2458 replies to this topic

[Buppy]

...

Perhaps I will look into the other years tomorrow if I have time for it.

http://www.theglobea...article4541634/ gives a pretty good breakdown.

The PA doesn't want salary rollbacks. I think it's more about the principle than the actual dollars, as already the share for the first year would almost certainly have to be pro-rated to whatever length of season is salvaged. There's really no room to give any more back in the first year. More room in future years, since there's less salary already committed. But even with moderate 5% revenue growth, the PA proposal would mean a profit margin of around 5-6% for the owners. Already plenty fair.

[Johnz96]

While it's not surprising that the owners don't want to play out the season without a CBA, Fehr is exactly right that under Bettman's reign lockout has not been a last resort but is the basis of his negotiating strategy.

Especially considering Bettman got the rules changed to make it even harder to overrule him, so compromise on the owners side is even less likely. Given the amount of concessions they want from the players, ownership had to know it would require locking the players out before they'd ever agree to them.

This lockout wasn't the unfortunate result of unexpected circumstances, it was almost certainly something ownership prepared for.

I think Bettman knew he was going to do this 8 years ago

[Pskov Wings Fan]

When I found out how hard it is to overrule Bettman, it was both depressing and explained a lot about the last lockout.

We've seen how idiotic some of these owners can be. And now Gary only needs 8 not to vote against him. I've seen several references to what a hardliner Jeremy Jacobs (owner of the Bruins) is and how much influence he has. A friend of mine is from Boston and said fans hate him. They even booed him when he was announced during their Cup win.

Among ownership there's got to be more reasonable, intelligent voices in the group, but are there 24 of them? Probably not.

EDIT: And I just remembered that the league owns the coyotes, so Bettman probably gets one of those 30 votes himself. So he might only need 7 owners to support him.

The fact that owners at some point agreed that they need 2/3 of the votes to overrule the commissioner make me question their judgement.

[cusimano_brothers]

I wish Uncle Gary would stop dragging the phrase "the fans" into his "Official Bettmanspeak Press Releases". It's kind of embarrassing.
I, for one, am not one of your "fans". You're not good with your employees.

From TSN:

Following the cancellation of the first two weeks of the NHL's regular season, San Jose Sharks defenceman Dan Boyle said he thinks not all 30 NHL owners are on the same page when it comes to locking out the players.
Boyle told CSN Bay Area he thinks the lockout is being controlled by a select group of owners and commissioner Gary Bettman and that the majority of owners are looking to get a deal done.
"It doesn't make any sense to me that eight teams can control the fate of 22 other ones," Boyle told CSN Bay Area. "I think when players make comments, sometimes it's directed towards 30 owners, but I think a lot of us feel that it's not across the board. It's a certain group of teams that are controlling 30 others."

[Nightfall]

I wish Uncle Gary would stop dragging the phrase "the fans" into his "Official Bettmanspeak Press Releases". It's kind of embarrassing.
I, for one, am not one of your "fans". You're not good with your employees.

From TSN:

Fehr is dragging "the fans" into his rhetoric as well. It really is just both sides spouting off to play the PR card and nothing more. Neither side gives a crap about the fans at all. This is all about the $3.3 billion dollar pot and the split between the two sides.

[cusimano_brothers]

Speaking of PR, did Uncle Gary officially announce that he was not taking a salary, as he hinted he might eventually do, or is he just another greedy league head?

[Jedi]

Speaking of PR, did Uncle Gary officially announce that he was not taking a salary, as he hinted he might eventually do, or is he just another greedy league head?

I've seen a number of stories and tweets in the past few weeks that have said that he will not receive any salary while the league is locked out. I believe it's the same way with Fehr too, he'll only get paid once a CBA is signed.

I'd be more interested to know, however, if Bettman's salary is going to be prorated for the length of time lost for the lockout. If we only have 1/2 of a season, does he only get 1/2 of his salary? I'd wager probably not.

[rrasco]

He must be hurting missing his paychecks. The $8 mil he made last year is surely dried up by now. Right? Right?

[haroldsnepsts]

The fact that owners at some point agreed that they need 2/3 of the votes to overrule the commissioner make me question their judgement.

The Board of Governors are who made that change, but I don't know what percentage of the vote they needed to do that.

Jeremy Jacobs, the Bruins owner, is the head of the board of governors. He is a hardliner so it's not surprising he would be in favor of Bettman reducing the players share as much as possible, even if it means lockout.

[RippedOnNitro]

http://www.theglobea...article4541634/ gives a pretty good breakdown.

The PA doesn't want salary rollbacks. I think it's more about the principle than the actual dollars, as already the share for the first year would almost certainly have to be pro-rated to whatever length of season is salvaged. There's really no room to give any more back in the first year. More room in future years, since there's less salary already committed. But even with moderate 5% revenue growth, the PA proposal would mean a profit margin of around 5-6% for the owners. Already plenty fair.

Thanks for sharing the link!

The title of the link actually says it all...the difference is $1B, a lost full season means a loss of $3.3B revenue or $1.9B player's salaries.

Which means the players would lose $0.9B more if a full season is lost oppose to the NHL offer.

The break even point would be around half a season (play-offs create more revenue).

So if there is no deal before let's say mid to end January...the players would even lose more $$$ with their own deal than when they sign the NHL deal right now.

[toby91_ca]

Thanks for sharing the link!

The title of the link actually says it all...the difference is $1B, a lost full season means a loss of $3.3B revenue or $1.9B player's salaries.

Which means the players would lose $0.9B more if a full season is lost oppose to the NHL offer.

The break even point would be around half a season (play-offs create more revenue).

So if there is no deal before let's say mid to end January...the players would even lose more $$$ with their own deal than when they sign the NHL deal right now.

You are only considering 1 year though.

[RippedOnNitro]

You are only considering 1 year though.

Nope actually not, because the $1B difference mentioned in the article is based on the next five years.

Losing a season means losing $3.3B revenue = $1.9B player's revenue.

So giving into the NHL offer means they will have to give in $1B player revenue over the next five years.
Not giving into the NHL offer, keep the league locked out for a whole season and then to have the NHL give in to the PA's offer means there is $1.9B player revenue lost.

[chances14]

excellent article imo on why the players are fighting a losing battle and supports what i've been saying and that is both sides are too busy stroking their egos to give a damn about the game or fans.

http://espn.go.com/n...ct-game-lockout



also here's a couple tweets from pierre lebrun

Told that NHL strongly urged NHLPA in meeting today to come up with new offer. In turn, NHLPA also asked league to come up with new offer..

In short, both sides expressing to each other that it's time to compromise

Edited by chances14, 05 October 2012 - 05:17 PM.

[chances14]

When I found out how hard it is to overrule Bettman, it was both depressing and explained a lot about the last lockout.

We've seen how idiotic some of these owners can be. And now Gary only needs 8 not to vote against him. I've seen several references to what a hardliner Jeremy Jacobs (owner of the Bruins) is and how much influence he has. A friend of mine is from Boston and said fans hate him. They even booed him when he was announced during their Cup win.

Among ownership there's got to be more reasonable, intelligent voices in the group, but are there 24 of them? Probably not.

EDIT: And I just remembered that the league owns the coyotes, so Bettman probably gets one of those 30 votes himself. So he might only need 7 owners to support him.

agreed. and i have to wonder if illitch is in that select group if the stories of him blasting the owners of the smaller teams in the last lockout is true

[cusimano_brothers]

From TSN:

The NHL's collective bargaining talks resumed unexpectedly and the sides are committed to staying in touch through the weekend.
An unannounced session with the primary negotiators was held at union headquarters in Toronto on Friday, with commissioner Gary Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly dropping in on NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr and special counsel Steve Fehr.

[frankgrimes]

agreed. and i have to wonder if illitch is in that select group if the stories of him blasting the owners of the smaller teams in the last lockout is true

I wish Illitch would be leading the way of firing him. Jacobs is hated for a reason he is one wealthy hombre and always playing poor!

Woulndn't surprise me if the BoG is heavily filled with pro midget guys.

Sent from my BlackBerry

[RippedOnNitro]

excellent article imo on why the players are fighting a losing battle and supports what i've been saying and that is both sides are too busy stroking their egos to give a damn about the game or fans.

http://espn.go.com/n...ct-game-lockout



also here's a couple tweets from pierre lebrun

I found the ESPN article very interesting to read.

Not that I think the owners have a fair deal currently in place, I do agree that the players can not win this battle. For each week games are cancelled, the players will lose money they will not recupe.

What I really don't like is (a couple of) the players say it is a matter of principle...the hell it is, in the end it is all about the $$$. Just be honest about it.

Mr. Ovechkin (for example) can say what he wants, staying in the KHL forever and not returning to the NHL, but I will not be surprised if he would demand more money than his current deal ($5.7M tax free) if he would stay in the KHL.

[RippedOnNitro]

I've found another interesting link: http://www.usatoday....lution/1614379/

Worth the read...

Edited by RippedOnNitro, 06 October 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[RippedOnNitro]

“We know we’re going to have to take a hit,” Capitals defenseman Karl Alzner told CSNWashington.com “It’s just how big of a hit we need to take.”

“I think both sides know what their next proposal is, it’s just who wants to give it first,” Alzner said. “The owners know what their bottom percentage is and I’m sure Don [Fehr] knows what’s going to be a good one for us economically.

“But who’s going to be the first one to bite the bullet? No one wants to lose the negotiation. We understand we’re definitely not going to win it.”

http://www.csnwashington.com/hockey-washington-capitals/capitals-talk/Alzner-admits-players-wont-win-labor-war?blockID=784509&feedID=10283

[Pskov Wings Fan]

What I really don't like is (a couple of) the players say it is a matter of principle...the hell it is, in the end it is all about the $$$. Just be honest about it.

I think the principle players are talking about is the rollback of the existing contracts. They agreed to it once and feel that as a result owners are trying to do it again and will try it the future. So they would like to reset the precedent.