Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2012 Lockout Watch

cba lockout

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

#841 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Location:Minneapoilis, MN

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:01 AM

The players lack of willing to negotiate their share of 57% is a problem. You would think two parties could easily step in and say, meet in the middle? Why not 52%-48% in favor of the players? Then, the owners can give the players earlier unrestricted free agency. As you pointed out, the project growth of the NHL is pretty high. Why don't the players drop to 3%?


The way I understand it players are not willing to take an immediate pay cut. I think league can get a 50-50 deal if they move slowly toward that goal (no more that 1-2% a year) so that players get paid the amount what they have signed contract for.

#842 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,738 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:10 AM

The way I understand it players are not willing to take an immediate pay cut. I think league can get a 50-50 deal if they move slowly toward that goal (no more that 1-2% a year) so that players get paid the amount what they have signed contract for.

I believe the players don't need to take an immediate pay cut either. At the same time, both sides can give a little and they haven't. Why have two representatives in the same room when they don't want to negotiate in good faith? I can already imagine how the negotiations have gone so far.

Bettman: You should take a rollback in salaries, no arbitration, and limit on contracts.
Fehr: That isn't fair. We think the current system works. How about our share drops to 53% the first year, 55% the second year, and then back up to regular levels for the last 2 years of the deal?
Bettman: That isn't fair. Why don't you take our proposal?
Fehr: That isn't fair. Why don't you take our proposal?

Two weeks go by and its the same banter back and forth. Two reasonable people would have started looking at the big picture and drew up what they wanted and started giving a little in order to get things in other areas. Players give a little in their share, while owners give in unrestricted free agency is one example.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#843 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,867 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:14 AM

And they can't support their family with let's say a paycheck worth of the league minimum ($500K a year)?
Hell even I can support my family with 10% of that!

I can understand it is a principle matter, but the players should never play the victim card.
They should be lucky they're getting paid multiple millions a year just to play some game where even when they play horrible all season they still get paid fath checks.
There are doctors/surgeons out there who save people's lifes every day (sometimes they have to be in surgery 18 hours straight!)where they can not make a mistake without costing someone's life and they do not get paid like $6M a year!

Not saying that I am siding with the owners...a lockout is at fault of all parties involved!

I haven't heard any of the players play "the victim card."

Sidney Crosby of all people spoke pretty well regarding the matter, acknowledging the amount of money involved is kind of mind boggling but that there's principles involved.

I think it's important to remember is this that hockey is entertainment. Players are a very elite talent, most who have short careers, and are the stars that people pay money to see. It's about getting what they feel is their fair share of the billions of dollars in revenue generated by them playing the game.

#844 evilzyme

evilzyme

    Games a gongshow.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,094 posts
  • Location:Howell, Michigan

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:24 AM

I haven't heard any of the players play "the victim card."

Sidney Crosby of all people spoke pretty well regarding the matter, acknowledging the amount of money involved is kind of mind boggling but that there's principles involved.

I think it's important to remember is this that hockey is entertainment. Players are a very elite talent, most who have short careers, and are the stars that people pay money to see. It's about getting what they feel is their fair share of the billions of dollars in revenue generated by them playing the game.


this is one of the biggest things i don't understand from the owners point of view. congratulations, you invested and want to make money on your investment, you deserve and rate that. The players are the ones that are providing that entertainment, they are your employees, they are the ones having the endure the physical labor of a 82+ game season that is physically and mentally draining. they're the ones that have to spend time away from their families and live according to your franchise. you're not the one out there throwing the body around, you're not the one that some kid is idolizing, the fans that generate your paycheck came to see your employees not you.

Pavel Datsyuk - "Pasha" - #13
"Got no fun if you got no puck"
'"I like ladies" - Towards the Lady Byng trophy
"Hannnnnnnnnnk"
"Okay $5 now"

 

I'm Don Cherry and Danny DeKeyser is my Kadri.


#845 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:25 AM

I don't believe for a second that Bettman has that much power. The owners as a whole voted to lock the players out. I suppose you think that Bettman went up to the owners and raised their hands for them? Or are you saying that the owners didn't vote unanimously and Bettman is lying? I would assume that the players and Fehr have the same relationship. Fehr and the players say they are united, but I think its much less likely that every player voted to not give into the league and voted to stand their ground. The owners have told Bettman what they want, and Bettman is getting that for them. Same with Fehr.


I agree with this.

Bettman has told the owners what they want. I can't believe for 1 second that Illitch voted for it

#846 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,867 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:32 AM

this is one of the biggest things i don't understand from the owners point of view. congratulations, you invested and want to make money on your investment, you deserve and rate that. The players are the ones that are providing that entertainment, they are your employees, they are the ones having the endure the physical labor of a 82+ game season that is physically and mentally draining. they're the ones that have to spend time away from their families and live according to your franchise. you're not the one out there throwing the body around, you're not the one that some kid is idolizing, the fans that generate your paycheck came to see your employees not you.

I think the owners are grossly overestimating their position and are misplaying this badly.

As has been said, the NHL has seen a 50% increase in revenue under this last CBA. It made over a billion more dollars in 7 years! Because of the NBC deal, there were more games on tv than I can ever remember. A team in a huge but traditionally non-hockey market just won the Stanley Cup for the first time in its history.

In spite of that they make their outrageous proposal and have only taken baby steps off of it, pretty much guaranteeing a lockout, killing all the momentum the NHL has right now. It's like 1994 all over again.

#847 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,738 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:38 AM

Bettman has told the owners what they want. I can't believe for 1 second that Illitch voted for it

I guess that is a difference of opinion. Illitch is an outspoken guy. I believe he voted with every other owner to lockout the players. If he didn't like the situation, he would say something.

Illitch has plenty of reasons to vote lockout too. Make no mistake about it.

Edited by Nightfall, 14 September 2012 - 09:44 AM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#848 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,857 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 14 September 2012 - 11:20 AM

I guess that is a difference of opinion. Illitch is an outspoken guy. I believe he voted with every other owner to lockout the players. If he didn't like the situation, he would say something.

Illitch has plenty of reasons to vote lockout too. Make no mistake about it.


The owners are not allowed to publicly speak on the matter, but I'm with you on Illitch's vote. The owners of all 30 teams are looking at gaining millions of dollars in revenue by saying "lockout" instead of "start the season". As much as we like to think some of these guys are altruistic city and fan lovers (and maybe some of them are), but they're businessmen first and foremost and the bottom line is always the most important thing in business.

#849 esteef

esteef

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 8,874 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 11:51 AM

this is one of the biggest things i don't understand from the owners point of view. congratulations, you invested and want to make money on your investment, you deserve and rate that. The players are the ones that are providing that entertainment, they are your employees, they are the ones having the endure the physical labor of a 82+ game season that is physically and mentally draining. they're the ones that have to spend time away from their families and live according to your franchise. you're not the one out there throwing the body around, you're not the one that some kid is idolizing, the fans that generate your paycheck came to see your employees not you.


True, but the owners take all the financial risk. If things go bad, the players still get their money. The players wouldn't be stars to idolize if there were no owners investing money to provide a league. They both are taking risks, one is physical one is financial. I can see both sides.

esteef
"The Wings haven't won a Cup without Darren McCarty since 1955."

#850 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,738 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 14 September 2012 - 01:07 PM

The owners are not allowed to publicly speak on the matter, but I'm with you on Illitch's vote. The owners of all 30 teams are looking at gaining millions of dollars in revenue by saying "lockout" instead of "start the season". As much as we like to think some of these guys are altruistic city and fan lovers (and maybe some of them are), but they're businessmen first and foremost and the bottom line is always the most important thing in business.

I already know why Illitch voted yes.

Foolish owners signing players to long term deals they can't afford
Illitch has to pay out millions in revenue sharing to these owners who can't run their clubs in a financially sound manner
Players are getting paid too much
Contract length is too long
Illitch believes that the owners deserve more than 43% of the revenues of a $3.3 billion dollar industry

He may not be able to control the other owners, but he can control how much the owners get in their share of the pie. Illitch is a sound businessman, and if the other owners weren't idiots that didn't write checks their franchises couldn't cash, then he would probably be more forgiving.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#851 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:24 PM

I guess that is a difference of opinion. Illitch is an outspoken guy. I believe he voted with every other owner to lockout the players. If he didn't like the situation, he would say something.

Illitch has plenty of reasons to vote lockout too. Make no mistake about it.


illitch?
He has never let money stand in the way of pursuing a Cup even if it meant a financial loss

#852 Bring Back The Bruise Bros

Bring Back The Bruise Bros

    RIP Probie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,683 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:39 PM

I think the only way to get rid of Bettman is empty seats when the Lockout is over. I'm not buying tickets to protest Bettman, and I hope other hockey fans do the same thing. 4 lockouts under this moron, there's no reason to go to games until he's gone.

I have a feeling attendance for American teams will suffer. Canadian teams, they're all like sheep, the league could tell them to F-off, and they'd still buy tickets.

I was planning on hitting a game or two this season, but I'll save the money. This is becoming a joke. Attendance will decrease. I hate to say it, but hopefully there are gobs of empty seats in Detroit when they start back up. Places like St. Louis were just getting their fanbase back, and now I doubt they'll be able to sell out ScottTrade after a month or two of no hockey. BankAtlantic Center in Miami will be totally empty, because there weren't great attendance numbers, anyway. Same goes for Jobing.com Arena in Phoenix. AAC in Dallas. Canadian cities and the Rangers will always sell out, regardless. Neither side benefits from a lockout. The NFL, NBA and MLB are loving it, however.

Edited by Bring Back The Bruise Bros, 14 September 2012 - 02:40 PM.

"Ice hockey is a form of disorderly conduct in which the score is kept."

RIP Bob Probert
RIP Wade Belak
RIP Derek Boogaard
RIP Rick Rypien

#853 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,505 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:13 PM

I guess that is a difference of opinion. Illitch is an outspoken guy. I believe he voted with every other owner to lockout the players. If he didn't like the situation, he would say something.

Illitch has plenty of reasons to vote lockout too. Make no mistake about it.

Agreed.

This is the same Mike Ilitch - who for the past decade has bought up vacant lots/buildings behind the Fox Theatre so he can 1 day build a new arena - of course with the help of taxpayer $$$.

He is afterall - a businessman.

The NFL, NBA and MLB are loving it, however.

Another NHL work stoppage will only give the leagues you already mentioned, and their respective fan base more ammo to mock the NHL, the NHLPA, and us - the fans :confused:

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#854 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,738 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:29 PM

illitch?
He has never let money stand in the way of pursuing a Cup even if it meant a financial loss

I would bet that Illitch didn't lose money in 2002 when he loaded his roster up and had one of the highest payrolls. Course, I can't find a link that shows the finances of the Red Wings from one year to the next.

Edited by Nightfall, 14 September 2012 - 03:31 PM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#855 Bring Back The Bruise Bros

Bring Back The Bruise Bros

    RIP Probie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,683 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 07:04 PM

Another NHL work stoppage will only give the leagues you already mentioned, and their respective fan base more ammo to mock the NHL, the NHLPA, and us - the fans :confused:

I know. The NHL really isn't even considered a "major" sport anymore. From what I've seen and heard, the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NASCAR are all more popular than the NHL. Hell, NCAA football and basketball are right there with the NHL.
"Ice hockey is a form of disorderly conduct in which the score is kept."

RIP Bob Probert
RIP Wade Belak
RIP Derek Boogaard
RIP Rick Rypien

#856 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

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

Posted 14 September 2012 - 07:09 PM

Why hasn't Uncle Gary told us about this?

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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#857 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 07:35 PM

http://www.facebook....15241371871871/

#858 kylee

kylee

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,452 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:13 PM

I have a feeling the hockey world is going to be quite upset late tomorrow night.....still pulling for a miracle

#859 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:52 PM

It is tough to argue for the owners due to the horrible proposal they put forward. That being said, while the players proposal was a good start, the simple fact of the matter is that neither side is willing to budge off its original stance. In the world of negotiating, two wrongs don't make a right. Sure, its easy for you and many others here to point at the ownership and say they did wrong, because they did and are continuing to do so. At the same time though, the players have got to be willing to come off their original demands as well. Now, you and others here who are pro NHLPA can say that the players have done that, but all I have seen is their original proposal which was to lower their share to 53% in year 1, 55% in year 2, and then back up to 57% in year 3 with a player option at the same amount the next year.

Lack of flexibility, concession, and greed is what caused the strike. The owners feel like they are entitled to more. The players feel that they are entitled to more. The deal that is currently going on right now favors the players and lucrative franchises, but what I don't get is that every owner voted to strike? Are things really that bad in Hockeytown or Toronto? I know those are extreme examples, but I had to add that in there.
...

Details from the second proposal, per Lebrun.

FIRST THREE YEARS OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT
Total payroll is fixed at $1.91 billion in Year 1; $1.98 billion in Year 2; and $2.1 billion in Year 3. Effectively, they are 2 percent, 4 percent and 6 percent raises.

FINAL TWO YEARS
If revenue doesn’t adequately grow: NHL option to extend two more years at a payroll of $2.1 billion
If revenue skyrockets: NHLPA option to extend two more years at $2.1 billion, plus 57 percent of new revenue only in years 4 and 5

If revenue falls in between, deal automatically extended two more years, as follows:
Year 4 = Year 3 share plus 54 percent of hockey-related revenue growth in Year 4
Year 5 = Year 4 share plus 54 percent of hockey-related revenue growth in Year 5

The players' offer fluctuates based on revenue growth.
Example: Based on historical revenue growth of 7.1 percent a year, the players' share would start at 54.3 percent in Year 1 and phase down to 52.3 percent in Year 5.

No info on what constitutes "adequate" or "skyrockets", but either way they have in fact given up the 57% share. I trust you will now finally stop saying they're unwilling to give up anything.

A couple notes on the numbers:
Using the Forbes revenue figures for the first 6 years of the last CBA, and the oft-cited $3.3B figure for revenue last season, growth rate has been 6.5%. Projecting that forward, and assuming that would be "skyrocketing" revenue, I come up with the following percentages: 54.3, 52.9, 52.7, 52.9, and 53.2%. Projecting 7.1% growth going forward, I get: 54, 52.3, 51.8, 52.1, and 52.5%. Trying to reconcile the Forbes numbers to "Hockey Related Revenue", it comes out: 52.3, 50.6, 50.1, 50.5, and 50.8% of "actual" revenue.

So basically, the players are offering to cut their share by 4%, and very close to a 50/50 split of actual revenue. Cap numbers would be around $69, 71.3, 75.3, 80.3, and 85.5M. Interestingly, these numbers are probably less friendly to low revenue teams than what I was expecting to see. I was basing some of my projections off last season's cap number, but a closer look at the revenue numbers suggests that it was lower than it should have been, per the CBA. It should have been around $68M instead of $64.3. I'd still want some more recent revenue reports before I'll believe those numbers aren't workable, and I'd still be surprised if there are more than a handful of teams that would be unable to make the floor.

However, if there are as many as 9 teams who would struggle (it's possible), then I can see why there isn't a fair middle ground. The players shouldn't settle for anything significantly less than they are offering, so if the rich owners aren't willing to make up any difference needed by the poor ones, then the basic core structure needs to be changed. Either widen the gap between the floor and ceiling, or allow trading cap space for cash.

Edited by Buppy, 14 September 2012 - 09:54 PM.


#860 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:46 PM

I would bet that Illitch didn't lose money in 2002 when he loaded his roster up and had one of the highest payrolls. Course, I can't find a link that shows the finances of the Red Wings from one year to the next.

http://www.forbes.co...roit-red-wings/

Lost $3.4M in 2001-02.

Of course, when you consider that he bought the team for $8M in 82, and it's now worth over $300M, it's hard to say he's ever lost anything. That's another factor to consider. Unlike a small business, a hockey team is a major asset that is likely to appreciate over time regardless of actual business performance.




I already know why Illitch voted yes.

Foolish owners signing players to long term deals they can't afford
Illitch has to pay out millions in revenue sharing to these owners who can't run their clubs in a financially sound manner
Players are getting paid too much
Contract length is too long
Illitch believes that the owners deserve more than 43% of the revenues of a $3.3 billion dollar industry

He may not be able to control the other owners, but he can control how much the owners get in their share of the pie. Illitch is a sound businessman, and if the other owners weren't idiots that didn't write checks their franchises couldn't cash, then he would probably be more forgiving.

I highly doubt Ilitch or any owner is thinking on those terms.

A businessman will be thinking risk-reward:
Likelihood the owners will "win", and money they will earn doing so weighed against the potential losses from locking out.

Apparently all the owners currently think the former outweighs the latter.

Edited by Buppy, 14 September 2012 - 09:51 PM.






Similar Topics Collapse


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users