Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2458 replies to this topic

#541 sibiriak

sibiriak

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 07:46 PM

The NHL needs to get out of this mess fast. If the players cant deal with 43% of the billions that come in, let them go. Im sure there are others who will.

And in a few years the owners will lock the replacement players out so they can cut their pay even more.

#542 Z and D for the C

Z and D for the C

    This is the TBL forum, right?

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,035 posts
  • Location:D, Michigan

Posted 07 October 2012 - 08:14 PM

I'm calling for a full boycott of the NHL. What would the NHL have to say to a half-empty JLA? or MSG? What about if the Air Canada Centre was half empty? or if Newark was a ghost town and Long Island had no one show up at all?


We all know this will never happen.

Just cause you look like the gimp don't mean you play like the gimp!


#543 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,764 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 07 October 2012 - 08:18 PM

We all know this will never happen.

I am going to do my part.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#544 LeftWinger

LeftWinger

    42 years in Detroit! Time to spend the rest in paradise!

  • Silver Booster
  • 8,818 posts
  • Location:HART - MI

Posted 07 October 2012 - 08:50 PM

The NHL needs to get out of this mess fast. If the players cant deal with 43% of the billions that come in, let them go. Im sure there are others who will.


Really? Anti-Union much? Lets see, it's the players that are responsible for the revenue that the team and NHL make. People pay their $80 to sit in the nose bleeding corners to just get a glimpse of Pavel Datsyuk or Alex Ovechkin and those players are expected to let the owners not only have the majority of the revenue PLUS accepet paycuts or they should be fired? I would argue the opposite, if the OWNERS cant deal with 43% of the BILLIONS that come directly because of the players that play and bring the fans in, then let them sell the team to someone who can.

This is typical of any and all CEO's and Owners of teams...They are ALL making millions and millions and some even billions ( Mike Illitch IS a billionaire you know) and all they want is more more more. Never acknowledging that it is the EMPLOYEE that generates the profits. Same can be said of the NHL as can be said of, lets say, Ford Motor Company. The problem is greed. I am pissed at both sides for not coming to a comprimise, but this is typical Owner anti-union actions. Example: before the IAM was forced out of Delta Airlines, everything was blamed on the labor cost. They cannot do this or that becuase of labor costs....now, no union, same problems exist, but all of a sudden it's because of oil prices, less people traveling...The problem is not the union or labor contracts or collective bargaining, its CEO's and Owners refusal to have a good relationship with the unions. Owners want to be able to do what they want, when they want, no matter who, what or where it affects people and families. Sure the NHL players make waaaaay more money than your typical laborer, but they are the elite of elite hockey players in the world, they should be paid as such and they should reap the benefits of their talents by having at least an equal share of the revenue they create. 50/50 should be the agreement, but the Owners want the majority and the PA wants the majority...50/50, share the wealth equally...

they owners need to open their eyes and realize that they make more profits with Pavel Datsyuk and Hank Zetterberg playing rather than Walt the Postman and Joe the Plummer playing...who would you rather pay to see?

Now you know why Lidstrom retired when he did...the writing was on the wall and he didn't want any part of corporate greed again...

Edited by LeftWinger, 07 October 2012 - 08:52 PM.

Don't Be Jealous, But I Live Here...

www.thinkdunes.com

 

Nestrasil, yes...Cleary....No!

Dump Q and K Now!


#545 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:02 PM

Really? Anti-Union much? Lets see, it's the players that are responsible for the revenue that the team and NHL make. People pay their $80 to sit in the nose bleeding corners to just get a glimpse of Pavel Datsyuk or Alex Ovechkin and those players are expected to let the owners not only have the majority of the revenue PLUS accepet paycuts or they should be fired? I would argue the opposite, if the OWNERS cant deal with 43% of the BILLIONS that come directly because of the players that play and bring the fans in, then let them sell the team to someone who can.

This is typical of any and all CEO's and Owners of teams...They are ALL making millions and millions and some even billions ( Mike Illitch IS a billionaire you know) and all they want is more more more. Never acknowledging that it is the EMPLOYEE that generates the profits. Same can be said of the NHL as can be said of, lets say, Ford Motor Company. The problem is greed. I am pissed at both sides for not coming to a comprimise, but this is typical Owner anti-union actions. Example: before the IAM was forced out of Delta Airlines, everything was blamed on the labor cost. They cannot do this or that becuase of labor costs....now, no union, same problems exist, but all of a sudden it's because of oil prices, less people traveling...The problem is not the union or labor contracts or collective bargaining, its CEO's and Owners refusal to have a good relationship with the unions. Owners want to be able to do what they want, when they want, no matter who, what or where it affects people and families. Sure the NHL players make waaaaay more money than your typical laborer, but they are the elite of elite hockey players in the world, they should be paid as such and they should reap the benefits of their talents by having at least an equal share of the revenue they create. 50/50 should be the agreement, but the Owners want the majority and the PA wants the majority...50/50, share the wealth equally...

they owners need to open their eyes and realize that they make more profits with Pavel Datsyuk and Hank Zetterberg playing rather than Walt the Postman and Joe the Plummer playing...who would you rather pay to see?

Now you know why Lidstrom retired when he did...the writing was on the wall and he didn't want any part of corporate greed again...

The players are not only employees but also the product
  • Nev likes this

#546 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:41 PM

The NHL needs to get out of this mess fast. If the players cant deal with 43% of the billions that come in, let them go. Im sure there are others who will.


I think that for a good portion of hockey fans it does matter who is one the ice.

#547 RippedOnNitro

RippedOnNitro

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 01:53 AM

On average, they are paid 16 times. Bi-monthly checks from the month in which the season starts to the month in which it ends - typically October to April (8 months).

The players have missed their first check so far, but a little relief is coming later this month when they receive the escrow rebate from last year. After that, no checks in sight.

I read all this within the last couple days.. can't remember where or I would cite it.


Thanks for the info!

Based on total cap hits for this season (=$1.8B), this means $120M worth of paychecks are lost atm.

So that leaves $880M on the table between the current offers of the NHL and the NHLPA.

Edit: Actually according to http://bostonglobe.c...1UDN/story.html there are 12 installments between October and April.

Assuming every paycheck is given on the 1st and 15th of the month.

So that actually leaves: $1.0B - $150M = $850M on the table.

Edited by RippedOnNitro, 08 October 2012 - 02:08 AM.

First round series win: $0 () Second round series win: $0 () Third round series win: $0 () Fourth round series win: $0 () Goal difference: $0 (-3) Shutout difference: $0 (0) SHG difference: $0 (0) Extra points reg. season: $3 (102)

TOTAL COLLECTED: $0 TOTAL BONUS IF STANLEY CUP: $3

#548 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

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

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:21 AM

On average, they are paid 16 times. Bi-monthly checks from the month in which the season starts to the month in which it ends - typically October to April (8 months).

The players have missed their first check so far, but a little relief is coming later this month when they receive the escrow rebate from last year. After that, no checks in sight.

I read all this within the last couple days.. can't remember where or I would cite it.


according to the nytimes, escrow checks are 8% of the players 2011-2012 salary.

That is the same day that N.H.L. players are to receive escrow checks containing 8 percent of their 2011-12 salaries — a timely tranche of income ($80,000 for a player who made $1 million last season) that may help strengthen their resolve into November and December.


http://www.nytimes.c...agues.html?_r=0

#549 RippedOnNitro

RippedOnNitro

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 05:19 AM

according to the nytimes, escrow checks are 8% of the players 2011-2012 salary.



http://www.nytimes.c...agues.html?_r=0


Yes, the players will be able to take one paycheck hit, since the 8% escrow replaces that first paycheck.
However the players still lose their paycheck in the total amount since the escrow would have been paid anyways.

I guess this means also, that with each missed paycheck this season means a lower escrow payment next season?
First round series win: $0 () Second round series win: $0 () Third round series win: $0 () Fourth round series win: $0 () Goal difference: $0 (-3) Shutout difference: $0 (0) SHG difference: $0 (0) Extra points reg. season: $3 (102)

TOTAL COLLECTED: $0 TOTAL BONUS IF STANLEY CUP: $3

#550 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:45 AM

We should all support dissolving the players union. When that is done, we will never have to worry about another lockout. If players don't like the terms the NHL owners offer, they can play elsewhere. If the best players are choosing to play outside of the NHL, the owners can choose to offer better contracts to entice them to play in the NHL. Free market economics... it works amazingly well.

In the long run, it is market competition that ensures fair wages and treatment... not unions.

Edit: Well shucks, I meant to post this in the lockout thread. Could someone please move it for me? Cheers.

Edited by RedWingsDad, 08 October 2012 - 08:49 AM.

Tim Thomas - Patriot and generally awesome human being.
 
Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

#551 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,152 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:08 AM

We should all support dissolving the players union. When that is done, we will never have to worry about another lockout. If players don't like the terms the NHL owners offer, they can play elsewhere. If the best players are choosing to play outside of the NHL, the owners can choose to offer better contracts to entice them to play in the NHL. Free market economics... it works amazingly well.

In the long run, it is market competition that ensures fair wages and treatment... not unions.

Free market competition would mean no salary cap.


The players aren't striking for more money. The owners are refusing to let them play even though they have current valid contracts in the NHL.

The league had market competition before the cap and the owners apparently couldn't manage to run their business under that construct. It's not like the players were striking because they felt they were underpaid. The owners locked them out to implement a device that artificially suppresses employee salaries.

Once again, the big problem is the disparity in the wealth of the clubs. The rich clubs are what's driving up the players salaries, not unions. It was just a couple months ago that the Flyers put together an offer sheet for Weber that was specifically constructed to try and financially cripple Nashville so they wouldn't be able to match.

But that's somehow the unions fault?

#552 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,122 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:10 AM

In the long run, it is market competition that ensures fair wages and treatment... not unions.


Not when owners can't manage their own business. They are spending well above what they can afford, driving up labor prices. Typically when a business does this in a free market, it folds.

Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid


#553 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:38 AM

Not when owners can't manage their own business. They are spending well above what they can afford, driving up labor prices. Typically when a business does this in a free market, it folds.

Free market competition would mean no salary cap.


The players aren't striking for more money. The owners are refusing to let them play even though they have current valid contracts in the NHL.

The league had market competition before the cap and the owners apparently couldn't manage to run their business under that construct. It's not like the players were striking because they felt they were underpaid. The owners locked them out to implement a device that artificially suppresses employee salaries.

Once again, the big problem is the disparity in the wealth of the clubs. The rich clubs are what's driving up the players salaries, not unions. It was just a couple months ago that the Flyers put together an offer sheet for Weber that was specifically constructed to try and financially cripple Nashville so they wouldn't be able to match.

But that's somehow the unions fault?


Without a union, there would be no lockout. Without a union, there wouldn't have been the need to negotiate a salary cap... and therefore there wouldn't have been a lockout last time.

Owners spending more than they can afford is a complicated topic, but without question the current CBA largely contributes to it. Without a union, there is no need for a CBA. If you believe the core problem with the leagues finances is rich clubs driving up the players salaries... how does the union solve that problem? I would argue that the NHLPA contributes to that problem, through forcing a CBA.

Edited by RedWingsDad, 08 October 2012 - 10:40 AM.

Tim Thomas - Patriot and generally awesome human being.
 
Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

#554 sibiriak

sibiriak

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 01:43 PM

Without a union, there would be no lockout. Without a union, there wouldn't have been the need to negotiate a salary cap... and therefore there wouldn't have been a lockout last time.

Owners spending more than they can afford is a complicated topic, but without question the current CBA largely contributes to it. Without a union, there is no need for a CBA. If you believe the core problem with the leagues finances is rich clubs driving up the players salaries... how does the union solve that problem? I would argue that the NHLPA contributes to that problem, through forcing a CBA.

You really need to read back this thread. Your misconceptions were exhaustively addressed earlier.

In short, without the union, what the owners are doing would be illegal. They would have no way of getting out of the already signed player contracts, without going to court and paying penalties for breach of contract or declaring bankruptcy.

Without a salary cap the owners would (and did) spend much more on salaries relative to revenue then they do now.

Without the pro sports antitrust law exemption, (that is if they had to operate like any other industry in America) it would have been illegal for the owners to consult with each other on hiring/salary decisions, let alone bargain as a single unit.

And lastly, the union's existence has nothing whatsoever to do with the owners spending insane amounts of money to get free agents. If you run a restaurant and hire a famous chef for $$ millions, but your revenue stream isn't enough to pay him, you don't get to leach off of more successful/better-run restaurants, nor can you lock out the chef and force him to accept lower salary. The owners do not and absolutely don't want to live under real free market conditions. They get the best of both worlds now.

Edited by sibiriak, 08 October 2012 - 01:47 PM.


#555 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 08 October 2012 - 01:56 PM

Some owners don't know how to run their teams. Uncle Gary is there to "guide" them along in there thinking.

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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#556 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:08 PM

From TSN:

The NHL and the players' association are expected to resume labour negotiations this week in New York.

The sides are likely to meet Wednesday and Thursday in New York, a union spokesman told The Associated Press in an email. The plans and the agenda are expected to be worked out Monday.


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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#557 Jedi

Jedi

    I used to be a spy...

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 9,821 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:36 PM

As long as they're meeting, there's reason to be hopeful. But Zetterberg heading to Europe is an ominous sign.

At the beginning of the lockout, I was confident that we would have hockey beginning around mid-to-late November. But the longer it drags on, and the more and more reports I see about both sides truly digging in, it makes me wonder if we're going to have another lost season on our hands...

burnnotice2.png
Covert Ops has its perks. You travel, make your own hours, and expense most of your meals.
The downside? Lots of people want you dead...


#558 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:38 PM

You really need to read back this thread. Your misconceptions were exhaustively addressed earlier.

In short, without the union, what the owners are doing would be illegal. They would have no way of getting out of the already signed player contracts, without going to court and paying penalties for breach of contract or declaring bankruptcy.

Without a salary cap the owners would (and did) spend much more on salaries relative to revenue then they do now.

Without the pro sports antitrust law exemption, (that is if they had to operate like any other industry in America) it would have been illegal for the owners to consult with each other on hiring/salary decisions, let alone bargain as a single unit.

And lastly, the union's existence has nothing whatsoever to do with the owners spending insane amounts of money to get free agents. If you run a restaurant and hire a famous chef for $$ millions, but your revenue stream isn't enough to pay him, you don't get to leach off of more successful/better-run restaurants, nor can you lock out the chef and force him to accept lower salary. The owners do not and absolutely don't want to live under real free market conditions. They get the best of both worlds now.


Just so I clearly understand your position - you are saying that the union, and resulting CBA, have nothing at all to do with the current fiscal obstacles in the NHL, and nothing to do with the difficulty in resolving those fiscal obstacles? Please be clear on this point, so that we can proceed.
Tim Thomas - Patriot and generally awesome human being.
 
Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

#559 sibiriak

sibiriak

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:46 PM

Just so I clearly understand your position - you are saying that the union, and resulting CBA, have nothing at all to do with the current fiscal obstacles in the NHL, and nothing to do with the difficulty in resolving those fiscal obstacles? Please be clear on this point, so that we can proceed.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "fiscal obstacles".

The union is a counterpart in the new CBA negotiation. It will take time. BUT:

If there were no union and thus no CBA, the owners would have to honor existing contracts. To the letter. No rollbacks, no escrow. All players would be free agents, negotiating for themselves. So no RFA compensation, no rookie minimum, no draft etc.

Old CBA is NOT the reason some teams lose money. Without it, and its salary cap and revenue sharing provisions, poorer teams would lose even more money and have even harder time keeping elite players.

#560 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

Without the pro sports antitrust law exemption, (that is if they had to operate like any other industry in America) it would have been illegal for the owners to consult with each other on hiring/salary decisions, let alone bargain as a single unit.


Please explain the point of this statement - it seems to just be confusing the debate. You are saying that it would have been entirely legal for owners to institute a league wide salary cap... without union involvement, correct? If so, you are proving my point in that the union is entirely unnecessary. Everything that was accomplished to salvage the NHL (grow league revenues) was done in spite of the union, not because of it.

So, please explain why we need a players union causing lockouts? What tangible benefits do us fans receive as a result of the NHLPA? The league could exist without the NHLPA... but not the other way around.
Tim Thomas - Patriot and generally awesome human being.
 
Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.





Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users