| Author |
 Topic  |
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
 Posted - 09/20/2012 : 11:50:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Who's fault is the current mess of the old CBA. Why that would be the gentleman who negotiated it in the first place. Salary Cap tied to revenue, revenue excelated due to on ice product generating greater revenue than expectations. Teams using current system to lock up talent for as long as possible at current market value. The teams and players are working within the system put in place by the very people who negotiated the last broke CBA system. I put the blame on the people who created the system then cry foul that the system is broken.
IMO, Bettman the ownership group demanded this system, made the players work within it and now want to change it again because they dont like what they demanded for during the last round of negotiations. If Ovechkin is making (more) in the KHL than the 65% guarantee the KHL says they will pay for NHL players tax free, then he is getting market value. The NHL can't say this players contract is above market value and hope to pay him less if they expect him to honour a contract they wish to pay him less. Ovechkin is just an example, but a good representation of my siding with the players during this round of CBA.
So, in one paragraph you hammer the owners for negotiating a CBA that is flawed - fair enough, it is now apparent that the system IS flawed. I think the owners have agreed that it is flawed, and even taken some blame for making it.
And then in the next paragraph, you hammer on the owners for recognizing this fact, and actually wanting to do something about it.
You seem angry at owners for a) making a bad system, and then b) wanting to fix it, which is a no-win situation. What is your solution? |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2012 : 12:23:02
|
I think my perception of this situation is the last CBA was not the 'fix' but the first step to the 'fix'. At that time the players were getting 74% of the revenue. They moved it so to 57% which was a massive leap but still not reasonable. It was also the first time the NHL had a salary cap so anyone who thought that would be perfect was simple not thinking realistically. Hence the large, front loaded, signing bonus heavy deals.
Even this deal will not 'fix' everything. They make the best deal they can with the indicators they have today and some idea of what the future will hold. If the future is different than expected, then the CBA become less relevant.
Finally, I still laugh every time Bettman is pegged as the problem. I am not saying he is a saint and does not have his hand in the decision, but who does he represent?? Does anyone honestly think for a second that he will get fired for doing exactly what his bosses want him to do?? For the most part, the owners have franchises worth more today then before the last CBA, they have a guy that will fight tooth and nail to give them the agreements they want, and he has prove to win every fight he has been in. Gary Bettman is doing exactly what his bosses want him to do.
Remember, he does not report to you or even to the sport. He answers to the guys holding the bags of money.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2012 : 19:40:23
|
| What I said was Bettman and the ownership group demanded the terms of the last CBA and shoved it down the players throat. Its those same owners who are spending themselves into yearly losses by signing players to terms longer and higher than they can afford. My other point is they can't, sorry shouldn't negotiate a player at his current worth, then cry foul at his contract value. Players like Ovechkin, Crosby and others are worth there contracts in other leagues. Ovechkin has already said if the NHL tries to lower his negotiated contract he may not return. Many other players signed at there worth now may follow suit if the NHL tries to pay them less than there market value. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 15:59:53
|
Read a funny article today in Mcleans about what to enjoy about an NHL lockout season. Here is what i enjoyed the most.
Quote regarding Gary Bettman.
There’s something spellbinding about a villain at the top of his game. Who among us wasn’t mesmerized by Darth Vader Force-choking to death a subordinate or by Brian Mulroney doing everything he’s ever done? When the NHL commissioner attends hockey games, he’s always shown on TV jawing with some rich dude or staring glumly at his phone. He seems bored. But engaging in labour negotiations—that makes Gary’s eyes twinkle, like Scrooge denying Cratchit a shilling or Jenny Craig denying Kirstie Alley a Frito. And now a lockout! He’s in the spotlight. He’s getting all the attention. I’m here to tell you: Gary Bettman hasn’t felt this alive since he killed Harry Potter’s parents.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2012 : 05:08:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Read a funny article today in Mcleans about what to enjoy about an NHL lockout season. Here is what i enjoyed the most.
Quote regarding Gary Bettman.
There’s something spellbinding about a villain at the top of his game. Who among us wasn’t mesmerized by Darth Vader Force-choking to death a subordinate or by Brian Mulroney doing everything he’s ever done? When the NHL commissioner attends hockey games, he’s always shown on TV jawing with some rich dude or staring glumly at his phone. He seems bored. But engaging in labour negotiations—that makes Gary’s eyes twinkle, like Scrooge denying Cratchit a shilling or Jenny Craig denying Kirstie Alley a Frito. And now a lockout! He’s in the spotlight. He’s getting all the attention. I’m here to tell you: Gary Bettman hasn’t felt this alive since he killed Harry Potter’s parents.
That is pretty funny stuff, thanks for that. And unfortunately, I totally see some truth to it, lol.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2012 : 09:44:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Who's fault is the current mess of the old CBA. Why that would be the gentleman who negotiated it in the first place. Salary Cap tied to revenue, revenue excelated due to on ice product generating greater revenue than expectations. Teams using current system to lock up talent for as long as possible at current market value. The teams and players are working within the system put in place by the very people who negotiated the last broke CBA system. I put the blame on the people who created the system then cry foul that the system is broken.
IMO, Bettman the ownership group demanded this system, made the players work within it and now want to change it again because they dont like what they demanded for during the last round of negotiations. If Ovechkin is making (more) in the KHL than the 65% guarantee the KHL says they will pay for NHL players tax free, then he is getting market value. The NHL can't say this players contract is above market value and hope to pay him less if they expect him to honour a contract they wish to pay him less. Ovechkin is just an example, but a good representation of my siding with the players during this round of CBA.
So, in one paragraph you hammer the owners for negotiating a CBA that is flawed - fair enough, it is now apparent that the system IS flawed. I think the owners have agreed that it is flawed, and even taken some blame for making it.
And then in the next paragraph, you hammer on the owners for recognizing this fact, and actually wanting to do something about it.
You seem angry at owners for a) making a bad system, and then b) wanting to fix it, which is a no-win situation. What is your solution?
I have decided to answer this question. I do blame the owners and in turn the man they have asked to negotiate with the NHLPA. My problem is the mess the money losing in team is the result of spending habits from ownerships which cry foul when they spend beyond profitability, look for loopholes in there own system to spend beyond means and the NHL's policy of promoting a league in a non hockey market which cannot sustain a profitable team. Then when they cant right there own ship they look to the players who did not design the system, but on there backs have elevated the game to the most profitable it has ever been. Those same players are being paid at market value. 108 of them now play oversee's for in the KHL's case 65% or better of the commited NHL contract value and pay no taxes. These same players sign at market value are now being demanded to rollback wages to prop up teams which have no business being located in non hockey markets and have no control how the wage reduction, which is the players pool of money, will be allocated to save these struggling franchises.
Its like me blaming the credit card company for me spending from my credit and going beyond my means, during a time when I cannot pay my bills due to a poor job market. Its up to me, not people who work for me to pay my bills and if I have to relocate to a profitable market for employment to pay my bills, it is not the credit card companys fault. Would I try to lower my bills during this time, absolutely. But in the case of a players contract, you sign with the expectation that your employer will honour the contract. If you dont want to honour a guaranteed contracts, then institute a non guarantee clause. If the owner/GM is unhappy with the contract value return, either party can propose arbitration or terminate. I think the player should receive partial compensation for a breach of contract and become a unrestricted free agent. But then dont cry foul if you lose the rights to the player. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 10/04/2012 : 12:34:56
|
As it relates "to propping up teams which have no business in being non-hockey markets," there are probably a half dozen teams (cities) which are not good hockey markets. Markets which will always lose money, markets which either don't draw enough fans, or give their tickets away. Teams which really can't make money, except if by miracle, they win a Stanley Cup, or a bunch Canadians move to these markets. :)
And one can say that there are 2-3 good hockey markets in Canada which deserve (and can support) an NHL team, but this still leaves the NHL 3-4 teams short of a strong 30 teams.
Most hockey fans would prefer contraction in the NHL (removing teams from dead markets), because the level of play would be better. If you removed the bottom 10% or 20% of players, the level of play is only going to improve.
The players are not interested in reducing the number of teams in the NHL though. They are a united brotherhood, and their goal is to protect the best interests of all members in the NHLPA.
And the NHL is not interested in reducing the number of teams either. Conversely, they would rather keep a team like Phoenix going, and if there are other markets who deserve a team (i.e. Quebec City or Hamilton), the NHL would rather charge a $100 million fee (or more) for a new franchise, and increase the number of teams in the NHL from 30 to 32.
Once again, not the best thing for fans (except for those in the new markets), because more NHL teams dilutes the level of play.
So the question to the players could/should be: Are you willing to roll back your wages to help teams (and your fellow players) in weak hockey markets? And if so, to what extent?
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2012 : 13:23:28
|
I agree with Guest4178 here - Joshua, you can blame the owners and NHL for expanding into unprofitable markets and trying to make it work, but the reality is the NHLPA wants those markets as badly as the NHL does. if we contract the bottom 10 revenue teams in the NHL, that means the NHLPA loses about 1/3 of its workforce. What union is going to agree to something where 1/3 of its membership is out of a job?
So, you have an NHL where there are money makers, and money losers, all playing in the same league by a set of rules that are designed to even the playing field as much as possible. Because the league is highly competitive (all 30 teams want to win), teams with less have to find creative ways to improve themselves - and they therefore bend the rules as much as they can to do so. Because of this same competitiveness, every team picks up on these bends and adopts them to the nth degree.
I think we can all agree (owners, players, fans) that there has been way too much rule bending under this CBA, and loopholes that exist need to be removed. I don't think its fair of you to slam the owners for making a bad deal, and then slamming them again for wanting to fix it. The NHL is by nature highly competitive at an ownership level - they all want to win and they'll do whatever they can, within the rules, to win. They literally need to save themselves from themselves for the good of the league, and I am glad they're taking steps to do so. |
|
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2012 : 13:49:02
|
Ok games got cancelled today, but some teams got less or more games cancelled than others(82 games means an average of 5.5 games per team got cancelled, this obviously cant be equal) .
So then how would they fix this, or would they just let it slide? |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 10/05/2012 : 08:29:52
|
Sahis – don't worry about the difference in number of games cancelled per team. The "two weeks" of cancelled games is just a figure. If the season were to start two weeks after its original start date (it would be a miracle actually), the NHL will balance out the number of games to be equal for every team.
As it relates to the two weeks of lost games, I heard the players' stake is $120 million. At $240 million in lost wages per month, that's a lot of money to give up.
For those players (a believe it's now over a hundred) who are playing overseas, the can make up some (emphasis on some) of the wages they are losing.
But most players are not playing overseas, or replacing any portion of their lost earnings. I wonder how they feel about the number of players going overseas?
And I wonder how many team reps have gone overseas? And if so, how their teammates feel about this? The players (and the NHLPA) are portraying a united front, but I maintain that they will be the first side to blink.
|
|
|
|
Guest4233
( )
|
Posted - 10/06/2012 : 07:45:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
So, you have an NHL where there are money makers, and money losers, all playing in the same league by a set of rules that are designed to even the playing field as much as possible. Because the league is highly competitive (all 30 teams want to win), teams with less have to find creative ways to improve themselves - and they therefore bend the rules as much as they can to do so. Because of this same competitiveness, every team picks up on these bends and adopts them to the nth degree.
I think we can all agree (owners, players, fans) that there has been way too much rule bending under this CBA, and loopholes that exist need to be removed. I don't think its fair of you to slam the owners for making a bad deal, and then slamming them again for wanting to fix it. The NHL is by nature highly competitive at an ownership level - they all want to win and they'll do whatever they can, within the rules, to win. They literally need to save themselves from themselves for the good of the league, and I am glad they're taking steps to do so.
The owners screwed themselves over by competing with each other by signing unsustainable contracts. So they want to fix it, fine with me. But why impact the players? The CBA should just limit the ability of owners to sign stupid contracts and not roll back salaries. Step out of line and whack the owner with a massive fine, something serious like the value of the contract of the signed player or reduction of the teams cap by the players cap.
The basis of the previous CBA is pretty good. Limit the ability to sign $100M contracts for 100 yrs type contracts (ahem Parise, Suter, Kovalchuk, Weber) and you are good to go. Why ask the players to take a 17% roll back? Why suddenly bring back the cap to 43% of HRR? Why change the definition of HRR to make it lower than before?
Slowly bring the cap to to 50% in 4 yrs. But sign a 8 yr CBA. Everybody gets to adjust to the new environment. For contracts longer than 3yrs, the cap hit is the average of the highest paying 3 yrs.
If you lose money because you make a bad investment, don't blame the investment, blame yourself for making the investment. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2012 : 15:34:31
|
I think if the owners withdrew the expectation of an immediate rollback and offered a HRR spilt which gradually lowered the splitthat ended at 50/50 I would likely support there point of view. I would like to see a longer CBA agreement and a maximum term for contracts at a 5 year length. I would even like those terms on existing contracts. Longer than 5 years really can hurt a team. A team will not always do whats best for itself. I also would like to have the players have a say where the money save should go. As far as being in it for the benifit of the sport and wanting to maintain health franchises, I trust the players more than I trust a bunch of have team billionaires trying to cash in during the CBA for trying to help the have not billionaires
The rollback and the steap discount at an unreasonable HRR split they want to receive now is why I do not support their position. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2012 : 05:18:14
|
I have been reading through this thread quite a bit and following the lock out and updates as best I can and more and more I get the sense that people are begining to support the owners in this conflict. Although I understand and want to agree with a lot of the points made by various people including Beans I still can change my mind a a few points that are very very bias towards the players,
- The owners preach poverty and throughout negociations leading up untill september 15th they handed out the same huge contracts they are trying to get rolled back, this irks me,
- Boyle's comments about how 8 owners are all it takes to vito any offer made by the players irks me, how many owners really want this lock out? are their just 9 or 10 teams that are holding the negociations back?
- As much as some players comments we re dumb their were some valid points, Why would Ovetchkin come back to the NHL at a reduced salary? The caps knew what they were doing when they gave Ovie that money, and Ovie has made the Capitals a whole heck of a lot more then they are giving back in Salary, We are currently negociating a new contract with my employer and their is no way my salary should go down, espcially if revenu is up since the last contract was negociated.
- 57% does not seem all that high to me, in fact it seems low, I couldnt care less for the logo on the front of the shirts i drop big Money to see the product and i would rather see the product make money then the owners, I may be wrong but what i understand is these are the profits being split up so the owners 43% is money in their pocket.
Thats just my simpletončs view of what is going on, and i will admit it at that when it comes to thes matters i am just that a simpleton but its how I see things
Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
|
Edited by - Pasty7 on 10/07/2012 05:22:41 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2012 : 23:47:39
|
So a few years back, my employer locked me out of my job, due to an impasse in contract negotiations that had neither of us budging on our wants. I stayed off work for a year, but came back with significantly less than what I was looking for, but bowing to the employers' stipulations in a contract that got me back to work making widgets.
Months ago, the employer came back and said that we should start talking about the next contract right away, well before the end of the existing contract, get it out of the way so to speak. I was pretty sure the talks would not be to my advantage, so I opted to not talk earlier, but wait until closer to contract expiration to talk and make sure I wasn't giving in too soon.
Lo and behold, the same contract that I gave in to a few years ago, now wasn't sitting right with the employer, even though he got most of what he wanted in that contract.
I asked the employer, are we losing money as a widget business? to which he said no, actually we almost doubled our revenues since that last contract that I wanted, but he felt that now, that contract was too gratuitous in my favor, and he wasn't getting a big enough chunk of that almost doubled revenue pool.
He also said, in order to keep making widgets, I would have to make concessions costing me money I am already making, to continue to make widgets. Not because widget revenue was down, but because he wanted to change the contract now.
I said I would be happy to continue to make widgets and revenue would continue to be made and we could work on a mutually agreeable deal while the world of widgets continues.
He said no, I want a new deal by Sept 15 or there would be no widgets made. I said that doesn't really make sense for me to give in to that ultimatum, if we already have a contract, that not only keeps me in the moolah, but also allows me to continue to make those revenue generating widgets.
He locked me out, boy am I ever being unreasonable, because I want to at least try and maintain the money I have been making for the widget company that has seen revenues almost double. I must be stupid.
The employer says I have to make these concessions for the widget company to survive, that he is the one who puts up all the risk. He is the one who HAS to pay me and my coworkers all this money, that he not only agreed, but offered, to pay me. He says that structure of how he is paying us employees will not allow him to sustain a profitable widget business, even though he was the inititiator of the structure. Now I must not only be stupid, but confused as well.
I sure hope there isn't a Russian Widget company looking to corner the widget market. Bill Hunter must be chuckling up in hockey heaven right now.
I guess this tells you where I stand on this whole fiasco! |
|
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2012 : 16:45:14
|
Nicely done, FER. And now we wait, while Beans mounts a defense for the commish. What do you sell, Beans? We all sell something.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2013. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2012 : 16:49:42
|
To any and all poster who are pro players.
Revenue and Profit are two very different things. Revenue is the money made before expenses are paid. Profit is the money left over after all the expenses are paid.
The players currently have 57% of the revenue. It's leaves 43% of the money for the owners to pay all expenses (including things like travel costs, medical costs, equipment, per diems, et al for the players above and beyond their wages) and try to make a profit.
Take a look at this post and pay close attention to the operating incomes of these teams. There are only 12 NHL teams that made a profit last year. 12 of 30. Are the owners supposed to be happy with losing money?
http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/
Give your head a shake. 57% of revenues is absurd. Plainly and simply absurd. Every other pro sport is a 50/50 split or very close to it.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2012 : 18:34:40
|
Hey FER, you missed a paragraph in your story. Let me put it together for you:
The widgets you make command a price in the market of $1 each. You getpaid 57 cents for every widget you make and the costs of running the factory and getting the raw materials for the widgets costs around 43 cents. The widget factory owner is unhappy about putting all his money forward to make the widgets and not getting anything in return. You get paid, the widget users have a quality product to use, but the guy who owns the factory doesn't make any money.
Make sure you put both sides of the story together, not just one side.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2012 : 05:48:22
|
Wow, that is an absolutely terrible analogy. You brothers with an NHL player or something, FER? Goodness.
I believe you left out . . . oh, like a dozen salient points in your analogy . . . to whit:
quote:
So a few years back, my employer locked me out of my job, due to an impasse in contract negotiations that had neither of us budging on our wants.
(I wanted to keep getting the amazing exponentially rising millionaire salary, while my employer wanted to somewhat cap that salary)
quote:
I stayed off work for a year, but came back with significantly less than what I was looking for, but bowing to the employers' stipulations in a contract that got me back to work making widgets.
Let's be frank - I was not making anything of worth actually, I was performing a circus act with the widgets that people paid to come see. And, I along with most other widget jugglers actually went off to Europe and Russia to continue to get paid for widget juggling . . . it was less than the crazy amounts of moneny I was used to before, but still enough to keep paying the mortgage off on my million dollar mansion. At any rate, it wasn't like I was standing outside an arena holding a placard beside a burning drum, lol.
Yes, eventually we conceded to the salary cap, but we also squeezed in a sliding scale for revenue sharing at the same time, getting a decent amount of money back that way.
quote:
Months ago, the employer came back and said that we should start talking about the next contract right away, well before the end of the existing contract, get it out of the way so to speak. I was pretty sure the talks would not be to my advantage, so I opted to not talk earlier, but wait until closer to contract expiration to talk and make sure I wasn't giving in too soon.
quote:
Lo and behold, the same contract that I gave in to a few years ago, now wasn't sitting right with the employer, even though he got most of what he wanted in that contract.
Well, he got most of what he wanted last time . . . except that economic times had changed now, and most (a large majority) of american teams were now losing money, while we players continued to rake in huge salaries with guaranteed contracts.
quote:
I asked the employer, are we losing money as a widget business? to which he said no, actually we almost doubled our revenues since that last contract that I wanted, but he felt that now, that contract was too gratuitous in my favor, and he wasn't getting a big enough chunk of that almost doubled revenue pool.
Well, I sort of fudged that last part . . . making it seem as if my employer was making an even bigger PROFIT. He wasn't. In fact, most of the owners of widget juggling teams were losing money, and in fact, one team hadn't had an owner for 2 years! And a half dozen were playing to near empty arenas (no love for widget juggling in those parts) while taking huge losses as a franchise. Don't worry though, remember - we have guaranteed contracts as players ;)
quote:
He also said, in order to keep making widgets, I would have to make concessions costing me money I am already making, to continue to make widgets. Not because widget revenue was down, but because he wanted to change the contract now.
Of course, what I meant to say is, my employer wanted me to continue to make outrageous money for widget juggling, but wanted to reduce the huge bonus share I was getting - I was actually also getting a share of revenues (not even profit - pretty snappy, eh?). And, he wanted to reduce contract length, to tighten up a loophole that had been there to be abused. And my employer wanted to do all that because 2/3 of the league basically wasn't making money, or, they were losing money as a franchise.
quote:
I said I would be happy to continue to make widgets and revenue would continue to be made and we could work on a mutually agreeable deal while the world of widgets continues.
Of course that's what I said . . . what did I care if under the current system those widget juggling franchise owners were losing millions of dollars. Did I mention the words GUARANTEED CONTRACT yet? 
quote:
He said no, I want a new deal by Sept 15 or there would be no widgets made. I said that doesn't really make sense for me to give in to that ultimatum, if we already have a contract, that not only keeps me in the moolah, but also allows me to continue to make those revenue generating widgets.
Of course it didn't make sense for me . . . unless I had the forethought to imagine a world where because of the economic consequences of a long lock-out, the widget juggling league lost a bunch of teams/franchises, and thus, a bunch of my fellow players would lose their jobs. But no worries . . . did I mention guaranteed contracts?
quote:
He locked me out, boy am I ever being unreasonable, because I want to at least try and maintain the money I have been making for the widget company that has seen revenues almost double. I must be stupid.
And in short, I probably am just greedy. Greedy and short sighted. And of course, it's easy for me to be self-righteous about keeping my guaranteed contract, guaranteed slice of the revenue, while now pretending to be on "strike" making some money in Europe. It's sort of like a long vacation over here, frankly, and the wife and kids love it!
quote:
The employer says I have to make these concessions for the widget company to survive, that he is the one who puts up all the risk. He is the one who HAS to pay me and my coworkers all this money, that he not only agreed, but offered, to pay me.
That's if you are imagining that things haven't changed at all since 2004 . . . and they have, of course.
quote:
He says that structure of how he is paying us employees will not allow him to sustain a profitable widget business, even though he was the inititiator of the structure. Now I must not only be stupid, but confused as well.
Yep, I sure must be. How else to explain that I can't see that with the american economy going to the dogs, and with nearly a third of all the widget juggling franchises unsustainable, that I shouldn't be prepared to take a more reasonable revenue sharing percentage, so that with my guaranteed millions and my guaranteed extra bonus cash from the revenue sharing, that the owner of the franchise might be - MIGHT BE - able to make a tiny sliver of profit from an absolutely enormous investment.
quote:
I sure hope there isn't a Russian Widget company looking to corner the widget market. Bill Hunter must be chuckling up in hockey heaven right now.
Well, now that I think of it, it's sorta funny to say that out loud . . . seeing as I am now in Magnatarosk playing for that Russian widget company, taking a haircut but still making a mil or two while being on strike. Oh, those greedy owners!  Ha ha, just joking . . . suckas!
I guess that tells YOU where I stand on the subject. And, FER, you know I got zero love for The Count, so don't even go there.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2012 : 08:59:48
|
I will agree my story to be a bit over the top, but the base of the analogy is the same, the owners are demanding, yes demanding, hence, a lockout, that the players give back, period.
I did not say anywhere, and I don't disagree that's it's a necessity for the future of the owners' financial stabilities as team owners, to do so, and get to that 50/50 split that is indeed equitable.
The thorn in my side about the whole thing, is my perceived heavy handedness by the owners group as to how it was handled. Yes, they gave notice to the players that there would be a lockout if they didn't have a new deal in place by Sept 15, but in the players' defense, they still had a valid contract in place until that date.
Perhaps I am being a wee bit Polyanna about their process, but that's twice now that the players have been locked out, and that just seems bullyish to me. Had they continued the process past Sept. 15, to when the players contract was due, that would have put all the pressure on the NHLPA, and I would wonder if a deal would not have been closer than it is now. I for one, would have no support for a union, using their previous contract for leverage, any more than I would an owners group using lockout threats as theirs.
The owners and by extension their general managers, caused their own troubles, both with rising player salaries, and allowing non viable teams to exist in non markets, and unfortunately they are trying to blame the players for their errors, again, my perception only.
I would love to see both sides work out a deal that is equitable for all, but until the owners are willing to accept their responsibilities for their own troubles, and stop blaming everything else, I am having trouble drumming up sympathies. A deal being worked on in earnest, while allowing the games to continue, would show all the right signs to me as a fan.
Economic downturn? Absolutely, Why then sign, what, 3, 100-million dollar contracts this summer, with bonus loaded incentives? To stay competitive? To not lose those assets?
Sounds like some owners are trying to play both sides, complain about the current situation, and yet still contribute to it, and the only way they seem to know how stop shooting themselves in the feet, is to stop everything, and be damned with the game.
I agree with all your points Beans and Slozo, and most of those points have been discussed in numerous threads previously, regarding player salaries, lose money markets, etc. It's just seems that in those threads, the players were never mentioned as responsible participants, the owners were, and to allude to my story, still are to blame for this. I do agree the players do have to make concessions to get the financial part of the game back in line, I just think the owners using a lockout every time to get these concessions is getting old. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2012 : 09:13:04
|
Beans and Slozo, I understand your points and you are right the owners have to be able to make a profit to sustain the league but who's fault is it the owners are not makeing money? Is it the 7% extra of revenu the players are getting or is it maybe mis management of these franchise's? The owners continued to hand out some hefty contracts in the days leading up to the lock-out,
how come the N.Y Islanders can't turn a profit, they are a storied franchise in a big city (I know they are on long Island which still has a greater population than Montreal and Ottawa) maybe the owners should cut the slaries of thier marketing department instead?
How about the Pittsburgh Penguins this is a franchise on the brink of moving, along comes a player or product and they market the hell out of it and they have brought their franchise back and are now almost makeing a profit, Something tells me they have made a lot more money off the names Crosby, Malkin then either individual player has.
The Wild have sold out every game in franchise history was a stat that came back a couple years ago, with that kind of fan base someone working in their front office is doing a pretty lousy job if they are loseing money, I don't think this is the players 7% the Wild should be makeing money regardless. Oh and I won't bring up the contracts they handed out this season.
How is it the fault of the players Columbus is loseing so much money? Management has failed to ice a playoff team in every year of their existence save 1, and Management has had multiple top 10 first round picks and have done a very poor job of developping them, maybe this has contributed to their loss in revenu more than the 7% players are getting?
The Dallas stars havn't lost very much given their a southern team that hasn't been very good in recent years, but what has management done? drafted well and not handed out ridiculous contracts.
All I'm saying is the 7% of revenu is not going to bring most if any of these team out of the red, and from what i understand the players have been trying to present a better revenue sharing process between the NHL teams and what the NHL has presented is the current system with a rollback in player revenu and players salary. To me that will have us in the same place next time around,
again i could be wrong just how i see things
|
Edited by - Pasty7 on 10/09/2012 09:13:37 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2012 : 10:41:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
I will agree my story to be a bit over the top, but the base of the analogy is the same, the owners are demanding, yes demanding, hence, a lockout, that the players give back, period.
I did not say anywhere, and I don't disagree that's it's a necessity for the future of the owners' financial stabilities as team owners, to do so, and get to that 50/50 split that is indeed equitable.
The thorn in my side about the whole thing, is my perceived heavy handedness by the owners group as to how it was handled. Yes, they gave notice to the players that there would be a lockout if they didn't have a new deal in place by Sept 15, but in the players' defense, they still had a valid contract in place until that date.
Perhaps I am being a wee bit Polyanna about their process, but that's twice now that the players have been locked out, and that just seems bullyish to me. Had they continued the process past Sept. 15, to when the players contract was due, that would have put all the pressure on the NHLPA, and I would wonder if a deal would not have been closer than it is now. I for one, would have no support for a union, using their previous contract for leverage, any more than I would an owners group using lockout threats as theirs.
The owners and by extension their general managers, caused their own troubles, both with rising player salaries, and allowing non viable teams to exist in non markets, and unfortunately they are trying to blame the players for their errors, again, my perception only.
I would love to see both sides work out a deal that is equitable for all, but until the owners are willing to accept their responsibilities for their own troubles, and stop blaming everything else, I am having trouble drumming up sympathies. A deal being worked on in earnest, while allowing the games to continue, would show all the right signs to me as a fan.
Economic downturn? Absolutely, Why then sign, what, 3, 100-million dollar contracts this summer, with bonus loaded incentives? To stay competitive? To not lose those assets?
Sounds like some owners are trying to play both sides, complain about the current situation, and yet still contribute to it, and the only way they seem to know how stop shooting themselves in the feet, is to stop everything, and be damned with the game.
I agree with all your points Beans and Slozo, and most of those points have been discussed in numerous threads previously, regarding player salaries, lose money markets, etc. It's just seems that in those threads, the players were never mentioned as responsible participants, the owners were, and to allude to my story, still are to blame for this. I do agree the players do have to make concessions to get the financial part of the game back in line, I just think the owners using a lockout every time to get these concessions is getting old.
Well, that is actually an awesome reply FER, much appreciated.
And I agree that the owners have a lot to do with everything here . . . they have agreed to bad deals, then realised too late that they are bad deals. And they are not all very good at managing money, far from it, for sure. And using a lockout to constantly get what you want is old, for sure - all god points.
I just still hold the opinion that, in an imperfect world full of imperfect people, even with the Evil Count commissioner on the owner's side, that the players are the ones with the sweet deal, whining about having to take "bonus pay paycut" while still continuing to get massive, guaranteed paycheques.
But your points are all well noted, and for the most part, I agree with what you've said as well.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2012 : 10:59:53
|
Do the math. It's pretty simple:
$3.3 billion in revenues.
Current Revenue Share at 57% = $1.88 billion
Revised Revenue Share at 50% = 1.65 billion
Difference = $230 million
The $230 million, evenly split between the 30 teams, means a little less than $8 million per team. That also means that 12 of the 18 money losing teams last year would either turn a profit or at least break even.
And yes Pasty, it is each teams responsibility to run their own business to turn a profit. However, they all have to be on a level playing field to start with. How can San Jose, with their Western TV market and significantly higher travel costs compete with Buffalo with a better TV market and far lower travel costs??
Some things are even out of the owners control.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2012 : 10:59:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
Beans and Slozo, I understand your points and you are right the owners have to be able to make a profit to sustain the league but who's fault is it the owners are not makeing money? Is it the 7% extra of revenu the players are getting or is it maybe mis management of these franchise's? The owners continued to hand out some hefty contracts in the days leading up to the lock-out,
how come the N.Y Islanders can't turn a profit, they are a storied franchise in a big city (I know they are on long Island which still has a greater population than Montreal and Ottawa) maybe the owners should cut the slaries of thier marketing department instead?
How about the Pittsburgh Penguins this is a franchise on the brink of moving, along comes a player or product and they market the hell out of it and they have brought their franchise back and are now almost makeing a profit, Something tells me they have made a lot more money off the names Crosby, Malkin then either individual player has.
The Wild have sold out every game in franchise history was a stat that came back a couple years ago, with that kind of fan base someone working in their front office is doing a pretty lousy job if they are loseing money, I don't think this is the players 7% the Wild should be makeing money regardless. Oh and I won't bring up the contracts they handed out this season.
How is it the fault of the players Columbus is loseing so much money? Management has failed to ice a playoff team in every year of their existence save 1, and Management has had multiple top 10 first round picks and have done a very poor job of developping them, maybe this has contributed to their loss in revenu more than the 7% players are getting?
The Dallas stars havn't lost very much given their a southern team that hasn't been very good in recent years, but what has management done? drafted well and not handed out ridiculous contracts.
All I'm saying is the 7% of revenu is not going to bring most if any of these team out of the red, and from what i understand the players have been trying to present a better revenue sharing process between the NHL teams and what the NHL has presented is the current system with a rollback in player revenu and players salary. To me that will have us in the same place next time around,
again i could be wrong just how i see things
Well, everyone (especially on the player's union side) is pointing at the Minnesota signings, but it's all quite simple to follow, really. One has to remember, that just because Minnesota is largely selling out, doesn't mean they can't sell more merchandise. And, when and if they make the playoffs and make a run, it doesn't mean they can't try and make a huge profit by getting to the second round (playoff games are essentially a financial top-up).
Why wouldn't a "backwoods" NHL teams with one of the few american franchises having a very solid fanbase go for broke while they still can? If they hadn't offered those long and huge contracts . . . odds are, they wouldn't have gotten those players. And then they miss the playoffs again in all probability. Sure, they spent a ton of money, but . . . they are guaranteed to make a record haul with ne Parise and Suter jersey sales, and the whole "hometown boys come home" marketing campaign. And, it does give them an awesome chnce at the playoffs again, no doubt.
In reality, even if they disagree with the rules, or know that the rules are flawed . . . why wouldn't they exploit it to their own advantage to remain competetive and actually compete for the cup? If I was an owner, I know I wouldn't sit back, hoping for some miracle rookie to appear out of nowhere, or hoping that 5 of my top players all have magical career seasons at once.
So I find it a flawed argument to point at some of these long-term signings by GMs.
And yes, in Minnesota's case, that 7% DOES, indeed, make it a profitable franchise.
The Islanders are in a brutally saturated market, and they have never had a very strong fanbase, disregarding the dynasty they had that certainly muddies the waters.
Pittsburgh could barely finish paying Mario . . . dude, to even suggest that franchise has made a FRACTION of what Sidney Crosby has made is hilarious. Mario Lemiuex bought out what was owing to him, THAT'S why the franchise is still there, ha ha. Do your research, my man, I lived through that era.
I think that 7% will go a LONG WAY to making the league WAY more sustainable. No, it won't solve all problems, but . . . to really solve all the problems, you'd have to cut the league down by about 8 or 10 teams, OR, bring down player salaries to a 5 or 6 mil/year max and cap the crap out of it. And of course, that is never, ever going to happen.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2012 : 13:21:59
|
so you don't think that the pens have made more than 38 550 000$ of marketing Sidney Crosby's name? given they probably would have gone bankrupt and lost the franchise without him, I'd say its laughable to think otherwise.
Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2012 : 05:42:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
so you don't think that the pens have made more than 38 550 000$ of marketing Sidney Crosby's name? given they probably would have gone bankrupt and lost the franchise without him, I'd say its laughable to think otherwise.
Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
You mean, do I think the Penguins organisation/franchise has made a PROFIT of over 38 million, after paying off debts and minus operating expenses?
No, I in fact know they have not.
The whole reason Crosby has marketted up the wazoo is that if he hadn't, the Penguins franchise wouldn't exist anymore - even with multiple MVP winner Malkin on the team.
The whole time, I am trying to talk about PROFIT - you know, like when a player makes a guaranteed salary? You know players don't even have to buy their own equipment, for crissakes . . . they make millions, and literally have to pay for nothing - hotels, plane rides, equipment - all paid for.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2012 : 09:48:32
|
Slozo, don't forget about the per diems, the moving expenses if a player is traded, and that cushy pension plan that players get. A player in a few as 160 NHL regular season games is afforded a pension. A player with more than 400 games gets a pension that is substantially better than what any of us will ever see. Granted, 1/4 of that is funded by the NHLPA. The other 75% comes from the clubs.
So, not only do these guys get millions to play hockey, the literally pay for nothing associated with their profession.
The owners pay for all of that, but if they ask for a reasonable profit they are greed billionaire. Gross.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2012 : 10:27:47
|
I do agree guys, that players have all those advantages, but let's not focus on that as them being 'bad guys' in this dispute.
As far as I know, contracts are mutual, salary, guarantees, working provisions, bonuses, etc. It takes two to tangle in other words, the GMs/Owners sign off on these contracts and their stipulations.
Per diems, hotels, meals, etc. are not that indifferent than any other business, when an employee travels for the company, I know I, and I am sure most others who are employed by a company, are not paying for their own hotels, meals, travel expenses etc., when traveling on company business.
Again, I agree there needs to be concessions made by the players to ensure there is profit made for the owners who do indeed take all the financial hits for these operating costs, but I am uncomfortable putting the bulk of that on the players.
It's always difficult to make comparisons to how we see business, as there are very few similar correlations to 'our' world versus theirs. As stated, let's get the split to 50-50 and get the games going! |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/10/2012 : 10:57:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
You mean, do I think the Penguins organisation/franchise has made a PROFIT of over 38 million, after paying off debts and minus operating expenses?
No, I in fact know they have not.
I know that the Penguins have made more money because of the Sid, Malkin et al than without. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 05:52:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
I do agree guys, that players have all those advantages, but let's not focus on that as them being 'bad guys' in this dispute.
As far as I know, contracts are mutual, salary, guarantees, working provisions, bonuses, etc. It takes two to tangle in other words, the GMs/Owners sign off on these contracts and their stipulations.
Per diems, hotels, meals, etc. are not that indifferent than any other business, when an employee travels for the company, I know I, and I am sure most others who are employed by a company, are not paying for their own hotels, meals, travel expenses etc., when traveling on company business.
Again, I agree there needs to be concessions made by the players to ensure there is profit made for the owners who do indeed take all the financial hits for these operating costs, but I am uncomfortable putting the bulk of that on the players.
It's always difficult to make comparisons to how we see business, as there are very few similar correlations to 'our' world versus theirs. As stated, let's get the split to 50-50 and get the games going!
Hey, I agree with all that - I was just pointing out that when comparing the two sides, it is apples and oranges, that's all. The players have zero operating expenses, the league has a tonne.
And I'm not going to paint either side as bad really . . . I only try to point out what I think are brutally dishonest statements by either side.
And . . . not sure how conceding less than ten percentage points on league revenue from the player's side somehow puts ANY onus on the players taking any kind of risk of losing oney whatsoever?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 06:39:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
And . . . not sure how conceding less than ten percentage points on league revenue from the player's side somehow puts ANY onus on the players taking any kind of risk of losing oney whatsoever?
If only they were taking a 7% cut to go down to 50-50. Nope the NHL wants to redefine HRR which brings the %tage even more likely to the 15% range.
The players take no risk at all? Tell that to Marc Savard, Derek Boogard and family and others. Most of these guys have no higher education, what the hell do they do when their career is finished on average in 6 years? Remember you are only seeing a very select few transition well from hockey to life after hockey. Most just suffer through the aches and pain that they gained from their 6 yrs of hockey. While the owners get fat on the backs of other players while suffering no physical pain in their golden palaces of the owner's booth for multiple decades. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 07:09:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
And . . . not sure how conceding less than ten percentage points on league revenue from the player's side somehow puts ANY onus on the players taking any kind of risk of losing oney whatsoever?
If only they were taking a 7% cut to go down to 50-50. Nope the NHL wants to redefine HRR which brings the %tage even more likely to the 15% range.
The players take no risk at all? Tell that to Marc Savard, Derek Boogard and family and others. Most of these guys have no higher education, what the hell do they do when their career is finished on average in 6 years? Remember you are only seeing a very select few transition well from hockey to life after hockey. Most just suffer through the aches and pain that they gained from their 6 yrs of hockey. While the owners get fat on the backs of other players while suffering no physical pain in their golden palaces of the owner's booth for multiple decades.
No FINANCIAL risk.
Of course they take a physical risk . . . as does anyone in the farming industry who is scratching out a living, as do firemen and policemen, as do ll pro athletes. And they are more than well compensated for it . . . well beyond what would be considered "reasonable" when compared to "real" jobs, if you get my drift.
Let's put it this way: Every year in the NHL is like winning the lottery for us normal joes. Like winning the lottery, AND becoming famous enough to just make a bit of money on the side because you are famous.
How many years of winning the lottery would you need to retire for the rest of your life . . . while getting a great pension? 1year? 2 years?
That 6 year average career you talk about, at an AVERAGE NHL SALARY of 2.4 million (yahoo article, Nov 12, 2011) equals . . . 14.4 million.
Does 14.4 million in a short 6 career seem like something you could squeak by on?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 07:42:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Does 14.4 million in a short 6 career seem like something you could squeak by on?
Something I can squeak by with but then my family and I don't have to deal with what Boogard, Pronger or Savard and their family have to go through.
As of right now, no way in heck would I trade my current quality of life for theirs.
Though if they were my age, I would willingly trade it for the Jeremy Jacobs, James Dolan (via the MSG corp) and Ed Snider any day. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 08:49:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
Something I can squeak by with but then my family and I don't have to deal with what Boogard, Pronger or Savard and their family have to go through.
As of right now, no way in heck would I trade my current quality of life for theirs.
Though if they were my age, I would willingly trade it for the Jeremy Jacobs, James Dolan (via the MSG corp) and Ed Snider any day.
For every Boogard/Pronger/Savard, there are many more Sundin's, Naslund's, Niedermayer's... the vast majority of NHL players go on to lead regular lives after their NHL careers are over. With huge bank accounts as well. Players going into the NHL know full well the physical risks of playing professional hockey. They happily accept it in exchange for massive amounts of money every year.
As slozo said, any industry has people that end up with health problems due to work, not just pro sports. All companies get rich off the backs of workers, but pay their employees a fair wage in the process. Why should NHL owners be treated any differently, or held to higher standards, than other industry owners?
|
Edited by - nuxfan on 10/11/2012 08:49:32 |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 11:39:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
As slozo said, any industry has people that end up with health problems due to work, not just pro sports. All companies get rich off the backs of workers, but pay their employees a fair wage in the process. Why should NHL owners be treated any differently, or held to higher standards, than other industry owners?
So what you and Slozo are saying then is that it is a society problem where we pay entertainers more money than the noble occupation of firefighter, law enforcement , doctors and surgeons (not counting those hollywood cosmetic doctors and surgeons who are part of the entertainment system), etc.
What you are arguing about is not a hockey problem. So who is ultimately responsible for paying the players and owners that much money? The fans.
If you were to compare hockey to any industry, compare it to Hollywood movie stars and see how NHL players are under paid in comparison. Remember someone like Cruise or Hanks gets about $20M+ per movie plus a percentage of the gross of the movie and other royalties and they make more than one movie a year. The cast of Friends at the end was getting $1M per episode plus royalties. NBC was giving bags of gold to Seinfeld to comeback for another year when he walked away. Even the voice characters for the Simpsons at last contract got $2M each per episode plus royalties and all they do is record their voices.
In any case we are moving away from the crux of the argument where it was said that the players take no risk. I think the players' risk is more than the immediate financial risk but also future health and standard of living (which comes at a big cost). Ultimately in the long run the players are exposed to more risk than the owners. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 13:06:06
|
....no FINANCIAL risk....
I apologize for intervening Slozo, but apparently the capitalization also needed a good solid bolding as well.....  |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 13:24:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
....no FINANCIAL risk....
I apologize for intervening Slozo, but apparently the capitalization also needed a good solid bolding as well.....
I think you and Slozo and others want to say no IMMEDIATE financial risk. Decreased future health and standard of living has a financial risk associated with it, that are not directly measurable.
What good is the millions now, if you can't walk for 5 minutes without getting dizzy, joint pains and migraine headaches. There is a cost associated with that don't you agree? |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 13:43:59
|
I agree, but that is not what the debate is about, the players are getting fair return for their risk.
I do however disagree that ...."you are only seeing a very select few transition well from hockey to life after hockey"...., statement though.
There are many more examples of players who have successfully transitioned to 'normal' life, unfortunately the spotlight has rightfully fallen on those who haven't. I say rightfully, as their issues are indeed issues that need to be addressed by the powers that be, but they are the exceptions in my opinion. I am pretty sure that for any name of a player that has had verified issues transitioning, one could provide 5 that didn't. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 19:10:43
|
Someone pointed out that NHL players are like lottery winners. Lets be honest here for a second. They dont win the lottery, the earn lottery pay and we as the fans pay to watch them play. We do not pay to watch the owners or Bettman during negotiations. If they get incredible pay its because they play incredibly well. I am not saying every NHL player is worth his salary, but let not call them all lucky. They are the best at what they do.
I would rather see superstars receive my money, than some tech guru, drug store king or oil baron billionaire make it on the back of these incredibly talented athletes. If I want Rogers to earn some of my money, I will sign up for cable, If I want Molson to earn some of my money I will buy some beer. The game is played on the ice not in some board room negotiating the CBA when Canadian hockey markets and traditional American hockey markets make money. I could care less that Hockey doesn't sell in Tampa and Pheonix. Move them to a market that allows them to make money. These yearly losses by the 2 or 3 worst run franchises can be erased in one year if they allowed relocation leaving the remaining teams which are close to break even or making huge gobs of money.
If someone told me right now that the NHLPA was organizing a lockout tournament and I could buy tickets to see 4 teams of NHL players play in Saskatoon or Inuvik, I would buy tickets and hop on a plane to see them play. If the Oilers told me they were gonna ice scab players for 82 games I would turn my nose up. I pay to see the best players playing the game, not to pad a billionaires pockets. |
Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 10/11/2012 19:15:17 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2012 : 02:33:04
|
But Joshua, who is it that pays all the bills and provides the ability for those very best players to entertain you? Where are the players today? Are they putting on exhibitions for you, the diehard fan? No,they are not. The younger payers are in the AHL or back to juniors, the lower level players are showing up at rinks and skating with kids.
But where are those superstars? They are either sitting at home doing nothing or they went to Europe to play, make money, and take a job from someone else.
You can say what ever you want about the owners but there is one simple fact that will be proven over time when the players eventually fold like lawn chairs:
Like it or not, the players need the owners a lot more than the owners need the players.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2012 : 08:41:01
|
I would rather see superstars receive my money, than some tech guru, drug store king or oil baron billionaire make it on the back of these incredibly talented athletes.
Just wanted to point something out on this comment.
You would be 100% correct if the owners were making money 'on the backs of these incredibly talented athletes', but that is not the case. Making a 3.8% return on their multi-billion dollar investment is comparable to putting thier money in a savings account.
The players are the only people in the relationship making money (some owner are, but more than 1/2 are losing money). The players would still be making substantial sums of money with a 50-50 agreement. But the owners would also make a fair and reasonable profit of around 7-8%. If the owner can not make money with a 50-50 split, that's their own problem. However, only 5 teams of the 30 teams today can make better than a 2% return on their investment. That does not even cover inflation.
The NHLPA talks all this garbage about 'win-win' situations. That does not mean players win-players win.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2012 CBA News and Comments 
