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
12-16-2012, 03:38 PM
  #426
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
Please explain how you know 10% of the players are controlling the negotiations?
For the same reasons you think poor teams are controlling the negotiations on the owners side. From the outside looking in, it seems the vast majority of NHL players would benefit much more by taking the last offer and call it a day. The money they are losing during this lockout will never come back and most NHL players have very short careers. The ones who benefit from keeping a hard line are the star players, i.e, the ones benefiting from 5+ years contracts and who have longer careers on average. Guys like Sydney Crosby/ Jonathan Toews know they will finish their nhl career with at least 50 million in the bank if they are just a little bit smart with their money, lockout or no lockout. The same canít be said for the majority of NHL players. Yes, the star players are losing more because they make more per year but the marginal utility of money is much lower for a guy with a guaranteed $100M+ contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
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?
Remember whatís holding these negotiations back?
These teams have an incentive to eliminate the loopholes from long term contracts and to have a long term CBA in place. They are fighting for the financial health of the NHL which will make them more money in the long run.
The short term solution for these teams is to get back to hockey ASAP, the long term solution is to hold out a bit longer for a sustainable future for NHL hockey.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 03:42 PM
  #427
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
It's still an asset, just not a very valuable one.
And comparing a car with a hockey team is completely flawed. A hockey team is a company where the value fluctuates depending on how well it is run. A car, no matter how well it is maintained, will eventually be depreciated down to 0. Apple and oranges.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 04:15 PM
  #428
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky View Post
For the same reasons you think poor teams are controlling the negotiations on the owners side. From the outside looking in, it seems the vast majority of NHL players would benefit much more by taking the last offer and call it a day. The money they are losing during this lockout will never come back and most NHL players have very short careers. The ones who benefit from keeping a hard line are the star players, i.e, the ones benefiting from 5+ years contracts and who have longer careers on average. Guys like Sydney Crosby/ Jonathan Toews know they will finish their nhl career with at least 50 million in the bank if they are just a little bit smart with their money, lockout or no lockout. The same canít be said for the majority of NHL players. Yes, the star players are losing more because they make more per year but the marginal utility of money is much lower for a guy with a guaranteed $100M+ contract.
We'll find out on Thursday what the majority of players really think. I don't know for sure that the DOI will be approved, but IMO 10% is betting way too low.

Roulin is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 04:33 PM
  #429
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky View Post
For the same reasons you think poor teams are controlling the negotiations on the owners side. From the outside looking in, it seems the vast majority of NHL players would benefit much more by taking the last offer and call it a day. The money they are losing during this lockout will never come back and most NHL players have very short careers. The ones who benefit from keeping a hard line are the star players, i.e, the ones benefiting from 5+ years contracts and who have longer careers on average. Guys like Sydney Crosby/ Jonathan Toews know they will finish their nhl career with at least 50 million in the bank if they are just a little bit smart with their money, lockout or no lockout. The same canít be said for the majority of NHL players. Yes, the star players are losing more because they make more per year but the marginal utility of money is much lower for a guy with a guaranteed $100M+ contract.


Remember whatís holding these negotiations back?
These teams have an incentive to eliminate the loopholes from long term contracts and to have a long term CBA in place. They are fighting for the financial health of the NHL which will make them more money in the long run.
The short term solution for these teams is to get back to hockey ASAP, the long term solution is to hold out a bit longer for a sustainable future for NHL hockey.
The vast majority don't benefit from the current NHL proposal, as a matter of fact the exact opposite is true.

The current NHL proposal to limit contract term and monetary variance will effect the potential income of the 90% for the lifetime of the CBA.

Why? Simply because the best players (10%) will always command the most dollars. Shorten contract length will drive future contracts for the 10% higher, leaving a smaller percentage of a smaller cap for the 90%.

So I don't quite see the two sides in the same way at all.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 04:42 PM
  #430
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
The vast majority don't benefit from the current NHL proposal, as a matter of fact the exact opposite is true.

The current NHL proposal to limit contract term and monetary variance will effect the potential income of the 90% for the lifetime of the CBA.

Why? Simply because the best players (10%) will always command the most dollars. Shorten contract length will drive future contracts for the 10% higher, leaving a smaller percentage of a smaller cap for the 90%.
The players aren't benefiting from not accepting it either. Only when the final deal has been struck will we be able to determine if the players gained by not signing the offer.

I wonder what percentage of contracts are longer than five years. I would say not too many. The owners also offered to extend the term to seven years if the player resigned with his existing club. When you factor both of those into the equation, it would have such a miniscule impact on the majority of the players that it isn't worth talking about. This is clearly about cap circumvention and NOT about reducing the value of players' contracts. But Fehr has done a good job of selling it to the masses. For such an intelligent group of athletes there are led around by the nose very easily.

HCH is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 04:49 PM
  #431
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
The players aren't benefiting from not accepting it either. Only when the final deal has been struck will we be able to determine if the players gained by not signing the offer.

I wonder what percentage of contracts are longer than five years. I would say not too many. The owners also offered to extend the term to seven years if the player resigned with his existing club. When you factor both of those into the equation, it would have such a miniscule impact on the majority of the players that it isn't worth talking about. This is clearly about cap circumvention and NOT about reducing the value of players' contracts. But Fehr has done a good job of selling it to the masses. For such an intelligent group of athletes there are led around by the nose very easily.
I don't know the league wide %... on the Habs there are 6: Gomez, Plekanec, Bourque, Pacioretty, Gorges and Price. Far from the majority, but not an insignificant number of players either, and they come from a wide variety of player types. I can understand why players would not want to give up the opportunity to sign longer contracts in their primes.

Roulin is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 04:50 PM
  #432
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
The players aren't benefiting from not accepting it either. Only when the final deal has been struck will we be able to determine if the players gained by not signing the offer.

I wonder what percentage of contracts are longer than five years. I would say not too many. The owners also offered to extend the term to seven years if the player resigned with his existing club. When you factor both of those into the equation, it would have such a miniscule impact on the majority of the players that it isn't worth talking about. This is clearly about cap circumvention and NOT about reducing the value of players' contracts. But Fehr has done a good job of selling it to the masses. For such an intelligent group of athletes there are led around by the nose very easily.
Well said...and who benefits the most from cap circumvention? The star players

Which is why I think they are leading this negotiation on the PA side. 5 year contracts maximum have no impact on most NHL players.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 04:52 PM
  #433
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
I don't know the league wide %... on the Habs there are 6: Gomez, Plekanec, Bourque, Pacioretty, Gorges and Price. Far from the majority, but not an insignificant number of players either, and they come from a wide variety of player types. I can understand why players would not want to give up the opportunity to sign longer contracts in their primes.
You're taking an example that suits your argument. How the Habs use long term contract is not a problem for the league. If you want an example of why the league wants to abolish this practice, look no further than last summer with Ryan Suter and Zach Parise.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 04:55 PM
  #434
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky View Post
You're taking an example that suits your argument. How the Habs use long term contract is not a problem for the league. If you want an example of why the league wants to abolish this practice, look no further than last summer with Ryan Suter and Zach Parise.
Doesn't limiting variance already solve that problem? I see closing the front loading loophole and limiting contract lengths as two separate issues.

Roulin is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 04:57 PM
  #435
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Doesn't limiting variance already solve that problem? I see closing the front loading loophole and limiting contract lengths as two separate issues.
Has limited variance been accepted by the players? I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly do not know the answer to that question.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:00 PM
  #436
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky View Post
Has limited variance been accepted by the players? I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly do not know the answer to that question.
I was under the impression that it had been (5% max variance), but I'll try to hunt down a link. AFAIK the contentious issues when negotiations broke down were contract length, CBA length, buyouts outside HRR and escrow limits.

edit: I was wrong, they hadn't agreed on the amount of variance. The NHLPA's latest proposal was 8 year contract limit, 25% variance (which still would have outlawed future versions of the Parise and Suter contracts). http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411086


Last edited by Roulin: 12-16-2012 at 05:14 PM.
Roulin is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:12 PM
  #437
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
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?
really ?

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:16 PM
  #438
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky View Post
Remember whatís holding these negotiations back? These teams have an incentive to eliminate the loopholes from long term contracts and to have a long term CBA in place. They are fighting for the financial health of the NHL which will make them more money in the long run.
The short term solution for these teams is to get back to hockey ASAP, the long term solution is to hold out a bit longer for a sustainable future for NHL hockey.
There were no loopholes in the CBA, the NHL has the authority to challenge any contract that appeared to violate the principles of the cap system. Bettman in his wisdom allowed them all but one.

Bettman could have challenged New Jersey and New York for sending players to the minors, which was a clear circumvention action, again chose not to challenge.

Allowing player bonuses to count towards cap floor commitments, bonuses that in most cases were never paid. Again no challenge under the cap rules.

So unlike you I am not sure what the majority of owners are fighting for, surely not shorter contracts when these same owners signed a plethora of them prior to the CBA expiry date.

What I believe the owners are fighting for, an even playing field via the CBA process and subsequent imposition of artificial rules.

IMO the revenue disparity between the franchises makes it virtually impossible to achieve their goal, short of pooling the 50% owner share of HRR and dividing by 30.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanri...e-contraction/

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:17 PM
  #439
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,132
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.

one example : by the time the next CBA expires (eve if owners gets 100% of what they're asking), TML ill NOT get back the 100 millions (according to an article posted in this thread) they're losing this year...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:18 PM
  #440
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
The players aren't benefiting from not accepting it either. Only when the final deal has been struck will we be able to determine if the players gained by not signing the offer.

I wonder what percentage of contracts are longer than five years. I would say not too many. The owners also offered to extend the term to seven years if the player resigned with his existing club. When you factor both of those into the equation, it would have such a miniscule impact on the majority of the players that it isn't worth talking about. This is clearly about cap circumvention and NOT about reducing the value of players' contracts. But Fehr has done a good job of selling it to the masses. For such an intelligent group of athletes there are led around by the nose very easily.
According to Bettman there are 91, assuming 750 players, ~12%.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:23 PM
  #441
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
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.
guess you forgot all those Caps / Pens games where the NHL presented it as OV vs Crosby...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:28 PM
  #442
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
So unlike you I am not sure what the majority of owners are fighting for, surely not shorter contracts when these same owners signed a plethora of them prior to the CBA expiry date.
Do not take the fact that the owners signed these ridiculous contract a sign that they endorse them. The owners are in a situation where they had to give in if they wanted to attract star players. It's a sport version of game theory, the party who cheats gets the prize.

In regards to the league accepting these contracts, i agree with you that this was a mistake but this does not matter, it's in the past. You also have to take into account that there are things we do not know as fans, I'm certain there was a reason for the league accepting these contracts.

What matters now is finding a system that prevents the exploitation of loopholes.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:29 PM
  #443
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
guess you forgot all those Caps / Pens games where the NHL presented it as OV vs Crosby...
You can still present a OV vs Crosby game if OV plays for the Rangers and Crosby plays for the Maple Leafs...

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:30 PM
  #444
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
guess you forgot all those Caps / Pens games where the NHL presented it as OV vs Crosby...
Actually I think Dryden is largely correct.

The NHL does somewhat advertise its stars, but not like the other leagues. Not like the NBA or MLB for examples. It markets the teams more than the stars, and it implements rules and refereeing that undermine star players. The NHL does not market Crosby the way the NBA markets LeBron.

Think of how baseball boomed in 1998 when the MLB allowed Mark McGwire and Samy Sosa to do their thing, it was good for the game. Attendance was restored. If Bettman had been in charge, they would have changed the rules and made the strike zone bigger and baseball bats thinner, and McGwire would have been lucky to hit 30 home runs.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:32 PM
  #445
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky View Post
You can still present a OV vs Crosby game if OV plays for the Rangers and Crosby plays for the Maple Leafs...
It doesn't work as well if the stars are constantly switching teams. They can switch once or twice but no more.

The team and the star together make the brand.

Think of Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:34 PM
  #446
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
one example : by the time the next CBA expires (eve if owners gets 100% of what they're asking), TML ill NOT get back the 100 millions (according to an article posted in this thread) they're losing this year...
Indeed, but the CBA creates a precedent that will be used for the negotiation of the next CBA (see salary cap). You often see companies willing to lose millions in a lockout to break a tough union. I work for a company that did it this year and it cost them hundred of millions. Short term, it doesn't make any sense but long term, it does.

You're also using the most profitable team in the league as an example. It is possible that the Leafs want to get back into it a bit quicker than the Panthers, I'll give you that.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 05:38 PM
  #447
Corky
Registered User
 
Corky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It doesn't work as well if the stars are constantly switching teams. They can switch once or twice but no more.

The team and the star together make the brand.

Think of Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls.
Gretzky sold hockey pretty well in Los Angeles after his Edmonton days, you don't think Crosby could do the same in Florida?

And it's not because a max contract is 5 years that these players will necessarily switch teams every 5 years.

The "star players can't be marketed without long term contract" argument just doesn't hold.

Corky is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 06:01 PM
  #448
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
The players aren't benefiting from not accepting it either. Only when the final deal has been struck will we be able to determine if the players gained by not signing the offer.

I wonder what percentage of contracts are longer than five years. I would say not too many. The owners also offered to extend the term to seven years if the player resigned with his existing club. When you factor both of those into the equation, it would have such a miniscule impact on the majority of the players that it isn't worth talking about. This is clearly about cap circumvention and NOT about reducing the value of players' contracts. But Fehr has done a good job of selling it to the masses. For such an intelligent group of athletes there are led around by the nose very easily.
It depends on how you wish to measure benefit. Short term financially they lose salary, however its salary they may never have had without the sacrifices of previous players. Longer term its less clear, but clearly the NHL proposal will cause a downward shift in salary for at least half the players.

However if the majority only want to be part of the NHLPA for the benefits it offers, but will agree to any CBA to avoid any loss then decertification (not as a negotiating step) of the NHLPA is the only choice.

IMO in the paradigm that follows, many of these same players would want a return of the NHLPA.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 06:05 PM
  #449
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
really ?
Yes.

Owners want 50% of HRR. That is half.

Players want 50% of HRR + make whole. That is more than half.

Haven't you at least been following the very lockout you have been commenting on?

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 06:06 PM
  #450
RC51
Registered User
 
RC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,693
vCash: 500
Let me insert my 2 cents.
Currently the habs have a 1st rounder and 3 second round picks in the upcuming draft 2013. If the season is canceled the habs will get some more good draft picks but even better, if their is a short season and the Habs decide to tank the year away and sell off older players including Markov they could land at least one more first rounder and maybe 2 more second rounders. That means the habs could end up picking two firsts and 6 seconds in a great and deep draft year. ADD all that to last years great crop and WOW, talk about a quick rebuild to a top contender within say 2-3 years. A HUGE up tick in quality at all positions and still some great talent waiting in the wings if anybody got hurt. I can not think of a better year to tank and it's only for 1/2 a season.
I know it's hard to say "Tank" when your a habs fan, but think hard on this. Tank and get rid of the bad contracts all in 1/2 a year.

RC51 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 02:02 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.