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.

NHL Lockout Discussion XXXVII: It's a death trap. It's a suicide trap.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-30-2012, 10:04 PM
  #26
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
You do realise that Fehr can only reccomend that his clients take the deal that they have agreed to, the players are free to vote it down if they see fit. I believe something similiar happened early in last years NBA lockout. The owners wont lift the lockout before a positive vote be the PA members.
I'm not sure at what point they get to vote....because they havn't had a chance yet, so when???....when Fehr decides if/when they get to vote.

JAX is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:05 PM
  #27
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Reposting this because everyone loved what I was saying and it drew thunderous applause:




Every time I come in here it continues to amaze me how people continue to blame the players for this.

The bulk of the blame here rests with Bettman. His first offer was ridiculous and a clear signal that he wanted a war... well, he got one. He's commandeered us to a strike or a lockout at the end of almost every contract expiration over the course of his career.

And btw, the problem is not how much players are making. The players have already agreed to a 50/50 split anyway... the real problem is revenue sharing. The NHL doesn't have the same kind of revenue sharing that other cap leagues do and it's why the game is in the state that it is. Until every team has the same opportunity to ice a winner you're going to have the imbalance that the owners continue to whine about.

If it were just the Leafs, Habs and Rangers would there be a problem? No. But unfortunately we're saddled with the teams that consistently lose money. Those teams MIGHT be able to get out of the whole if they could compete with the larger market teams if they had the same access to funds that the others do but that's not the case.

The latest contract will NOT solve these problems. These problems will remain until the next contract renewal comes up again and then we'll hear all over again how the Phoenix Coyotes are hemmoraging money season after season. And we'll hear this crap while the Leafs ownership sits there smoking hundred dollar bills.

The Leafs are worth a billion dollars for Pete's sake. What the hell do they need the cap for? They don't. So a cap doesn't make sense unless there's REAL revenue sharing to go along with it.


But the owners... don't want to talk about this. They want to solve this problem on the backs of the players and it's not going to work. Really the only way to solve it is to level the playing field. The players have actually been pretty reasonable and have been the ones giving up everything here. I was against them last time around but this time? I don't understand all the vitriol directed towards them when Bettman is the principal villain in all this.
And it bears repeating... that we get another ill informed post from someone who has been paying zero attention. It's way too easy to just blame Bettman, but people who have no idea of what is going on have a tendency to do that and bring up the Phoenix Coyotes (who are in the situation they are in because of terrible management. Go look at how well the Coyotes were doing in the late 90s).

How are the owners solving their problems off the "backs of the players" as you allude to? They aren't gaining that much in dollars to justify playing in an uncapped league. Did you not pay any attention to 2005 and the quality of hockey before that or the ridiculous contracts being brandished by teams like the Rangers and Leafs?

The cap has resulted in more competitive hockey and emphasizes proper player development and homegrown talent. The Penguins, Wings, Hawks, Bruins, Flyers, Kings are some examples of teams who adjusted well for the cap. The Rangers slowly got around after they spent like fools on Gomez, Drury and Redden. The Leafs on the other hand are hopeless due to terrible management.

This isn't a fight over eliminating or restricting players' rights, it's about leveling the unbalanced scale of hockey related revenues that the players are collecting. A number of loopholes that were exposed in the previous CBA were exploited and abused by a handful of clubs and that is what caused this imbalance. Blame GMs, agents and certain owners for doing so. But I guess it is easier to point your finger at Bettman.

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:05 PM
  #28
Lint07
Registered User
 
Lint07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stayfrosy View Post
so what are the chances a deal gets done tomorrow (monday)?

What are the chances a deal gets done at all?

And is there any chance the nhl is bluffing that the season has to start on the 19th, or be completely cancelled?
1. 10%
2. 95%
3. 25%

Lint07 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:05 PM
  #29
Astoria
KESLERKESLERKESLER
 
Astoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Threshold of Hell
Country: United States
Posts: 1,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StayFrosy View Post
So what are the chances a deal gets done tomorrow (Monday)?
Pretty much the same chance the Titanic had against the ice berg...

Quote:
What are the chances a deal gets done at all?
I'm going with a 45% on this one.

I'm still trying to figure out what the PA and Fehr's end-game is. Is it about cap limits, escrow, Red Bull in place of BioSteel on the bench, HRR, linkage, sweet hotel suites, CBA length, UFA/RFA mumbo jumbo, Olay for Men body wash being supplied in the showers, etc.

Or is it all about sticking it to the Evil Empire and causing the league and the owners to implode into themselves like a dying star...

Quote:
And is there any chance the NHL is bluffing that the season has to start on the 19th, or be completely cancelled?
I'm going with, "sure, why not" on this one...

Like I've said, it's like we're
experiencing the NHL/NHLPA's own Sitzkrieg... Craps been building up for months now.... Both sides have been posturing around like peacocks... We, the fans, get little tid-bits every so often about what each side is thinking but nothing really significant... We all know the ****storm is coming.... Now were left wondering when...


Last edited by Astoria: 12-30-2012 at 10:23 PM.
Astoria is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:07 PM
  #30
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
yeah he can only recommend that his clients take the deal, and with how mickey mouse group the players already look after the last lockout (going behind goodenow's back to agree to the last cba, then replacing him with saskin, then firing saskin for reading emails, then hiring kelly, then firing him because he was to goody tooshoes with the owners, then hiring fehr and preaching to the choir that they are 100% behind him the entire way) there would be nobody that would work for, or ever take the nhlpa serious again.

but once he does recommend something, it will be a overwhelming vote yes. and it will be done while all the players are in training camp.
They had to get rid of goodenow....with a gun to his head basically, he wanted to continue the holdout, his friend Fehr at the time told him he would need a 2 year holdout to avoid the cap.

JAX is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:08 PM
  #31
WTFMAN99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Didn't think it was possible for NHL fans to actually WANT a shorter CBA

what is your reasoning here? You like going through this every 6-7 years?
Nooo I want a long term CBA.

Contract limits for players, 9 is too long to give them. 5 years was a little too much from the NHL...the 5/7 rule was fine, but the 6/7 is okay too, but no way on giving the players 9 year deals, that is silly.

WTFMAN99 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:09 PM
  #32
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAX View Post
They had to get rid of goodenow....with a gun to his head basically, he wanted to continue the holdout, his friend Fehr at the time told him he would need a 2 year holdout to avoid the cap.
agreed, but the 5 things that happened after that lockout make the nhlpa look like they don't even know whats up or down, nor do they know what they actually want.

so if they did something again to undermine there leader, nobody in life would ever take the nhlpa serious.

Barrie22 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:09 PM
  #33
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
ummmm i hope you do realize that the nfl's tv deal alone covers basically the nhl's entire revenue's right?
That has zero to do with what I'm talking about.

Nobody is suggesting the NHL makes near the money the NFL does. So why do you try to form this straw man argument?

The NFL is successful in large part because of it's revenue sharing system. Green Bay can compete with the Giants. That's not the case with the NHL. Poor teams stay poor and become farm teams for clubs that can afford the players...

Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:10 PM
  #34
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
Some say the players are encouraged but not 'happy' with the proposal. Will find out tomorrow if the nhl really wants a season
They only thing anyone should be "happy" about is that the effin thing gets done.

Neither side should be "happy" or "upset" with the agreement...no winner, no loser...just be happy that you have a friggin' agreement.

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:12 PM
  #35
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The NFL is successful in large part because of it's revenue sharing system.
There is some serious chicken and egg confusion in this thread. The NFL made a conscious choice to do what no other league had ever done - share ALL broadcast revenues - and they made that choice when they were a second-tier league.

The NFL's dominance came AFTER making that choice - they didn't dominate and then make the choice - the choice came first.

 
Old
12-30-2012, 10:12 PM
  #36
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
NFL also does not guarantee contracts.
On that point I totally agree with you. The players need to smarten up too.

I just blame the owners a lot more than I blame the players because overall they're asking the players to foot for the poor teams. And that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, esp when you have super rich teams out there who see their payrolls drop for no reason.

Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:14 PM
  #37
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
agreed, but the 5 things that happened after that lockout make the nhlpa look like they don't even know whats up or down, nor do they know what they actually want.

so if they did something again to undermine there leader, nobody in life would ever take the nhlpa serious.
True, that's why they are "unified" even if they have to cut their nose off their own face. Look at the way they fired Kelly and hired Fehr....just another chapter in the fine history of the NHLPA. now they have a bunch of hardliners in charge and looking for a fight.

JAX is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:15 PM
  #38
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAX View Post
I'm not sure at what point they get to vote....because they havn't had a chance yet, so when???....when Fehr decides if/when they get to vote.
Its pretty much up to him to inform the executive comittee that the he and the league have come to an agreement. The executive comitee will then authorize a vote. But yes it wont happen until he gives the comitee the thumbs up, it still doesnt change the fact that there is a chance that a deal can be voted down by the players (not that i think that would happen if Fehr reccomends that they take it)

surixon is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:15 PM
  #39
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
That has zero to do with what I'm talking about.

Nobody is suggesting the NHL makes near the money the NFL does. So why do you try to form this straw man argument?

The NFL is successful in large part because of it's revenue sharing system. Green Bay can compete with the Giants. That's not the case with the NHL. Poor teams stay poor and become farm teams for clubs that can afford the players...
So now you expect a handful of teams to take on the burden of the entire league?

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:15 PM
  #40
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
For those who question how quickly the documet can be written up; the NHL just submitted a entirely complete CBA so even if there needs to be changes and I suspect there will be they will not be drafting a document from scratch as the NHL has already written up the template and filled it in. Lets be honest about 80% of what is to be written in the CBA has already been agreed to by the parties, once they agree on the few outstanding issues it wont take very long for the Lewyers of both parties to edit and update the document.
I'd wager more than 80% has been agreed upon. No need to write up or draw up a new CBA, that's already done. All that will need to happen is revisions to the portions that have been changed, and then proofread by both sides to ensure accuracy. A good legal assistant could probably sit down and get it done in 45-60 minutes, depending on the number of revisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The owners got pretty much everything they wanted last time around, they got the players to turn on their own leadership and yet here we are... again. What makes you think it's going to be different next time?
I don't recall the owners really wanting the radical free agency rule changes, to name but one. As for why it should be different next time... if it's a fair deal for both sides, if it works, and if it's in line with the CBAs of the major sports in North America, there really wouldn't be any need for it to go the same route as it did this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
Some say the players are encouraged but not 'happy' with the proposal. Will find out tomorrow if the nhl really wants a season
I guess when we see the PA's counteroffer we'll also see if the players really want a season. It's been reported there are no "deal breakers" in the league's proposal. If that's the case and the PA comes back with a deal breaker proposal, I would have no objection to the league pulling the plug right then and there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The owners have agreed to contracts that they now want to go back on... How would you feel about negotiating a contract only to find out the following year that it wasn't worth what you had originally signed for? I think you'd be slightly pissed.
Actually, if the player is halfway informed and has a decent agent, the player would be very well aware of the possibility of this happening, especially since it happened when the last CBA was negotiated. That's the way labor negotiations go. Why do you think the last minute, absurd contracts signed before the CBA expired had those outrageous signing bonuses? A prize to anyone who answers that it was because the players and their agents knew darn well this was coming and negotiated deals that got them a chunk of their dough up front.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:15 PM
  #41
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyllia View Post
Pretty much the same chance the Titanic had against the ice berg...
Ya know, if the Titanic had hit the iceberg head on, instead of them trying to go around it, their chances would have been a lot greater.

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:16 PM
  #42
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
That has zero to do with what I'm talking about.

Nobody is suggesting the NHL makes near the money the NFL does. So why do you try to form this straw man argument?

The NFL is successful in large part because of it's revenue sharing system. Green Bay can compete with the Giants. That's not the case with the NHL. Poor teams stay poor and become farm teams for clubs that can afford the players...
because you are ignoring something very very very very very very very important, the nfl can have the best revenue sharing out of the 4 pro leagues because they make the most out of the 4 leagues.

the league, if they had the 220 million in revenue sharing in 2011-2012 season would be basically giving out the leagues entire profit margin for that year (it was something like 250 million in profits).

every one agree's that the revenue sharing is the best way to make the entire league atleast break even. but something needs to change, to make the teams more money so they can give out more money.

the revenue sharing doesn't just come off of the money tree in the backyard of the nhl's office, it is coming from the other teams. and those teams just cannot afford to offer any more money. (especially when the nhlpa are asking for another 300 million in make whole above the revenue sharing).

Barrie22 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:16 PM
  #43
stevecanuck16
Registered User
 
stevecanuck16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Reposting so people see this, because posters often claim that NHLs problem is with revenue sharing.

Revenue sharing isn't the problem. In relation to revenues NHL shares about the same as MLB and NBA.

NHL have agreed to at least $200M/year (it may be $220M) in revenue sharing. Let's say 15 teams get it. That means every team gets $13.3M/year. Realistically some will get less meaning some will get more. Assuming revenue stays the same it's at least 6% of revenue.

Meanwhile in NBA the most a team can get is $16M/year. How is that so different to NHL?

In baseball, $400M is shared from rich to poor teams. Total revenue for the league was $7.5B. That's 5.5% of revenue.

Can we please, with sugar on top, stop with the myth that NHL revenue shares much less than the other leagues? The only league that does revenue share significantly more is the NFL and they have so much in television revenue they can shower the teams in money and still be fine.

There is a reason NHLPA hasn't said a word about revenue sharing in months. They have agreed on revenue sharing on a reasonable level.
To be fair, you're comparing the history of other leagues to a speculative proposal on the NHL's part. It's not a myth if it already happened, but that doesn't mean it cannot be fixed. Your last paragraph sounds like an indictment of the NHLPA, but I fail to see how reaching common ground on an important issue is anyone's failing.

stevecanuck16 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:17 PM
  #44
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Reposting so people see this, because posters often claim that NHLs problem is with revenue sharing.

Revenue sharing isn't the problem. In relation to revenues NHL shares about the same as MLB and NBA.

NHL have agreed to at least $200M/year (it may be $220M) in revenue sharing. Let's say 15 teams get it. That means every team gets $13.3M/year. Realistically some will get less meaning some will get more. Assuming revenue stays the same it's at least 6% of revenue.

Meanwhile in NBA the most a team can get is $16M/year. How is that so different to NHL?

In baseball, $400M is shared from rich to poor teams. Total revenue for the league was $7.5B. That's 5.5% of revenue.

Can we please, with sugar on top, stop with the myth that NHL revenue shares much less than the other leagues? The only league that does revenue share significantly more is the NFL and they have so much in television revenue they can shower the teams in money and still be fine.

There is a reason NHLPA hasn't said a word about revenue sharing in months. They have agreed on revenue sharing on a reasonable level.
Exactly, NHL has far less revenue to share thanks to the failure to land a decent tv. That's really the one thing holding the league back and the reason the players need to give back HRR % to save the owners, even though it should be 50/50 anyways.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:17 PM
  #45
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
So now you expect a handful of teams to take on the burden of the entire league?
This is a point I have brought up time and time again yet it doesn't register.

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:18 PM
  #46
ltrangerfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
That has zero to do with what I'm talking about.

Nobody is suggesting the NHL makes near the money the NFL does. So why do you try to form this straw man argument?

The NFL is successful in large part because of it's revenue sharing system. Green Bay can compete with the Giants. That's not the case with the NHL. Poor teams stay poor and become farm teams for clubs that can afford the players...
Revenue sharing among NFL plummets.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...L-revenue.aspx

ltrangerfan is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:20 PM
  #47
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Also, not sure why folks freaked out about this. It seems that people really want to dig their heels in. Not sure why you want to cheer for the owner's side, it's like cheering for Walmart.

Go and read some alternative views on things and open your mind up. Don't just automatically assume it's about greedy players because it's not:

Feel free to read Time Magazine's take on it where they verbatim agreed with what I said: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...e-nhl-lockout/

You folks stating that the NHL is proposing revenue sharing above other leagues [mod: are incorrect, iyo]. You have only the NFL to see how a successful league applies real revenue sharing to prop up it's franchises.

The owners got pretty much everything they wanted last time around, they got the players to turn on their own leadership and yet here we are... again. What makes you think it's going to be different next time?

But no, let's keep the same broken system that leads to a strike or lockout with every renewal...
The NFL shares television revenue.
The NHL can't get a big national television contract until they have a more even fan distribution across the country.
Teams in non hockey markets dont' have a chance unless there's things like reasonable salary caps and revenue sharing.

The owners already share hundreds of millions of their own dollars with the expansion teams. They are doing their part.
The players fight tooth and nail against making any of these sacrifices. Sure, they agreed to a cap... but only after losing an entire season in protest against it. They won't make ANY sacrifices without a childish temper tantrum.
The old CBA would probably have been much more successful if not for the collapse of the American dollar.
Half of the owners are still losing money... it's either contraction (which the nhlpa is against) or both sides making additional sacrifices (which the nhlpa is against).
There are no "opinions" about this any more. There's those that factually agree that the owners are in the right, and those unwilling to accept the facts who think the players are in the right.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:25 PM
  #48
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
And it bears repeating... that we get another ill informed post from someone who has been paying zero attention. It's way too easy to just blame Bettman, but people who have no idea of what is going on have a tendency to do that and bring up the Phoenix Coyotes (who are in the situation they are in because of terrible management. Go look at how well the Coyotes were doing in the late 90s).
There will always be poorly managed teams and being rich means nothing in that respect (see the Leafs.)

But at least they (see Coyotes, Thrashers etc) should have the same opportunity to build a winner as any other team and that's not the case now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
How are the owners solving their problems off the "backs of the players" as you allude to?
They aren't solving the problem....

They're using the poor teams as an excuse to roll back salaries. Problem is that rolling back salaries doesn't really solve the problem of inequity within the league. Only revenue sharing would do this.

The owners are just claiming that this NEEDS to be done in the name of the Phoenix Coyotes... meanwhile every time a bell rings the Leafs make another million dollars.

Like I said, cheering for the owners is like cheering for Walmart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
They aren't gaining that much in dollars to justify playing in an uncapped league. Did you not pay any attention to 2005 and the quality of hockey before that or the ridiculous contracts being brandished by teams like the Rangers and Leafs?
Did you not pay attention to my post where I said I sided with the owners last time around?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
The cap has resulted in more competitive hockey and emphasizes proper player development and homegrown talent. The Penguins, Wings, Hawks, Bruins, Flyers, Kings are some examples of teams who adjusted well for the cap. The Rangers slowly got around after they spent like fools on Gomez, Drury and Redden. The Leafs on the other hand are hopeless due to terrible management.
I was all for a cap. And I agree on the Leafs. Never said otherwise.

But... we haven't had real revenue sharing and that's why we're back where we are now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
This isn't a fight over eliminating or restricting players' rights, it's about leveling the unbalanced scale of hockey related revenues that the players are collecting.
This is a fight over who PAYS for the unbalanced scale. The owners are saying the players should foot the bill for the poor teams... why don't the Leafs do it?

And seriously man, you think a shift from 57 to 50 is going to fix everything? Forget about it. Until they get serious about revenue sharing it's going to stay broken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
A number of loopholes that were exposed in the previous CBA were exploited and abused by a handful of clubs and that is what caused this imbalance. Blame GMs, agents and certain owners for doing so. But I guess it is easier to point your finger at Bettman.
Those loopholes were exploited by... THE OWNERS... and there's no reason to believe it won't happen again and we won't be in the same situation again next time around.

It's been that way every time we need to renew a contract and without revenue sharing it will be that way again.

Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:27 PM
  #49
Freudian
No Guenin, No cry
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 30,896
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevecanuck16 View Post
To be fair, you're comparing the history of other leagues to a speculative proposal on the NHL's part. It's not a myth if it already happened, but that doesn't mean it cannot be fixed. Your last paragraph sounds like an indictment of the NHLPA, but I fail to see how reaching common ground on an important issue is anyone's failing.
I'm comparing the latest revenue sharing figures for other leagues with what is the bare minimum for NHL starting next year. At a bare minimum it will be $200M (based on $3.3B in revenue, it will grow with revenue growth) since NHL has proposed that earlier. NHLPA seems to want a bit more $240M-260M, but it's been reported that the sides are very close to agreement on revenue sharing so $220M seems like a reasonable guess.

Comparing what revenue sharing NHL had in the CBA that expired would be more misleading than using the increased revenue sharing the sides have agreed on.

Freudian is online now  
Old
12-30-2012, 10:28 PM
  #50
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Those loopholes were exploited by... THE OWNERS... and there's no reason to believe it won't happen again and we won't be in the same situation again next time around.
So you don't think a single agent out there suggested a cap circumvention type contract for his client? The loopholes were solely exploited by the owners, most of whom don't negotiate the deals in the first place?

Boltsfan2029 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 03:29 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.