntled Observer is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 06:15 PM
  #217
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienLanes82 View Post
Watching MLS Cup final, and ESPN had a graphic showing that finalist Houston Dynamo has a payroll of something like 3.8 million.

The future for the NHL, perhaps?
Well there you go, the team they played had 5 times that. Works for MLS....

Confucius is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 06:23 PM
  #218
Gotaf7
Registered User
 
Gotaf7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winterpeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 553
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
Your argument might make sense if these players had the expenses of someone making 3K/month. In fact, these players have the expenses of millionaires, which are huge.
I have a friend that earns just over a 1 mil a year, he has a very nice house a very nice cottage nice cars nice boats new snowmobile every year and on and on, I asked him how long he could go without a payday he says probably less than 3 months! Most of these guys live very large if they are not hurting yet they will be very soon.

Gotaf7 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 06:23 PM
  #219
AlienLanes82
Registered User
 
AlienLanes82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: South Africa
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterEmpire View Post
Maybe if the NHL existed solely in the US. Which it doesn't
Not sure what you mean. There are 3 Canadian teams in the MLS - about 15%. There are 7 Canadian teams in the NHL - about 25%.

AlienLanes82 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 06:55 PM
  #220
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
The leagues initial plan would have helped the poor teams substantially. But the players of course turned it down.







The players conceded money going forward?
To quote you from above: "You want me to give the players credit for something the league insisted on?"

About half of the owners are losing millions per year while the players minimum wage is half a million.
It SHOULD be the players making all of the concessions.
Nothing the NHL has proposed is going to make for 30 strong franchises, or even 20. At some point the NHL has to help themselves, it can't all be the players giving back until they make money, especially when these teams "losing money" are the ones signing the contracts. Players should give up a % of HRR... and they will. The NHL should also look in mirror and acknowledge that they have been a big part of the problem.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:03 PM
  #221
Disgruntled Observer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Nothing the NHL has proposed is going to make for 30 strong franchises, or even 20. At some point the NHL has to help themselves, it can't all be the players giving back until they make money, especially when these teams "losing money" are the ones signing the contracts. Players should give up a % of HRR... and they will. The NHL should also look in mirror and acknowledge that they have been a big part of the problem.
The players gave up HRR, and the owners increased revenue sharing.

The players see it as "we gave up something, so now the league has to give up just as much".

However, when half of the teams are losing millions, and the players minimum wage is half a million, it should JUST be the players making concessions.

The league needs a significantly lower cap basement and ceiling. A sport that is 4th tier in the US should have the players making significantly less % of HRR than the other leagues. Don't worry... the millionaire players will still be millionaires.

Disgruntled Observer is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:16 PM
  #222
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterEmpire View Post
Maybe if the NHL existed solely in the US. Which it doesn't
This exact same situation would happen if the NHL was US only.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:18 PM
  #223
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Interesting take. I might buy that if the owners proposal was in any way shaped toward strengthening 30 teams, it wasn't. Nor do I think the players are asking for so much money that it's going to put the league out of business. Nor do I think getting hammered on contract rights is about the strength of 30 teams. Agree to disagree.
How is decreasing the player's share of HRR and increasing rev sharing not in "any way shaped toward strengthening 30 teams"?

Over half the teams lost money last year. The players making too much money, that is a fact. The NHLPA has not agreed to a reduction to HRR and has been asking for raises.

I didn't say that the league would fold, I said teams would fold. Huge difference.

The contract restrictions have basically nothign to do with the players. They're there so GMs can't circumvent the cap and rich teams can't offer huge contracts that poorer teams can't compete with. Only ~10% of current players are on contracts that are 6 or more years long. a 5 year cap really isn't that big of a deal.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:19 PM
  #224
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Other Flame View Post
This. It's hilarious how people keep trying to spin the owners proposal as a cure all when it's nothing more than a band-aid.
So what would you propose?

I guess if 50/50 is just a band-aid the owners should demand a whole lot more, right?

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:20 PM
  #225
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
The players gave up HRR, and the owners increased revenue sharing.

The players see it as "we gave up something, so now the league has to give up just as much".

However, when half of the teams are losing millions, and the players minimum wage is half a million, it should JUST be the players making concessions.

The league needs a significantly lower cap basement and ceiling. A sport that is 4th tier in the US should have the players making significantly less % of HRR than the other leagues. Don't worry... the millionaire players will still be millionaires.
The real issue here is that the players, while willing to make concessions on the economic stuff, are less willing to concede those items that were conceded to them in exchange for implementing the Cap in the first place. If the NHL left the contract issues out of the negotiation, it would be done already.

(This is aside from the front loading contract issue, which the players are willing to work with as well. Mostly because front-loaded long term contracts hurt their short term escrow payments.)

Tawnos 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 01:12 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.