Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2012 Lockout Watch

cba lockout

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
905 replies to this topic

#341 drwscc

drwscc

    I drink your milkshake...I drink it up!!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,289 posts
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:20 PM

And the players *don't* want more money? They're being just as greedy as the owners here. I wish everyone would quit acting like the players are being altruistic, and are totally "just out for the fans." If that was the case, why not accept the initial deal? That would get a new CBA in place, and allow the season to start on time. The reason is, the players are greedy too. They see all that pie, and they want more of it than the other guys.

I don't expect them to care about me as a person. But any business should pay attention to its customers and their wants and needs.

The NHL is counting on the fact that its customers love hockey more than they hate the way they're being treated and will come crawling back to continue supporting a business that has little regard for them.


I didn't mean you as in you, just the general "you" that watches hockey. They don't care about the fans in general, because they don't have to. They know that the die hard fans will come back pretty much no matter what. How many changes were made after the last lockout that everyone was outraged about? Yet, league revenue has grown a ton. They won't take any notice or do anything good for fans because they don't have to. Not until they start experiencing some pain in the pocket book.
Faith is to believe what you do not yet see; the reward for this faith is to see what you believe.

I went to a doctor the other day, and all he did was suck blood out of my neck. Never go see Dr. Acula
- Mitch Hedberg

#342 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,874 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:23 PM

And the players *don't* want more money? They're being just as greedy as the owners here. I wish everyone would quit acting like the players are being altruistic, and are totally "just out for the fans." If that was the case, why not accept the initial deal? That would get a new CBA in place, and allow the season to start on time. The reason is, the players are greedy too. They see all that pie, and they want more of it than the other guys.

Who has said anything like that?

The reality is the owners are the ones saying they're still losing tons of money so they need to reduce their primary costs, players salaries. This is in spite of making massive amounts more revenue than in 2004.

Judging by the players proposal, they would be more than happy to stick with the current CBA. Instead the owners want to greatly rollback players percentage of hockey related revenue while also reducing the amount of money that is considered hockey related revenue.

Players aren't "in it for the fans." But they want to play hockey and they want their fair share of the money for bringing in billions of dollars for the owners.

I know people make the argument that millions of dollars they currently make is enough, but that's not really a realistic assessment. They are elite level talent and have a job that takes a high physical toll and risk on the their health. Yes they make great money doing it, but because $1 million is great money compared to what most of us make here, that doesn't mean they should just let owners take the rest. If you had an extremely specialized skill that generated billions of dollars in revenue, would you be okay with the owner of the company getting most of the revenue for your skill? Especially if your job was high risk?

Sorry, this ones more on ownership.

#343 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,605 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:26 PM

The owners are losing nothing.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#344 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,448 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:37 PM

Who has said anything like that?

The reality is the owners are the ones saying they're still losing tons of money so they need to reduce their primary costs, players salaries. This is in spite of making massive amounts more revenue than in 2004.

Judging by the players proposal, they would be more than happy to stick with the current CBA. Instead the owners want to greatly rollback players percentage of hockey related revenue while also reducing the amount of money that is considered hockey related revenue.

Players aren't "in it for the fans." But they want to play hockey and they want their fair share of the money for bringing in billions of dollars for the owners.

I know people make the argument that millions of dollars they currently make is enough, but that's not really a realistic assessment. They are elite level talent and have a job that takes a high physical toll and risk on the their health. Yes they make great money doing it, but because $1 million is great money compared to what most of us make here, that doesn't mean they should just let owners take the rest. If you had an extremely specialized skill that generated billions of dollars in revenue, would you be okay with the owner of the company getting most of the revenue for your skill? Especially if your job was high risk?

Sorry, this ones more on ownership.

Agreed. It would be silly to suggest the players or owners are not greedy. To be successful, you probably need to develop some form of greed. But it is clear the owners are looking for more money, I don't see that yet from the players. In fact, didn't their proposal reduce the amount of money currently coming their way? They are just trying to keep as much money as possible. They aren't trying to get more.

I have no problem with professional athletes making as much as they do. There are very, very, very few people in the world capable of doing what the do. If you look at almost any other profession, the very top people in their field are making millions. Fact is, the players generate billions in revenues, therefore, they should get a good chunk of that money....question is, how much?

I think the system needs to change. The current proposal from the league is fine, it will help the struggling franchises, but what happens when revenues increase dramatically again (largely driven by the good market teams)....increasing the cap floor again and putting those teams in trouble. The problem with the linkage to league revenues is that it assumes as league revenues grow, each teams' revenues grow at the same rate....which is definately not true. Some might say the solution to that would be to eliminate the floor, but that has 2 problems: 1) players won't like it because less money for them, but more importantly, 2) removes partity which the league was trying to get to as well.

The only solution that makes sense to me is revenue sharing, anything other solution that would help the smaller market teams would simply mean large chunks of money would come out of the players pockets and going into the pockets of the rich teams.

The richest teams in the league are much richer these days than they were 7 years ago, becuase their revenues grew a lot. The poor teams are in the same spot they were 7 years ago because the league revenues grew dramatically, but their didn't. If revenue was shared, there wouldn't be this problem.

#345 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,605 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:42 PM

From QuantHockey.com:

Average Length of an NHL Player Career


A typical career of an NHL player can be summarized with one word. Its short! Over half of all NHL players play less that 100 games during their career and for approximately 5 percent of players, their first NHL game is also their last. If we look at this from a different angle, long careers are extremely rare. Only 4 percent of players (that's 1 out of 25) dress up for more than 1000 games.





They have to get it while they can.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#346 hillbillywingsfan

hillbillywingsfan

    Awww poor butch

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,529 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:43 PM

Agreed. It would be silly to suggest the players or owners are not greedy. To be successful, you probably need to develop some form of greed. But it is clear the owners are looking for more money, I don't see that yet from the players. In fact, didn't their proposal reduce the amount of money currently coming their way? They are just trying to keep as much money as possible. They aren't trying to get more.

I have no problem with professional athletes making as much as they do. There are very, very, very few people in the world capable of doing what the do. If you look at almost any other profession, the very top people in their field are making millions. Fact is, the players generate billions in revenues, therefore, they should get a good chunk of that money....question is, how much?

I think the system needs to change. The current proposal from the league is fine, it will help the struggling franchises, but what happens when revenues increase dramatically again (largely driven by the good market teams)....increasing the cap floor again and putting those teams in trouble. The problem with the linkage to league revenues is that it assumes as league revenues grow, each teams' revenues grow at the same rate....which is definately not true. Some might say the solution to that would be to eliminate the floor, but that has 2 problems: 1) players won't like it because less money for them, but more importantly, 2) removes partity which the league was trying to get to as well.

The only solution that makes sense to me is revenue sharing, anything other solution that would help the smaller market teams would simply mean large chunks of money would come out of the players pockets and going into the pockets of the rich teams.

The richest teams in the league are much richer these days than they were 7 years ago, becuase their revenues grew a lot. The poor teams are in the same spot they were 7 years ago because the league revenues grew dramatically, but their didn't. If revenue was shared, there wouldn't be this problem.

Don't we already have revenue sharing? I mean I thougth Nashville was taking advantage of that since they been in the league. What I think a bigger revenue share would do is just more so hide the Owners that are tight wads that don't want to spend the money. If Nashvilles small market couldn't afford all those players they let go in the past then how come they just gave weber one of the biggest deals in franchise history and one of the biggest front loaded deal in all of the history of the nhl?

Edited by hillbillywingsfan, 17 August 2012 - 12:48 PM.

msg-10491-1258682020.jpg


I LIVE IN TEXAS SO I DON'T DESERVE HOCKEY

#347 Z Winged Dangler

Z Winged Dangler

    Part 3: Return of the Hammer Hands

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,182 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg, MB

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:55 PM

And the players *don't* want more money? They're being just as greedy as the owners here. I wish everyone would quit acting like the players are being altruistic, and are totally "just out for the fans." If that was the case, why not accept the initial deal? That would get a new CBA in place, and allow the season to start on time. The reason is, the players are greedy too. They see all that pie, and they want more of it than the other guys.



I didn't mean you as in you, just the general "you" that watches hockey. They don't care about the fans in general, because they don't have to. They know that the die hard fans will come back pretty much no matter what. How many changes were made after the last lockout that everyone was outraged about? Yet, league revenue has grown a ton. They won't take any notice or do anything good for fans because they don't have to. Not until they start experiencing some pain in the pocket book.

Guilty...I fit in with the bolded part. My feelings are still very hurt when thinking about the lockout hat-trick though. The only thing that makes me feel any better is that I will have witnessed 1 more Red Wings Cup win than lockout....4-3.

"I play hockey, but I am not very good.  Can someone please tell me what it would take to sign with the Wings ? I can use a million or two."  ~ arag


#348 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,874 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:57 PM

Don't we already have revenue sharing? I mean I thougth Nashville was taking advantage of that since they been in the league. What I think a bigger revenue share would do is just more so hide the Owners that are tight wads that don't want to spend the money. If Nashvilles small market couldn't afford all those players they let go in the past then how come they just gave weber one of the biggest deals in franchise history and one of the biggest front loaded deal in all of the history of the nhl?

They do, but apparently not enough.

Taking more and more money from the players is not really addressing the problem, which is the disparity among franchises. So it's either more revenue sharing, or letting some franchises fail (which seems unlikely).

#349 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 06:27 PM

I say if it really comes down to it, let them fail. These owners are all rich as hell so if they overspend and fail to get the franchise on track its not the players fault, it is their own damn fault and the dwarf is absolute idiot for not acknowledging that fact. Fehr played it pretty well, now the NHL has to fight the players and itself :-)

There is already revenue sharing if franchises still can 't cut it do something against it, if we end up with less but overall more profitable teams so be it. Funny how the NBA and NFL are always getting mentioned but not the MLB with the luxury tax which is a way better system of course. This is hockey not the NBA, NFL and MLB so who cares what they are doing? Only one guy the dwarf, why not let him be the commissioner of these leagues? Hockey would benefit a great deal from this.

Personally the NHL will lose me for some time if its comes to a lockout, even as die hard fans we need to show them we do care and won't tolerate this s*** every 5 or 8 years.

kftx.jpg

 

The Offseason of truth ...

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

blank cheque for The Captain or Jim Star Nil please..


#350 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,605 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 18 August 2012 - 07:04 AM

From Toronto Star:

Donald Fehr says he plans to speak with Gary Bettman by phone before the NHL’s collective bargaining negotiations resume next week.


On a conference call with reporters, the executive director of the NHL Players’ Association indicated that he hopes to have a discussion with the NHL commissioner over the weekend.



Like any good pizzeria, Uncle Gary will let it ring a few times; lets people think he's busy.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#351 predmonkee

predmonkee

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 59 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 11:27 AM

Gary B has to go. He's committed to taking two steps back everytime this league takes one step forward. The league deserves better. It needs someone who can think forward, be proactive, and stay ahead of the curve. The NHL is a potential goldmine and he keeps spinning his wheels in quicksand.

#352 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,569 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 18 August 2012 - 05:00 PM

I'm starting to think the NHLPA is being too accomodating. Sometimes you've got to be a hardass when negotiating. Playing nice only encourages the other guys to press harder.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#353 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,874 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 06:53 PM

From Hockey Memes twitter:

https://twitter.com/hockeymemes

Attached File  Weasel.png   277.5KB   13 downloads

#354 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 18 August 2012 - 07:31 PM

I'm starting to think the NHLPA is being too accomodating. Sometimes you've got to be a hardass when negotiating. Playing nice only encourages the other guys to press harder.


i think they're trying to go out of their way to be the good guys in the court of public opinion, hoping that the fans and media put pressure on the owners

#355 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 18 August 2012 - 08:16 PM

i think they're trying to go out of their way to be the good guys in the court of public opinion, hoping that the fans and media put pressure on the owners

Being good guys in the court of public opinion is fine and dandy, but if there is a lockout, the people who say who won't come back are going to hurt the players as much as the owners. This isn't a popularity contest. They should be working to get a deal done.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#356 Ally

Ally

    just figured out how to change my title

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 August 2012 - 11:15 PM

I want to be clear that I hate Bettman as much as any good hockey fan...
That being said, I don't like when everyone lets the blame fall solely on him. I think it must be a hard job to speak for a room of greedy men who want the players to pay for mishandled teams. Let the broke teams fail and this wouldn't happen so often.
The failing teams are like a gangrenous leg that you don't amputate. You know it's going to keep causing problems but you just had such high hopes for the leg that you can't let it go.
That analogy was terrible...sorry about that.

 
"Everything he does is exciting to watch.” -Holmstrom describes Datsyuk


#357 Cali-Wing-Nut

Cali-Wing-Nut

    Guppie Hunter

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 19 August 2012 - 12:35 AM

The big hangup from what I can tell are the Coyotes the Panthers and the other small market teams. They are getting murdered with the salary cap floor. While Det, Pitt, Van, Chi, Phi, NY ect are making massive profits, the small teams arent keeping up. Since it is easy to say that they should move the team to a bigger market, that has a much bigger affect and isnt all that easy.

I think the cap should be the same. I also think minimum salary should go up. Last I think the cap floor should drop. This will keep small teams from over paying players just to get above the cap floor. This will also contract the inflation in salaries because of the floor. More or less, if a player sees that some no name team is paying a top 40 defenseman top 20 pay because of the cap, the top 20 players are going to want pay that is exponetially higher. This has a circular affect that keeps feeding on its self and over time making the problem worse.

I also would like to see the teams being able to release players the same way as the NFL. If you get hurt, thats life, youre a millionaire that has a bad knee. No need to keep the player under contract if they cant play. Eaves is a perfect example for this, a great guy and good player but is dragging the finacials because he cant play but also cant be released. This is a bigger issue for teams with WAY less cash the DET.

Bettman needs to work it out, if he oversees another lockout I pray my wishes are fulfilled and he is sent packing. We dont need such an anti player commisioner.
I'M WRECKING SHOP!!!

#358 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:12 AM

This thread is so full of fail it's ridiculous. How many times does it have to be pointed out that Gary Bettman is a mouthpiece for the owners/BOG and is not working on his own. The owners tell him what they want and what to say, and he goes out and says it. Getting rid of the "dwarf" will not make anything better. You'll just get another mouthpiece for the owners, and the message will stay the same. The owners are going to push for what they want. It doesn't matter who delivers the message.


Maybe because the league is making more money than it ever has, and because revenues are increasing every year? Pay for performance, right?

Bettman is much more than just a mouthpiece for the owners and has more control and influence than any individual owner

I completely understand that, but like I said, until it happens there's really no need to be so reactionary about it.

It's happened twice already

#359 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:17 AM

I still can't believe that people here have had positive things to say about Bettman, he is the worst thing to ever happen to the game of hockey.
If it wasn't against the law... very slowly

Edited by Johnz96, 19 August 2012 - 02:02 AM.


#360 predmonkee

predmonkee

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 59 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:20 AM

I want to be clear that I hate Bettman as much as any good hockey fan...
That being said, I don't like when everyone lets the blame fall solely on him. I think it must be a hard job to speak for a room of greedy men who want the players to pay for mishandled teams. Let the broke teams fail and this wouldn't happen so often.
The failing teams are like a gangrenous leg that you don't amputate. You know it's going to keep causing problems but you just had such high hopes for the leg that you can't let it go.
That analogy was terrible...sorry about that.


Your right, it is a hard job. The problem with him is he just keeps making it harder and harder. The league needs someone who can handle it... Someone that is proactive enough to have seen this coming before it even got to this point. Think forward!





Similar Topics Collapse


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users