HFBoards

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

Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-15-2012, 10:47 PM
  #401
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post

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.
I am certain that the 200 guys who lost their jobs AND didn't see any salary from that lost year are very happy that Cole will get 1.8 million more to help his retirement when it happens. Nice to see the union is more about helping the richer players get more while the lesser lights can damned well go find another job if the season is cancelled and they lose their positions like those 200 in the last work stoppage.

Damn, at least there is some revenue sharing amongst the owners. The NHLPA seems more intent on preserving the rights of the wealthiest players. I am certain the D'arche's of the world would be willing to accept a 5 year contract limit since players like him will never get such an offer in any case. Heck, I bet that the majority of the players who can not earn 6 year multi-million dollar contracts would happily accept an 8+2 year CBA so that they would have some sense of security over that span. Again, the NHLPA seems more intent on fighting for the rich players and damn the rest.

The NHLPA seemed more interested in working to the benefit of all the players in the last work stoppage than this travesty being dedicated to Fehr's ego. 50/50 with 300 million towards the make whole, a 5 year contract limit and a 8+2 year CBA gets slapped down by Fehr so that another season can be lost, another 200 can lose their jobs, and Fehr can try to get a 6 year contract limit and 7 year CBA and a feeling that he somehow defeated the owners. Players could be playing hockey and a decent season if not for Fehr thinking with his ego.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 10:55 PM
  #402
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I am certain that the 200 guys who lost their jobs AND didn't see any salary from that lost year are very happy that Cole will get 1.8 million more to help his retirement when it happens. Nice to see the union is more about helping the richer players get more while the lesser lights can damned well go find another job if the season is cancelled and they lose their positions like those 200 in the last work stoppage.

Damn, at least there is some revenue sharing amongst the owners. The NHLPA seems more intent on preserving the rights of the wealthiest players. I am certain the D'arche's of the world would be willing to accept a 5 year contract limit since players like him will never get such an offer in any case. Heck, I bet that the majority of the players who can not earn 6 year multi-million dollar contracts would happily accept an 8+2 year CBA so that they would have some sense of security over that span. Again, the NHLPA seems more intent on fighting for the rich players and damn the rest.

The NHLPA seemed more interested in working to the benefit of all the players in the last work stoppage than this travesty being dedicated to Fehr's ego. 50/50 with 300 million towards the make whole, a 5 year contract limit and a 8+2 year CBA gets slapped down by Fehr so that another season can be lost, another 200 can lose their jobs, and Fehr can try to get a 6 year contract limit and 7 year CBA and a feeling that he somehow defeated the owners. Players could be playing hockey and a decent season if not for Fehr thinking with his ego.
Any revenue sharing among players is indirect.

We've been through this. With the CBA, every player has a certain set of rights, such as a minimum salary that is apparently the highest of all 4 major North American sports, and universal work benefits that were agreed to the in 2005 CBA. As you've pointed out every player gets guaranteed contracts and access to facilities, etc, I don't think that was always the case. Without these provisions being in the CBA, the benefits would disproportionately go to the wealthier players.

The worst player in the league last year was guaranteed $500,000; job privileges such as paid travel expenses and a generous per diem on the road, access to facilities, etc. He has this because other players, mostly star players, used their leverage in the last CBA and CBAs before that.

That said there should be more concessions to the lesser players. I think the NHLPA should request a bump to the minimum salary.

A good analogy is TV revenue. It's not explicitly revenue sharing. But when each team gets an equal share of a national TV contract, even though we know some teams have way more fans than the others, that's basically revenue sharing in all but name. Which is ok and good, if the NHL could get a national TV deal of good value that would solve a lot of problems.

**********

Six-year contracts are good for team-building. Look at the Habs. Pacioretty, Price, Gorges are signed to 6 years. It helps the team.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 04:33 AM
  #403
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I am certain that the 200 guys who lost their jobs AND didn't see any salary from that lost year are very happy that Cole will get 1.8 million more to help his retirement when it happens. Nice to see the union is more about helping the richer players get more while the lesser lights can damned well go find another job if the season is cancelled and they lose their positions like those 200 in the last work stoppage.

Damn, at least there is some revenue sharing amongst the owners. The NHLPA seems more intent on preserving the rights of the wealthiest players. I am certain the D'arche's of the world would be willing to accept a 5 year contract limit since players like him will never get such an offer in any case. Heck, I bet that the majority of the players who can not earn 6 year multi-million dollar contracts would happily accept an 8+2 year CBA so that they would have some sense of security over that span. Again, the NHLPA seems more intent on fighting for the rich players and damn the rest.

The NHLPA seemed more interested in working to the benefit of all the players in the last work stoppage than this travesty being dedicated to Fehr's ego. 50/50 with 300 million towards the make whole, a 5 year contract limit and a 8+2 year CBA gets slapped down by Fehr so that another season can be lost, another 200 can lose their jobs, and Fehr can try to get a 6 year contract limit and 7 year CBA and a feeling that he somehow defeated the owners. Players could be playing hockey and a decent season if not for Fehr thinking with his ego.
and if it wasnt for Bettman's ego, the TML, Habs, NYR of this world wouldnt be wasting more or less 200 millions of profits right now... you know, the teams that contribute the most to revenue sharing.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 04:48 AM
  #404
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
NHL pre-emptively files class action suit in NY federal court -- a place believed to be favorable to pro leagues -- to affirm lockout

NHL also files an Unfair Labor Practice Charge with the NLRB, alleging that NHLPA's threat to disclaim interest is bad faith bargaining
Bettman unveils new 50/50 plan:

50% for the lawyers, and 50% for the rest.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 06:32 AM
  #405
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
If the beholder lost millions more than what he eventually sells it for, that asset was no longer an asset.
WTF does that mean?

The CBJs and NYIs are assets that, due to incompetence of ownership and management, lose money. Just because they've lost truckloads of money doesn't mean they're not assets anymore.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 06:36 AM
  #406
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Bettman unveils new 50/50 plan:

50% for the lawyers, and 50% for the rest.
It's hilarious. Bettman and Jacobs want the PA to stay intact so they can eventually hammer it back down to the point where it's Eagleson-like in function. The greed and incompetence of the NHL owners is unparalleled.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 07:05 AM
  #407
PunkinDrublic*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sutton,Qc-Sudbury,On
Posts: 8,282
vCash: 500
Please oh pretty please...end this lock-out so this thread will also !!!

PunkinDrublic* is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 07:18 AM
  #408
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
and if it wasnt for Bettman's ego, the TML, Habs, NYR of this world wouldnt be wasting more or less 200 millions of profits right now... you know, the teams that contribute the most to revenue sharing.
LOL. Those teams also want a 50/50 split and the Habs are one of the organizations that believe in being intelligent about the contracts they hand out. We can easily afford 15 year deals but have not gone beyond 6 years. I have no doubt those teams want to play and earn their money, but they are not the teams worrying as much about this lock-out as their fans will be back in full at the end.

Those teams also probably recognize that the NHLPA refused to start negotiations when Bettman wanted to because the NHLPA wanted the leverage they thought they would get by waiting until the start of the 2012-2013 season.

Those teams might not be happy with the lock-out but they will be happier when their share goes up by 7% to help offset some of what they will be giving up to revenue sharing.

Thanks for playing.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 07:24 AM
  #409
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
It's hilarious. Bettman and Jacobs want the PA to stay intact so they can eventually hammer it back down to the point where it's Eagleson-like in function. The greed and incompetence of the NHL owners is unparalleled.
It's hilarious, Fehr and Fehr want the PA to decertify so they can eventually hammer the NHL down to a point where teams will contract. The greed and incompetence of the NHLPA is unparalleled.

I love how it is the owners who are greedy when all they want is a fair and even 50% split of the HRR. The players are these poor innocents, slaves really, working in horrible conditions that could be compared to the sweatshops of the world. Lol.

BOTH sides are greedy. The difference is that one side wants an equal share whereas the other didn't. I wonder if you know which is which?

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 07:27 AM
  #410
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Any revenue sharing among players is indirect.
We've been through this. With the CBA, every player has a certain set of rights, such as a minimum salary that is apparently the highest of all 4 major North American sports, and universal work benefits that were agreed to the in 2005 CBA. As you've pointed out every player gets guaranteed contracts and access to facilities, etc, I don't think that was always the case. Without these provisions being in the CBA, the benefits would disproportionately go to the wealthier players.
What about the fringe players that lost the opportunity to play in the NHL because of the one year lockout? These guys had to face much tougher competition the year after with a double batch. These players won’t even get a shot at minimum salary. Where the solidarity to these players?
Where the solidarity to the players in Europe losing their jobs because star players are taking their spots during the lockout? These guys are making 100-200k per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
That said there should be more concessions to the lesser players. I think the NHLPA should request a bump to the minimum salary.
If the PA wanted to help the lesser players and those that do not get 5+ years contract, they would end the lockout right now. Funny enough, they would be helping over 80% of current players. Unfortunately, these 80% of players are brainwashed in thinking they’re currently doing the right thing and fighting evil. Typical union BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
A good analogy is TV revenue. It's not explicitly revenue sharing. But when each team gets an equal share of a national TV contract, even though we know some teams have way more fans than the others, that's basically revenue sharing in all but name. Which is ok and good, if the NHL could get a national TV deal of good value that would solve a lot of problems.
And if my aunt had a penis, she would be my uncle. Hockey is not popular enough to get an NFL like TV deal and the owners/players have to deal with that. Obviously, this work stoppage won’t help in any way.
**********
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Six-year contracts are good for team-building. Look at the Habs. Pacioretty, Price, Gorges are signed to 6 years. It helps the team.
This is pointless. If every team had a max contract length of 5 years, then every team would be playing with the same rules, so no team would be advantaged or disadvantaged. 5 years would be the new norm for long term contract, which is fine considering the variance in player performance throughout the years.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 07:46 AM
  #411
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Bettman unveils new 50/50 plan:

50% for the lawyers, and 50% for the rest.
pretty much, Bettman is not only ready to take millions of profits away from the very few profitable ones with this lockout, but he'll also ask them $ to pay for the court actions (others are "poor", they wont pay much).

all that while the teams losing money, the ones that arent contributing at all to the league financially, manages to save millions -> cause they're not playing...


ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 07:52 AM
  #412
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky View Post
What about the fringe players that lost the opportunity to play in the NHL because of the one year lockout? These guys had to face much tougher competition the year after with a double batch. These players won’t even get a shot at minimum salary. Where the solidarity to these players?
Where the solidarity to the players in Europe losing their jobs because star players are taking their spots during the lockout? These guys are making 100-200k per year.

If the PA wanted to help the lesser players and those that do not get 5+ years contract, they would end the lockout right now. Funny enough, they would be helping over 80% of current players. Unfortunately, these 80% of players are brainwashed in thinking they’re currently doing the right thing and fighting evil. Typical union BS.

And if my aunt had a penis, she would be my uncle. Hockey is not popular enough to get an NFL like TV deal and the owners/players have to deal with that. Obviously, this work stoppage won’t help in any way.
**********

This is pointless. If every team had a max contract length of 5 years, then every team would be playing with the same rules, so no team would be advantaged or disadvantaged. 5 years would be the new norm for long term contract, which is fine considering the variance in player performance throughout the years.

wich TV station would sign a long term deal at a high price with a league that has work stoppage every 5 or 6 years, really...

OV being locked up till he's over 30 is good for Washington and the league, same with Crosby/Malkin in Pittsburgh, same with other star players...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 08:13 AM
  #413
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
wich TV station would sign a long term deal at a high price with a league that has work stoppage every 5 or 6 years, really...

EXACTLY!! Now do you get why Fehr is an idiot for refusing an 8+2 CBA? You do know it is Fehr who s against a long term CBA, not Bettman, right?The NHL needs to show it can last longer than 7 years without investors worrying about another work stoppage. A CBA of 8+2 would be more attractive for long term television investments. Guess what else? Fehr s preventing the players from getting their share of that increased tv revenue by refusing the longer, more stable, and more attractive CBA that Bettman is offering.

OV being locked up till he's over 30 is good for Washington and the league, same with Crosby/Malkin in Pittsburgh, same with other star players...
Star players being locked on one team for a decade is not necessarily good for the league or team. It is only great for the player getting the contract. We are talking about deals affecting less than 10% of the NHLPA. Player skills, injuries, chemistry, etc all cause enough variance that the potential for disaster in such long term deals is foolish. Look at the Yashin and DiPietro contracts as the worst examples. Heck, give Ovechkin a couple of seasons at last year's 63 point output and his contract will look absolutely brutal and unmovable as well. Ten plus year contracts are stupid and risky which is why most teams have never engaged in them.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 09:27 AM
  #414
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
wich TV station would sign a long term deal at a high price with a league that has work stoppage every 5 or 6 years, really...

OV being locked up till he's over 30 is good for Washington and the league, same with Crosby/Malkin in Pittsburgh, same with other star players...
With or without a lockout, we're not getting an NFL type deal any time soon and that's something we have to deal with. And both owners and players share the responsibilities of work stoppage.

Enlighten me, how is having star players locked up until after retirement age on a decreasing salary to avoid a penalizing cap hit good for the league? It's a massive loophole to the salary cap and it needs to be eradicated.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 09:30 AM
  #415
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
pretty much, Bettman is not only ready to take millions of profits away from the very few profitable ones with this lockout, but he'll also ask them $ to pay for the court actions (others are "poor", they wont pay much).

all that while the teams losing money, the ones that arent contributing at all to the league financially, manages to save millions -> cause they're not playing...

You're putting a lot of this on Bettman. The profitable teams are on the lockout bandwagon as well so they must think holding out to get a sustainable long term deal is worth it.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 10:59 AM
  #416
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
LOL. Those teams also want a 50/50 split and the Habs are one of the organizations that believe in being intelligent about the contracts they hand out. We can easily afford 15 year deals but have not gone beyond 6 years. I have no doubt those teams want to play and earn their money, but they are not the teams worrying as much about this lock-out as their fans will be back in full at the end.

Those teams also probably recognize that the NHLPA refused to start negotiations when Bettman wanted to because the NHLPA wanted the leverage they thought they would get by waiting until the start of the 2012-2013 season.

Those teams might not be happy with the lock-out but they will be happier when their share goes up by 7% to help offset some of what they will be giving up to revenue sharing.

Thanks for playing.
Total fallacy. When any negotiation is based on concessionary bargaining the start date has no bearing on the settlement date.


Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 12-16-2012 at 11:19 AM.
Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 11:00 AM
  #417
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,144
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
WTF does that mean?

The CBJs and NYIs are assets that, due to incompetence of ownership and management, lose money. Just because they've lost truckloads of money doesn't mean they're not assets anymore.
I have a brand new car. It is an asset.
I smash this brand new car up, don't fix what's wrong with it, and now it barely runs efficiently. It is not longer an asset.

WeThreeKings is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 11:11 AM
  #418
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
I have a brand new car. It is an asset.
I smash this brand new car up, don't fix what's wrong with it, and now it barely runs efficiently. It is not longer an asset.
What's the automotive analogy for drafting Tavares, Niederreiter and Strome, and moving into a new arena in Brooklyn?

Roulin is online now  
Old
12-16-2012, 11:15 AM
  #419
vokiel
Registered Settler
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 6,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
What's the automotive analogy for drafting Tavares, Niederreiter and Strome, and moving into a new arena in Brooklyn?
Adding Nitro injection to a Lada Niva and racing it on an Indy car track?

vokiel is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 11:15 AM
  #420
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky View Post
You're putting a lot of this on Bettman. The profitable teams are on the lockout bandwagon as well so they must think holding out to get a sustainable long term deal is worth it.
It takes 23 owners to override him. Considering the disparity in franchise revenue, the number of profitable vs non-profitable franchises, it would appear to be a fairly simple process to keep 8 owners on side.

So the majority of the owners can be held hostage by the eight least profitable franchises. Then sprinkle in a few hardliners like Jacobs and Bettman has ultimate control of the NHL.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 11:16 AM
  #421
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
I have a brand new car. It is an asset.
I smash this brand new car up, don't fix what's wrong with it, and now it barely runs efficiently. It is not longer an asset.
Still an asset, scrap metal does have value.

Anything that has any residual value is an asset.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 11:24 AM
  #422
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
Adding Nitro injection to a Lada Niva and racing it on an Indy car track?
Well done!

My point is that it's pretty hard to do irreparable damage to a franchise's value. Even Charles Wang has found a way to get things pointed in the right direction, at least temporarily.

And if the collective bargaining era is over, then it's possible someone challenges the NHL's right to block team sales, as well as "regional rights." If so, I expect you'd see some $300M sales to buy and relocate some of the least profitable teams, which would be an enormous profit for the sellers.

Roulin is online now  
Old
12-16-2012, 11:24 AM
  #423
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
It takes 23 owners to override him. Considering the disparity in franchise revenue, the number of profitable vs non-profitable franchises, it would appear to be a fairly simple process to keep 8 owners on side.

So the majority of the owners can be held hostage by the eight least profitable franchises. Then sprinkle in a few hardliners like Jacobs and Bettman has ultimate control of the NHL.
I was expecting this answer. Then tell me why this is not happening on the players side. Why are 10% of the rich players controlling the negotiations for everyone and holding 90% of the players hostage. How convenient for your argument that the minority is controlling the negotiation on the PA side and the majority is controlling the negotiations on the league side.

Believe me or not, but even the rich teams have an incentive to hold a hard line. Holding a hard line means less revenue sharing and more in their pockets. It is foolish to think these 8 teams are being held hostage by the poor teams.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 12:53 PM
  #424
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky View Post
I was expecting this answer. Then tell me why this is not happening on the players side. Why are 10% of the rich players controlling the negotiations for everyone and holding 90% of the players hostage. How convenient for your argument that the minority is controlling the negotiation on the PA side and the majority is controlling the negotiations on the league side.

Believe me or not, but even the rich teams have an incentive to hold a hard line. Holding a hard line means less revenue sharing and more in their pockets. It is foolish to think these 8 teams are being held hostage by the poor teams.
Please explain how you know 10% of the players are controlling the negotiations?

How do the rich teams have incentive to want a continuing lockout over revenue sharing?

The current NHL proposal adds 33% to the revenue sharing pool (assuming league-wide revenues of $3.303 Billion), resulting in an increase for the top 10 revenue grossing teams and the NHL of $50M.

Considering the top 10 teams make ~48% of gross revenue, a 50/50 split in HRR will result in an additional $102M+ increase for those teams.

So are you honestly suggesting these top earning teams are willing to lose several hundred million dollars in gross revenue over an additional cost of...... nothing?


Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 12-16-2012 at 01:32 PM.
Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 01:00 PM
  #425
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
I have a brand new car. It is an asset.
I smash this brand new car up, don't fix what's wrong with it, and now it barely runs efficiently. It is not longer an asset.
It's still an asset, just not a very valuable one.

HCH 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 01:19 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.