HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Lockout XXIX: Your questions have become more redundant than the Highlander movies

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2012, 02:08 AM
  #51
GoSensGo765
GO SENS GO!!
 
GoSensGo765's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,578
vCash: 500
IF that proposal was put on the table and IF the players voted on it and IF they rejected it, there would be no more negotiating. That would be the season.

But if that deal really was voted on, I think it would EASILY pass.

The ironic thing here is that deal is downright perfect for both sides. They both get what they want while making the other side happy. That's what is should all be about.

Should be about getting the game back on the ice, and well right now....that's still not the bottom line.

GoSensGo765 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:12 AM
  #52
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
How does cutting 15 teams and removing the salary cap solve the problem? You want to go back to the system that existed prior to 2005? Sorry, that system not only solves no problems, it deepens them. Players were receiving about 70% of league revenue as salaries in 2003/2004. Salaries can not be controlled in a free market system. That has been demonstrated time and time again.

I also do find it odd that you'd approve of a league without the Pittsburgh Penguins.
So we've come to the crux of our disagreement. You think that a league requires imposed artificial spending limits on labor in order to succeed. I think that a league can succeed with an unregulated labor market.

My ideal league would have 10-15 teams in strong hockey markets. Using current revenue figures, such a league could operate whereby the top revenue grossing team generated ~2x relative to the bottom revenue grossing team. This disparity could be offset by some revenue sharing and hopefully in time this league could generate some meaningful shared revenue streams to close the gap further. Even if these "ifs" come to fruition, there is always going to be some disparity between team numero uno and the last team. The question is whether a league can ever exist where that disparity is 3.5x+ the way it is today.

I'm not against revenue sharing per se, but I am against revenue sharing in a 30-franchise league that comprises of several franchises that will constantly be in the poor house and in need of perpetual heavy subsidization in order to keep the lights on.

The point here is that a safety net should exist for these teams but they shouldn't perpetually be sucking on the teet of the "have" teams with no hopes of ever succeeding on its own merits. Indeed, such a system (as the NHL currently operates) will yield that good old problem with socialism: eventually you run out of other peoples' money. Today, the "have not" teams need more money. The proposed solution is to take more of it from the players. Eventually, the sides will determine that there's not enough OPM (other peoples' money) to go around and something will be done. Until that time, we're in for all of the same BS we've become accustomed to...the league approving of dubious owners, perpetual labor disputes, etc.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:13 AM
  #53
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spezza19 View Post
IF that proposal was put on the table and IF the players voted on it and IF they rejected it, there would be no more negotiating. That would be the season.

But if that deal really was voted on, I think it would EASILY pass.

The ironic thing here is that deal is downright perfect for both sides. They both get what they want while making the other side happy. That's what is should all be about.

Should be about getting the game back on the ice, and well right now....that's still not the bottom line.
Completely agree with you. Whoa!

HawksFan74 is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:18 AM
  #54
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetangInTheSO View Post
People always seem to point this out to me (the Penguins argument) as though it will give me some sort of pause. Of course that's true. It doesn't change my perspective on the issue.

What you have described above is the ebb and flow of business. In a league with competent, well-backed owners who operate franchises located in viable markets, ebbs and flows and short-term losses can be sustained (again, these are business 101 tenets).

I couldn't disagree more with your argument. You are saying that the only way for a league to exist is a hard salary cap and that a 15-franchise NHL with a free labor market could never succeed. I completely disagree.
Huh. So what you're proposing is a league with around 20 teams with a $600M TV deal that is revenued shared equally between all all teams. Said league would be so popular that it would make $3.71B in yearly revenues, with no salary cap or any financial restrictions on spending.

Sounds like the EPL - too bad they are losing $600M a year and are carrying $3.9B in debt.

Hell, even Manchester United can't make money.

Quote:
Despite the drop in turnover, United actually recorded a profit of £23m, although that was entirely due to a tax credit of £28m - without that credit there would have been a £5m loss.
Look, I respect your posts for the most part but I think a major problem that we all have is pretending to understand how to 'fix' the NHL. If anyone knew how to maintain competitive balance, be fiscally responsible and let the players be compensated fairly, then EVERYONE WOULD BE DOING IT.

I don't believe the entire league needs to be profitable because there is merit to the idea that these franchises are toys. However, in the event that they are no longer toys and might need to stand on their own as financial entities (for any number of reasons) - there need to be rules in place to allow owners to at least break even or minimize their losses.

The only way to do so is to go through the collective bargaining process - so here we are.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:20 AM
  #55
Astoria
KESLERKESLERKESLER
 
Astoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Threshold of Hell
Country: United States
Posts: 1,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
No, this deal has been leaked to ESPN via a NHL Governor.....
Well there ya go... Leaked to ESPN. Who in their right mind leaks anything having to do with the NHL....or anything even remotely hockey related to ESPN? I mean, you might as well leak it to Snooki.
; )

That being said.... I hope it's legit...and I hope it works...

Astoria is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:29 AM
  #56
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyllia View Post
Well there ya go... Leaked to ESPN. Who in their right mind leaks anything having to do with the NHL....or anything even remotely hockey related to ESPN? I mean, you might as well leak it to Snooki.
; )

That being said.... I hope it's legit...and I hope it works...
This board's opinion of ESPN is meaningless in this situation. They are the largest sports media hub in the U.S. If you want to get a story out there, that's a pretty good source despite what you think of their hockey coverage.

In addition, their coverage of the lockout has been good in terms of the web site.

HawksFan74 is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:30 AM
  #57
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,468
vCash: 500
What it comes down to for me is:

Waiting costs players money they can't afford to lose.

Waiting may or may not cost owners money - and they can afford to lose it.


Again, if you knew the Proskauer-Rose playbook is to stall, then surely you don't oblige the league by doing so.

So both sides are dragging out the process. IMO now that they have given up many of their main sources of revenue the owners are just enjoying salary savings. Since they have already lost 25% of the sponsorship money I would bet that savings on lost player salary balances out.

Since the season will not be less than 48 games, and the league share of sponsorship only goes down to 50% if the games played is below 41, not only would the NHL not be forfeiting that 25%, but the longer it waits for the supposedly 'inevitable' player capitulation the more they save.

It's on Fehr to make the first move here - because he has a duty to minimize the losses incurred by his membership. If he had just moved all his timings up by 1-2 months, then I would say he was playing a good gameplan. But now, he's just being stubborn AND it's to the detriment of the players.

Since there is no mechanism in the NHLPA's OWN LAST OFFER to recoup lost salary, no magical deal is going to come that is 'better'. I think both sides have stalled and postured enough to make this look like 'a good fight'. The difference is that the NHL is saving money here as time goes by while the players are losing it - that's on the NHLPA leadership to recognize.

Why would the owners be in a hurry now, especially when the feeling is that a 48 game schedule will happen eventually? Better to just keep cutting your costs. Is that moral? No. But as with almost all of the owner's actions in this lockout, at least you can understand a good portion of it using simple cost-benefit.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:31 AM
  #58
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Huh. So what you're proposing is a league with around 20 teams with a $600M TV deal that is revenued shared equally between all all teams. Said league would be so popular that it would make $3.71B in yearly revenues, with no salary cap or any financial restrictions on spending.

Sounds like the EPL - too bad they are losing $600M a year and are carrying $3.9B in debt.

Hell, even Manchester United can't make money.



Look, I respect your posts for the most part but I think a major problem that we all have is pretending to understand how to 'fix' the NHL. If anyone knew how to maintain competitive balance, be fiscally responsible and let the players be compensated fairly, then EVERYONE WOULD BE DOING IT.

I don't believe the entire league needs to be profitable because there is merit to the idea that these franchises are toys. However, in the event that they are no longer toys and might need to stand on their own as financial entities (for any number of reasons) - there need to be rules in place to allow owners to at least break even or minimize their losses.

The only way to do so is to go through the collective bargaining process - so here we are.
FWIW, I sincerely appreciate your ability to respectfully disagree with me. Too often the discussion in these forums devolves into schoolyard name calling.

To the point at hand, I don't think that I have the solution to the league's economic problems. I do, however, believe that I can readily identify what will NOT work. I don't think it takes an economic expert to understand that a league with franchises in markets that have never embraced the game won't succeed.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:34 AM
  #59
GoGoGrabo
Registered User
 
GoGoGrabo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Even though I have twitter and know a guy who has connections high up within the Bruins org, I still come to this thread at least 50x daily hoping to see some glimmer of hope... and yet, nothing. Just heartbreak.

GoGoGrabo is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:35 AM
  #60
Astoria
KESLERKESLERKESLER
 
Astoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Threshold of Hell
Country: United States
Posts: 1,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
This board's opinion of ESPN is meaningless in this situation. They are the largest sports media hub in the U.S. If you want to get a story out there, that's a pretty good source despite what you think of their hockey coverage.

In addition, their coverage of the lockout has been good in terms of the web site.
I know you're right.... I'm just not a huge fan of ESPN. As someone who lives in the US, I'm disappointed by their lack of hockey coverage.

Astoria is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:37 AM
  #61
GoGoGrabo
Registered User
 
GoGoGrabo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyllia View Post
I know you're right.... I'm just not a huge fan of ESPN. As someone who lives in the US, I'm disappointed by their lack of hockey coverage.
If LeBron were to say something about it, ESPN would run a 60 minute special on it. Until that happens, it probably gets acknowledged 3-5 times a day on all of their channels combined.

GoGoGrabo is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:42 AM
  #62
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyllia View Post
I know you're right.... I'm just not a huge fan of ESPN. As someone who lives in the US, I'm disappointed by their lack of hockey coverage.
Well yeah but that's another discussion all together.

HawksFan74 is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:47 AM
  #63
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetangInTheSO View Post
FWIW, I sincerely appreciate your ability to respectfully disagree with me. Too often the discussion in these forums devolves into schoolyard name calling.

To the point at hand, I don't think that I have the solution to the league's economic problems. I do, however, believe that I can readily identify what will NOT work. I don't think it takes an economic expert to understand that a league with franchises in markets that have never embraced the game won't succeed.
Ok, but we still have to play the hands we're dealt, no? Contraction isn't going to be well received by either the NHL or NHLPA. Hoping for teams in 'unconventional' markets to be killed off somehow is just wishful thinking. Both sides are going to fight like hell to keep those teams alive - the only difference is how. Players would rather move the franchise at the first sign of trouble. Owners would rather attempt to stick it out first for strategic reasons.

So however logical and rational your argument is - in practical terms it's at least 2-5 years off. The QC, Seattle and Markham arenas are not constructed and none of those areas has even the equivalent of the MTS center, not to mention that some of the currently 'failing' franchises might indeed benefit from this reworked CBA. Even with those arenas in place, it might still be practically impossible.

Meanwhile we have a CBA negotiation at hand RIGHT NOW. It will not include contraction or relocation. Therefore IMO it has to include the things which are the ones being currently fought over.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:10 AM
  #64
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Contraction isn't going to be well received by either the NHL or NHLPA.
Of course not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Hoping for teams in 'unconventional' markets to be killed off somehow is just wishful thinking.
In the short term, neither side will entertain the option. In the long-term, either the teams will eek their way to profitability (which is the owners' hope) or - when that fails to happen (the more likely scenario IMO) - the teams will eventually have to relocate or fold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Both sides are going to fight like hell to keep those teams alive
Yep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Players would rather move the franchise at the first sign of trouble.
I don't know what leads you to believe this. I've never heard the players unite to express their opinions about the viability of certain franchises in their markets. I don't think the players spend considerable time worrying about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Owners would rather attempt to stick it out first for strategic reasons.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
So however logical and rational your argument is - in practical terms it's at least 2-5 years off. The QC, Seattle and Markham arenas are not constructed and none of those areas has even the equivalent of the MTS center, not to mention that some of the currently 'failing' franchises might indeed benefit from this reworked CBA. Even with those arenas in place, it might still be practically impossible.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Meanwhile we have a CBA negotiation at hand RIGHT NOW. It will not include contraction or relocation. Therefore IMO it has to include the things which are the ones being currently fought over.
Agreed. So, the basic point here is that this CBA is at best a stopgap measure that is necessary for the league to figure out wtf to do with its struggling franchises. Given that reducing the players' share won't credibly address these problem franchises in the long-term (and is rather just "stopgap money"), I don't blame the players for fighting tooth and nail to make the owners subsidize the operation of these franchises rather than more money be taken out of their pot. So, I don't disagree with the players' position in this lockout to any great degree. I do, however, wholly disagree with their tactics.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:13 AM
  #65
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Huh. So what you're proposing is a league with around 20 teams with a $600M TV deal that is revenued shared equally between all all teams. Said league would be so popular that it would make $3.71B in yearly revenues, with no salary cap or any financial restrictions on spending.

Sounds like the EPL - too bad they are losing $600M a year and are carrying $3.9B in debt.

Hell, even Manchester United can't make money.



Look, I respect your posts for the most part but I think a major problem that we all have is pretending to understand how to 'fix' the NHL. If anyone knew how to maintain competitive balance, be fiscally responsible and let the players be compensated fairly, then EVERYONE WOULD BE DOING IT.

I don't believe the entire league needs to be profitable because there is merit to the idea that these franchises are toys. However, in the event that they are no longer toys and might need to stand on their own as financial entities (for any number of reasons) - there need to be rules in place to allow owners to at least break even or minimize their losses.

The only way to do so is to go through the collective bargaining process - so here we are.
Man U makes money. What you cite is a very limited scope on profitability attached to said franchise.

Not directed at you, but the ignorance in this thread is beyond belief. So much support for the owners in here - absolutely insane.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:15 AM
  #66
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
What part of the following do people not realize. If the owners cave on the players' current demands, the owners would, on aggregate, "win" this lockout. Yet, somehow the players are at fault.

The owners will win no matter what. By how much is the question.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:16 AM
  #67
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
So much support for the owners in here - absolutely insane.
Agreed. I can wholly identify with people who identify as "anti player," but how any fan can deduce that the owners ought to be rewarded for their handling of this dispute is absolutely beyond me.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:16 AM
  #68
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
I can't wait for the "honest" and "wholesome" NHL to pull an offer off the table, in "good faith", only to retable it later.

Damn I hate this thread.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:24 AM
  #69
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
What I hate is this lockout.

I had a teacher in high school who refused to follow NHL hockey because he said both sides were money-hungry SOBs. I thought he was a commy cook. I'm still not quite where he is (the players' compete level and the entertainment value of the product are still unquestionably high IMO), but relative to how I felt about NHL hockey just a few years ago, I am much more apathetic. I will certainly watch my share of games on (illegal) online streams, but this lockout has permanently soured me from the idea of giving the league any of my $. That which was sacrosanct to me has forever been tainted.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:35 AM
  #70
heartsabres*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Budapest
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetangInTheSO View Post
What I hate is this lockout.

I had a teacher in high school who refused to follow NHL hockey because he said both sides were money-hungry SOBs. I thought he was a commy cook. I'm still not quite where he is (the players' compete level and the entertainment value of the product are still unquestionably high IMO), but relative to how I felt about NHL hockey just a few years ago, I am much more apathetic. I will certainly watch my share of games on (illegal) online streams, but this lockout has permanently soured me from the idea of giving the league any of my $. That which was sacrosanct to me has forever been tainted.
I am guessing you just came home from the bar....

heartsabres* is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:41 AM
  #71
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartsabres View Post
I am guessing you just came home from the bar....
I'll say this much, we're all proving pretty well that we have nothing better to do. In NA, it's b/w 1-4am depending on location and there's a solid group of us discussing hockey that isn't being played on a forum with strangers. It's a sad and pathetic day!

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:53 AM
  #72
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,902
vCash: 500
Day #90.

The NHL indicated they are willing to be flexible with the transition issues

Quote:
An individual with knowledge of the day’s events told The Post the union was informed the league would be willing to discuss transition issues only if the NHLPA agreed in full to the NHL proposal presented after two days of player-owner meetings.

While there are players who would accept that offer in order to save the 2012-13 season, there are at least an equal percentage of team executives appalled by Canceler-in-Chief Gary Bettman’s refusal to attempt to bridge what is a narrow gap on the outstanding issues of CBA length and contract term limits.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/islan...tent=Islanders

Last week it was no amnesty buyouts and/or cap on escrow.

These are the 2 main transition issues along with setting the cap for the next 2 seasons.

The NHL is at $70.2M for the rest of 12-13 or 13 and $60M for 13-14. $60M. The PA is at $67.25M for the next 2 seasons.

Day #90.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:34 AM
  #73
Raym11
Phaneuf sucks
 
Raym11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,904
vCash: 500
Lets burn this mother down

Raym11 is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:56 AM
  #74
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit3119 View Post
Anybody kind enough to give me a quick cliff notes on where we are at this point? I haven't followed closely the last 3 days.
basically: **** sucks

MasterDecoy is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:26 AM
  #75
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,902
vCash: 500
The Blues don't like the potential CBA terms

Quote:
Many believe the Blues are among a group of clubs not thrilled with the NHL’s decision to increase its make-whole offer from $211 million, and while that proposal is reportedly off the table, it would likely return in exchange for contract concessions by the union.
Jeremy Jacobs authorized the $300M make whole. $50M of the $300M will go towards the players pension.

Quote:
The Blues have continued to collect from the NHL’s revenue-sharing program, and according to recent CBA negotiations, the total amount of those funds will increase to as much as $200 million from $140 million. However, several league sources have confirmed that as many as seven to eight teams could be added to the recipient group, meaning that clubs such as the Blues would actually get back less than they have received in the past.
The Blues don't like the changes in revenue sharing. The 2.5M TV household restriction will be eliminated. Teams had to reach certain thresholds to receive revenue sharing dollars. That will be eliminated too. Both sides proposed those changes.

Quote:
The assertion that only the “big boys” have Bettman’s ear has proved to have validity during the lockout and questioning why the clubs with less influence haven’t banded together to make their voices heard is legitimate. But that movement would now to be too late, as negotiations, seen to be going in the league’s favor, have crossed the point of real returns for many teams.
Which owners are part of Bettman's negotiating committee? None of the big market guys. Those "big boys" are paying the bills. Where are the revenue sharing dollars coming from?

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hocke...e0df9bda7.html

In the story,Jeremy Rutherford wrote the Blues also don't like the NHL's proposal on contract limits. It looks like the Blues wanted to re-sign Alex Pietrangelo for a term longer than 7 years. Also,the Blues were hoping for rollback. Best case scenario would been a rollback in salaries.

RangerBoy 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 10:55 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.