HFBoards

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

Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-15-2012, 05:02 PM
  #376
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
Anybody stop and think that good old Fehr may be looking to leave behind a legacy on the backs of the NHLPA?
The guy is there to negociate. Hockey means nothing to him. He has his client's back because they're his clients.
The guy wants to set a precedence for all professional sports.
Decertify now and bust the hard cap in the future, thus setting a precedence for all leagues.
IMHO, he has a greater interest in his own agenda than the collective of the NHLPA.
As far as the players doing this for the players of the future, "Are you kidding me?"
they're not earning $8.25 / hr. These are people that are making a starting salary of 1/2 a mill a year. AND YER GOING TO PROTECT THEM FROM WHAT?
The NHLPA hired Fehr to send a msg - fine I get it.
I personally don't think that they knew what they were in for.
doing this for the future players?
If the players are so concerned about other players how about the ones that are losing jobs in Europe?
How about Joe waiter down the street who's take home pay has been slashed because no one is going out for beer and wings at his place of work to watch the game.
How about the small resto owner who is looking at hard times because business is down. Guess it's more important to players to protect future millionaires than it is protect the Joe schmoes of this world.

The owners signed the contracts - pony up
the players are getting paid big bucks to play a kids game

they can all go choke on their wads of cash - both owners and players. both fehr and betteman.

BAH
An essential difference between Fehr and Bettman: Fehr's DOI motion requires 2/3 of players to approve - the NHL BOG needs 2/3 of it's members to vote to overrule Bettman to approve a CBA. One of these tyrants is not like the other.

Roulin is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 05:08 PM
  #377
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
An essential difference between Fehr and Bettman: Fehr's DOI motion requires 2/3 of players to approve - the NHL BOG needs 2/3 of it's members to vote to overrule Bettman to approve a CBA. One of these tyrants is not like the other.
Ever hear the expression "snake oil salesman"
or the name: Rev Jim Jones?

People will follow people under false pretext

AntonCH is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 05:56 PM
  #378
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
An essential difference between Fehr and Bettman: Fehr's DOI motion requires 2/3 of players to approve - the NHL BOG needs 2/3 of it's members to vote to overrule Bettman to approve a CBA. One of these tyrants is not like the other.
I don't think it's that simple. I think we've seen many owners in support of bettman. Lockout was 30-0 in agreement.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 06:01 PM
  #379
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I don't think it's that simple. I think we've seen many owners in support of bettman. Lockout was 30-0 in agreement.
I doubt you're really that naive.

There is no doubt that there is disagreement among the owners.

They vote 30-0 once it's clear which side will win 16-14 or maybe even 17-13 for PR purposes.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 06:03 PM
  #380
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I doubt you're really that naive.

There is no doubt that there is disagreement among the owners.

They vote 30-0 once it's clear which side will win 16-14 or maybe even 17-13 for PR purposes.
Perhaps, but players are united right?

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 06:15 PM
  #381
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Perhaps, but players are united right?
Ya, and they've shown how much they respect the different opinion one of their own may have as proven with the comments on Hammer.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 06:23 PM
  #382
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Ya, and they've shown how much they respect the different opinion one of their own may have as proven with the comments on Hammer.
Which is much less respectable than charging a 1 million dollar fine to anybody who has an opinion

Note that that is only the threat we know about. We can safely assume that if an owner spoke out he would be discriminated against in other ways; for example; lesser odds of getting to host an all-star game, a draft, or a winter classic -- a far bigger deal than anything that happened to Hamrlik.

The only difference between the players and owners is that the players disagreements are somewhat more public. For this reason, you side with the owners .

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 06:31 PM
  #383
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Which is much less respectable than charging a 1 million dollar fine to anybody who has an opinion

Note that that is only the threat we know about. We can safely assume that if an owner spoke out he would be discriminated against in other ways; for example; lesser odds of getting to host an all-star game, a draft, or a winter classic -- a far bigger deal than anything that happened to Hamrlik.

The only difference between the players and owners is that the players disagreements are somewhat more public. For this reason, you side with the owners .
You're kidding right? First it was half a mil, second, he sided with the owners and got fined.

Whereas Hammer didnt side with the NHLPA and got blasted.

Owners want no one to speak during negotiation, players only want those who agree with them to speak.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 06:38 PM
  #384
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
You're kidding right? First it was half a mil, second, he sided with the owners and got fined.

Whereas Hammer didnt side with the NHLPA and got blasted.

Owners want no one to speak during negotiation, players only want those who agree with them to speak.
The only legitimate criticism of the players is that they lacked the wisdom to impose an internal gag order.

For the most part, we hear what the players think and we don't hear what the owners' think, so people criticize the players because they're not only ignorant but they are ignorant of their own ignorance.

It's similar to people calling the players overpaid and not saying the same thing about the owners, simply because more people know the players income than the owners' income.

****************

That Detroit manager may have sided with the owners, but he revealed their internal nature, which they don't necessarily want the public to see. So he got fined.

Notice Geoff Molson didn't get fined for making a pure platitude statement a few weeks ago.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 06:49 PM
  #385
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The only legitimate criticism of the players is that they lacked the wisdom to impose an internal gag order.

For the most part, we hear what the players think and we don't hear what the owners' think, so people criticize the players because they're not only ignorant but they are ignorant of their own ignorance.

It's similar to people calling the players overpaid and not saying the same thing about the owners, simply because more people know the players income than the owners' income.
You're switching subject.

You said it's not respectable for owners to keep opinions for the negotiating table and internal meetings.

As if players retweeting they want Bettman dead and how Bettman is a cancer and shutting down other players who have a differing opinion, in PUBLIC is respectable.

Bringing up paychecks isn't what we were talking about. Players have been unclassy and a lot of players haven't said a word, probably in fear of the Hamrlik effect. There's been several different owners in negotiations partaking and even the cash cows like Leafs were amazed at the players position. So in response to you asking me if it's really 30-0, probably not anymore but the leafs seem to still be on the side of bettman. There isn't that many big name tickets. We know Boston is obviously on owners side as well. NYR, MTL? Not sure. However teams like nashville certainly are willing to fix contract rights so they don't get screwed again.

So everyone can bring up owners have a gag order and for all we know only 7(just more than 6) are in bettman's order but reality is, we've seen more owners in negotiations than that and more owners of small market teams on sidelines wanting a better deal for the stability of their franchises.

Now, how can an owner be overpaid anyway? Seems to me only a handful are and the rest are doing volunteer work if we consider the profits. Yes yes, you'll bring up that franchises gain value, but that's the point! NHL needs wealthy and dedicated investors. If your franchise is a poor investment you'll get jokes coming in and the league won't grow. This isn't like the other major sports. It's harder.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 07:06 PM
  #386
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
As if players retweeting they want Bettman dead and how Bettman is a cancer and shutting down other players who have a differing opinion, in PUBLIC is respectable.
Basically equivalent to saying the players are cattle playing on the owners' farm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Bringing up paychecks isn't what we were talking about.
I'm pointing out a similarity -- players salaries are criticized because we're more familiar with the players.

The reason few criticize the NHL for making too many profits is that their profit levels are not common knowledge. The players salaries are common knowledge, so people criticize that.

It's the same thing with commentary. People are mad at the players opinions because they hear the players opinions. It doesn't occur to them that the owners would piss them off just as much and that's why there's a gag order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
There's been several different owners in negotiations partaking and even the cash cows like Leafs were amazed at the players position.
Let me guess, you think the Leafs are amazed because you have been told they were amazed

Do you also believe that Bettman was actually angry during his press conference two weeks ago? Were you one of those people thinking "I've never seen Bettman so angry in public?"

You shouldn't believe every scintilla of theatrics that comes in. Take it as what it is: theatrics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
So in response to you asking me if it's really 30-0, probably not anymore but the leafs seem to still be on the side of bettman.
You have absolutely -- no idea -- where the Leafs stand, whether or not they would vote for a 100% make-whole in a secret ballot vote for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Yes yes, you'll bring up that franchises gain value
Way to trivialize the single most important factor in the entire equation for the owners: franchise value.

"Yes yes, you'll bring up that players get paid salaries. "

Owners can be overpaid if they're incompetent managers and still make money, for whatever reason. As an example, you seem to be arguing that Charles Wang, John McConnell, and Michael Yormark should be entitled to high profits; i.e. you want them to be overpaid. As I see it, they're totally incompetent, running their franchises into the ground and destroying value with a long series of poor decisions, I don't see why the players should bail them out as you militantly argue for.

There are 30 teams in the NHL and it's a competitive zero sum game. In the absence of generous revenue sharing, you cannot have 30 of 30 teams be profitable. I'm not sure why some of you have a hard time understanding this.

********************

By the way the fact franchise value is high even for money-losing teams may tell you that there is more than volounteer work involved in owning a money-losing team. It's an asset either way. Think about it.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 07:34 PM
  #387
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I don't think it's that simple. I think we've seen many owners in support of bettman. Lockout was 30-0 in agreement.
You're right, it's definitely not that simple, but I think it is an interesting bit of comparison.

As for the 100% support - I wouldn't take that as evidence of less tyranny. I'd be suspicious of any leader who somehow gained 100% support from his followers.

Roulin is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 07:40 PM
  #388
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,730
vCash: 500
On the Forbes Business of Hockey List,

The Columbus Blue Jackets are listed as losing 19 million a year but with a team valuation of 145 million.

How can they be valued so high if they lose so much money?

Simple, their potential for profits is high. They are losing money, but that is only due to poor management. This is a fertile hockey market and with competent leadership this would be a vibrant franchise.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 08:22 PM
  #389
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Basically equivalent to saying the players are cattle playing on the owners' farm.

Wrong. You used this as a reply to a point showing that the owners act more respectfully in their public comments than the players do. Come on, at least connect your replies with the right statement.

I'm pointing out a similarity -- players salaries are criticized because we're more familiar with the players.

The reason few criticize the NHL for making too many profits is that their profit levels are not common knowledge. The players salaries are common knowledge, so people criticize that.

Wrong again. Nobody has tried to claim the owners are NOT wealthy. We have all been saying that the owners are the ones making the financial investments, taking on the financial risks, and are thereby entitled to 50% of the HRR. It has also been pointed out that there are almost half of the owners losing money each season whereas every single player is paid well with no worries about getting paid due to the guaranteed nature of their contracts. So, yes the owners are wealthy and that is a significant asset they bring to the NHL that is partially why they deserve half the HRR.

It's the same thing with commentary. People are mad at the players opinions because they hear the players opinions. It doesn't occur to them that the owners would piss them off just as much and that's why there's a gag order.

People are mad at some of the asinine comments being made by the players. The owners are not saying anything for people to be mad about. Do you really want people to be mad about statements the owners might be thinking in their heads?

Let me guess, you think the Leafs are amazed because you have been told they were amazed

Do you also believe that Bettman was actually angry during his press conference two weeks ago? Were you one of those people thinking "I've never seen Bettman so angry in public?"

You shouldn't believe every scintilla of theatrics that comes in. Take it as what it is: theatrics.

Let me guess, you think the owners were not stunned by what happened even though insiders like McGuire and McKenzie have clearly stated that the owners they have spoken to, especially the previously moderate ones, were upset and stunned by the change that happened from Wednesday to Thursday of last week? So people should believe that you, who know nobody and nothing are correct in your assumptions and guesses, but respected guys who are part of the NHL information network are now lying? Yes, people believe the Leafs and other owners were "amazed" because they spoke with some trusted observers about what happened. Let's all believe the guy who has no connections or long standing reputation in regards to the NHL over the McGuires and McKenzies of the world...lol

You have absolutely -- no idea -- where the Leafs stand, whether or not they would vote for a 100% make-whole in a secret ballot vote for example.

The same is true for you. Not only that, but you have no clue how the players felt about that last offer since it was never brought to them to vote on. Ever wonder why? No need to reply...

Way to trivialize the single most important factor in the entire equation for the owners: franchise value.

That value is not going to be where it should if a franchise keeps losing money. The value also won't necessarily help recoup all of an owner's losses over time. Losing money every year is easily as important as franchise value since they are both intrinsically linked. If Columbus has been losing 19 million per year for 8 years the owner has lost more than the value of the team, meaning if he sells it at its current valuation, he loses money on his investment.

"Yes yes, you'll bring up that players get paid salaries. "

Owners can be overpaid if they're incompetent managers and still make money, for whatever reason. As an example, you seem to be arguing that Charles Wang, John McConnell, and Michael Yormark should be entitled to high profits; i.e. you want them to be overpaid. As I see it, they're totally incompetent, running their franchises into the ground and destroying value with a long series of poor decisions, I don't see why the players should bail them out as you militantly argue for.

Wrong again. Nobody is saying the owners are entitled to high profits and being overpaid. Rather, people are claiming the owners deserve half the HRR and some contract stipulations to help maintain competitive equivalence.

There are 30 teams in the NHL and it's a competitive zero sum game. In the absence of generous revenue sharing, you cannot have 30 of 30 teams be profitable. I'm not sure why some of you have a hard time understanding this.


********************

By the way the fact franchise value is high even for money-losing teams may tell you that there is more than volounteer work involved in owning a money-losing team. It's an asset either way. Think about it.
It is only an asset if it gets the owner more money than it loses. Think about that.


Last edited by Drydenwasthebest: 12-15-2012 at 08:28 PM.
Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 08:37 PM
  #390
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
It is only an asset if it gets the owner more money than it loses. Think about that.
You nailed this one on the head Dryden. I never said Owners need to be rich. I am in favour of increased revenue sharing. I've never objected.

I also do not want no salary cap. Despite some fans foaming at the mouth at how much we can buy with no cap and no restrictions, I'd rather win in a competitive league. That league includes stronger small market franchises that can compete.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 08:49 PM
  #391
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
It is only an asset if it gets the owner more money than it loses. Think about that.
I don't disagree that many of the players' comments are idiotic and that they would be better off with their mouths shut.

However, it is certainly true that the owners' would be making equally or perhaps even more revolting statements if they were all free to speak their minds and didn't have the lifetime of media training they all have as billionaires.

So basically, when people criticize the players for their dumb statements, they're really criticizing the NHLPA for lacking the wisdom (or perhaps the means) to implement a gag order. And that's fine. That is very much a clear failing of the NHLPA leadership -- but let's call things as they are.

Quote:
you have no clue how the players felt about that last offer since it was never brought to them to vote on. Ever wonder why?
you have no clue how the owners felt about that last offer since it was never brought to them to vote on. Ever wonder why?

...

Please make an argument against the NHLPA that doesn't apply equally well against the owners. It just makes you look totally biased when you do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist
I also do not want no salary cap. Despite some fans foaming at the mouth at how much we can buy with no cap and no restrictions, I'd rather win in a competitive league. That league includes stronger small market franchises that can compete.
I don't think fans of FC Barcelona feel less pride in their wins on the basis that they are at an advantage.

Anyway, I'm more amused by the fact that small-market owners like Nashville might end up biting the hand (NHLPA) that feeds them.

We'll see what happens to their investment if they push too hard, try to squeeze too much out of the players, and the players decertify.

They could end up losing the entire value of their investments -- lol.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 08:51 PM
  #392
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
It is only an asset if it gets the owner more money than it loses. Think about that.
That's a complete crock. An asset's worth is in the eye of the beholder - or what someone will pay an owner for it.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 08:54 PM
  #393
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
It is only an asset if it gets the owner more money than it loses. Think about that.
Last I heard expansion fees were rumored to be $150 million?
So at $145 million , they're a bargain!

AntonCH is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:41 PM
  #394
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
If the disclaimer is not approved (I'm reading that a 2/3 vote is needed for approval), I'm certain a vote on a CBA offer is the next step. There's really nowhere else to go.

Of course, if I'm an owner, I'm pushing for a BOG vote on the union's best offer before Thursday.
Fehr would not have the union vote if it was not a guaranteed yes. It would be the height of stupidity to do so.

The players will vote yes, but the lockout will hopefully be resolved before the NHLPA acts to dissolve.

All this does is show the owners that the threat is real. It's a good move. Do you think Geoff Molson wants his entire team to become UFA? I think not. I doubt most owners will want that risk.

bsl is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:56 PM
  #395
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I don't disagree that many of the players' comments are idiotic and that they would be better off with their mouths shut.

However, it is certainly true that the owners' would be making equally or perhaps even more revolting statements if they were all free to speak their minds and didn't have the lifetime of media training they all have as billionaires.

So basically, when people criticize the players for their dumb statements, they're really criticizing the NHLPA for lacking the wisdom (or perhaps the means) to implement a gag order. And that's fine. That is very much a clear failing of the NHLPA leadership -- but let's call things as they are.

We are calling things as they ARE: there are players being disrespectful and disgusting with their public comments and the owners are not. THAT is the way things ARE. You want people to get mad at the imagined things the owners might be thinking but aren't saying out loud. Nice to see you want people to get angry about things that haven't been done. So, yes, please, let's stick to calling things the way they ARE!

you have no clue how the owners felt about that last offer since it was never brought to them to vote on. Ever wonder why?

Because Fehr turned it down? Because Bettman went into that Thursday meeting after speaking with the owners who had been present in the Tuesday+Wednesday negotiations with what the owners believed was going to be a proposal the players had pretty much stated would work?
...

Please make an argument against the NHLPA that doesn't apply equally well against the owners. It just makes you look totally biased when you do so.

LOL---ROTFLMAO!!!! Thank you for that, it has been a while since I laughed out loud from something written on the computer. You do realize that is exactly what my previous point intended to show you? Please tell me the educated academic realized that...oh, wait, you didn't. Wow...that was worth the wait...In case you missed it again: I was directly using your own words to show you that the argument you made against the owners could be used against the players.

I don't think fans of FC Barcelona feel less pride in their wins on the basis that they are at an advantage.

Anyway, I'm more amused by the fact that small-market owners like Nashville might end up biting the hand (NHLPA) that feeds them.

We'll see what happens to their investment if they push too hard, try to squeeze too much out of the players, and the players decertify.

They could end up losing the entire value of their investments -- lol.
Anyway, I'm more amused by the fact that the majority of the players might end up biting the hand (NHL) that feeds them.

We'll see what happens to their careers if they push too hard, try to squeeze too much out of the owners, and the owners cancel the season.

Many players could end up losing the entire value of the sacrifices they made trying to get to the NHL...lol. (Did you get what I did this time, or are you going to copy me again without realizing it? LOL).

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:59 PM
  #396
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
That's a complete crock. An asset's worth is in the eye of the beholder - or what someone will pay an owner for it.
Yes, an asset's value is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder lost millions more than what he eventually sells it for, that asset was no longer an asset.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 10:07 PM
  #397
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Anyway, I'm more amused by the fact that the majority of the players might end up biting the hand (NHL) that feeds them.

We'll see what happens to their careers if they push too hard, try to squeeze too much out of the owners, and the owners cancel the season.

Many players could end up losing the entire value of the sacrifices they made trying to get to the NHL...lol. (Did you get what I did this time, or are you going to copy me again without realizing it? LOL).
1) The owners have not been given a free vote on any of the NHLPA's offers, so the situation is indeed 100% symmetric.

2) We know what happened in the last lockout. The players won their battle to preserve some rights for future concessions.

I had previously argued (incorrectly) that the players completely lost the last lockout, but that was due to misunderstanding I pointed out one or two threads back.

The owners wanted a hard cap in the last lockout. When the negotiations fell apart, in February 2005, the owners last offer was a fixed 42.5 million for the players. By the time the following season started, the players cap fell to 39 million, but with a concession: the owners agreed that the salary cap would be proportional to league revenue.

We know that some ~200 careers ended with the last lockout, and a season of salaries was lost. But with their fighting the remaining 400 players managed to make back a lot of their losses, and to preserve some privileges for future generations.

Take Erik Cole for instance, he got a 4.5 million dollar a year contract. If the players had been wimps in 2005, and accepted a 42.5 million dollar salary cap, or even worse one of the earlier offers, his salary might be ~2.7 million. You can argue that " so what? He'll still be rich", but the 1.8 million dollar difference over 4 years, about 3.6 million total after taxes, is very significant for a man on what is likely his last contract who will need to start a new life. He will have more options and more security. He is correct to be grateful to past generations of players.

Right now, the NHLPA might be able to establish a precedent that salaries agreed to in written contracts can't be arbitrarily cut back during lockouts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I also do not want no salary cap. Despite some fans foaming at the mouth at how much we can buy with no cap and no restrictions, I'd rather win in a competitive league. That league includes stronger small market franchises that can compete.
I've noticed another failing with this argument.

You don't want the Habs to win by spending more money on players. You'd rather we win by spending more money on scouting, equipment, support staff, training, etc.

According to Forbes, the Habs spent 55 million on non-player expenses last year. Tampa Bay, by contrast, spent 40 million.

The end result is the same.


Last edited by DAChampion: 12-15-2012 at 10:13 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 10:15 PM
  #398
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,670
vCash: 500
An asset makes you it your worthwhile.

A liability doesn't make it your worthwhile.

If most owners didn't care about losing money year after year, they would not have bothered with the lockout.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 10:18 PM
  #399
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I don't think fans of FC Barcelona feel less pride in their wins on the basis that they are at an advantage.

Anyway, I'm more amused by the fact that small-market owners like Nashville might end up biting the hand (NHLPA) that feeds them.

We'll see what happens to their investment if they push too hard, try to squeeze too much out of the players, and the players decertify.

They could end up losing the entire value of their investments -- lol.
And players could end losing their entire contracts -- lol

The NHLPA is feeding nashville? news to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I've noticed another failing with this argument.

You don't want the Habs to win by spending more money on players. You'd rather we win by spending more money on scouting, equipment, support staff, training, etc.

According to Forbes, the Habs spent 55 million on non-player expenses last year. Tampa Bay, by contrast, spent 40 million.

The end result is the same.
Is it really? So at an extreme you're saying: Spending 200 mil more on players = spending 200 mil more on scouting? Solid.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 10:32 PM
  #400
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
And players could end losing their entire contracts -- lol
Good players will get back more than they've lost in a free market. If the owners want the players to take 50% of HRR rather than the 76% they would get in a free market, they have to make it worth their while to make that concession.

The 2005 CBA had several concessions going the other way, the current proposal from the owners has absolutely nothing going the other way. It's a one-way street of concessions.

At some point it follows that it will no longer be in the players self-interest. I'm not sure if that point is at 55%, 50%, or 45% of HRR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
The NHLPA is feeding nashville? news to me.
Being an owner (of any business) means keeping the excess value-added of labor's production over their salaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Is it really? So at an extreme you're saying: Spending 200 mil more on players = spending 200 mil more on scouting? Solid.
Nobody's spending 200 million either way, but,

Yes, spending more money on expenses other than player salaries is a competitive advantage. That's why teams are doing it, and that's why 13 out of 30 teams are unprofitable in spite of the massive concessions from the players (a full 19% of league revenue) in the last CBA.

I really doubt any team was spending 55 million on non-player expenses back in 2004. That's where the concessions from the players want, and that's where the new round of concessions would go.

Notice that drafting quality has improved, why do you think that is? Because more money is put into scouting. Why do you think more money is put into scouting? Because good scouting is more valuable when you have a salary cap.

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 07:24 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.