Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread


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

#701 kylee

kylee

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,454 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 05:37 PM

Bob McKenzie@TSNBobMcKenzie
Rumble is one side or other or perhaps both working on some new material that could lead to new offer/proposal. Find out soon enough I guess

#702 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,009 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 15 October 2012 - 06:58 PM

The items in focus group exercise C (last picture) were lifted verbatim from a Puck Daddy article posted last week. And one of the guys in the fighting picture in Image Exercise 2 (3rd picture) is Derek Boogard. Complete trash.


Not that I disagree with your assertion, but what does having a picture of Boogard have anything to do with it? It's a picture to illustrate fighting in hockey.

Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid

 

MONEY ON THE BOARD: $10/Kronwalling (1), $1/goal by: Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Sheahan, disney.com (1), Andersson, Dekeyser, Pulkinnen, Ouellet, or Sproul.  2X MULTIPLIER: disney.com.  CONSOLATION PRIZE: $5/goal by: Datsyuk (3), $3/goal by: Z (1). MOTB TOTAL: $30


#703 Jenny

Jenny

    Geeky Goalie Girl

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 542 posts
  • Location:Toledo, OH

Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:19 PM

It just struck me as nasty that in an exercise with the prompt "Which of these things makes you miss hockey the most?" they used a fight picture of a guy who accidentally killed himself because of the symptoms of repeated concussions. After stepping away from my emotional reaction to the article a bit, I realize that the picture was probably picked from a Google image search by one of Luntz's employees who had no idea who was in it, but you'd think someone from the NHL would have vetted the surveys before they were given. Maybe they were expecting that casual fans from DC wouldn't know who Boogaard was, and they obviously didn't expect this to be leaked to the wider hockey community.

Also, I apologize to the ghost of Derek Boogaard for misspelling his name in my last post.

detroit-skyline.jpg

My priorities: 1-Hockey. 2-Sleep. 3-Food. 4-Everything Else.

No, Ozzie is NOT the Breakfast Wizard!" -- my husband


#704 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,009 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:32 PM

I spelled it wrong too :/

Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid

 

MONEY ON THE BOARD: $10/Kronwalling (1), $1/goal by: Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Sheahan, disney.com (1), Andersson, Dekeyser, Pulkinnen, Ouellet, or Sproul.  2X MULTIPLIER: disney.com.  CONSOLATION PRIZE: $5/goal by: Datsyuk (3), $3/goal by: Z (1). MOTB TOTAL: $30


#705 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

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

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:13 PM

Costs (not including player compensation) have been going down relative to revenue. At least over the first 6 years of the previous CBA.

Eight years ago, with the league as a whole losing money, the owners decided that 54% growing to 57% was good enough. Now, with the league as a whole making money and other costs having dropped relative to revenue, 54% and likely dropping from there with revenue growth isn't. Yeah, that makes sense.

I think this is where the divide lies.

When I mention costs, some people say that costs are unchanged, some people say costs have indeed went up and agree with me, and then some people say that costs have went down. We are talking about the opinions of people who do not work in the industry. So do I work in the industry? No I do not. Which is why, when I say, in my opinion I see that the owners are entitled to a little more for these reasons, its my opinion. Which is why I respect the opinions of people who may say otherwise and disagree with me. In the end, no one here knows the true bottom line for these teams.

What we do know only comes from the Forbes report, which sides have said don't carry any creedence or are accurate. What we also know is that one side is being overly greedy while the other side has said that they aren't relinquishing anything.

Lets just assume that we are somewhere in the middle. Have costs went up? That much we can assume as a yes. Have more player personell been added? Possibly. Is the cost to run an NHL team went up? Probably.

So is the NHL entitled to a little bit more? Probably. Are they entitled to go from 43% to 57%? Hell no.

Which is why I am not going to pose the same question to people who are fans of the NHLPA. Its not a fair question because we don't have an economist among us that has all the answers.

Makes me sick. Why don't they hire af****** economist who can tell them their business plan won't work.

What they need is an economist that will look at the business plans and proposals of both sides and to mediate a deal that will work for both sides. Luxury tax, salary cap, and the split between both sides should all be discussed. The problem is that both sides have dug into what they want.

Edited by Nightfall, 15 October 2012 - 08:20 PM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#706 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

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

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:19 PM

I'm not terribly familiar with the site Deadspin but McKenzie retweeted this link, so that's an endorsement. Either way this story seems credible.

The NHL hired a Republican strategist and is holding rushed focus groups of fans to test pro-ownership messages and spin the PR back in their favor.

http://deadspin.com/...dium=socialflow

And this is a pre-emptive warning. This thread is about the lockout, not politics.

I suppose I am not surprised. In the end, the NHLPA has played the PR card to a T. Fans are blaming the owners hardcore.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#707 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,750 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:50 PM

The NHL is so laughable using Boogard to display their case is one disgraceful act. I can"k believe they are willing to go there.

Also they can eff off with their stupid PR spin there are NO excuses for 3 in 3. I really think this is the midget trying to save his job.

Sent from my BlackBerry

kftx.jpg

 

The Offseason of truth ...

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

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


#708 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 15 October 2012 - 10:05 PM

Lets just assume that we are somewhere in the middle. Have costs went up? That much we can assume as a yes. Have more player personell been added? Possibly. Is the cost to run an NHL team went up? Probably.


I am pretty sure that in absolute numbers the costs have went up if only because of inflation. But the number we should be looking at are the costs as the percentage of the league revenues. The revenues went up 50% under previous CBA. Did the costs increase by more than 50% in the same period of time? I do not know but I doubt it to be the case. It would be very interesting to see NHL team budget in order to understand how money gets spent. For example, how significant is the share of travel expenses in the average teams budgets and so on.

Without data we can argue forever without any conclusion. But then again is that not the purpose of the forum discussion where people not involved in the process being discussed come to vent.

#709 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,448 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 11:01 PM

I think this is where the divide lies.

When I mention costs, some people say that costs are unchanged, some people say costs have indeed went up and agree with me, and then some people say that costs have went down. We are talking about the opinions of people who do not work in the industry. So do I work in the industry? No I do not. Which is why, when I say, in my opinion I see that the owners are entitled to a little more for these reasons, its my opinion. Which is why I respect the opinions of people who may say otherwise and disagree with me. In the end, no one here knows the true bottom line for these teams.

What we do know only comes from the Forbes report, which sides have said don't carry any creedence or are accurate. What we also know is that one side is being overly greedy while the other side has said that they aren't relinquishing anything.

Lets just assume that we are somewhere in the middle. Have costs went up? That much we can assume as a yes. Have more player personell been added? Possibly. Is the cost to run an NHL team went up? Probably.

So is the NHL entitled to a little bit more? Probably. Are they entitled to go from 43% to 57%? Hell no.

Which is why I am not going to pose the same question to people who are fans of the NHLPA. Its not a fair question because we don't have an economist among us that has all the answers.


What they need is an economist that will look at the business plans and proposals of both sides and to mediate a deal that will work for both sides. Luxury tax, salary cap, and the split between both sides should all be discussed. The problem is that both sides have dug into what they want.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic. By the way, you mentioned earlier that you think the owner's deserve more for various reasons, most of which is because costs have gone up and you actually quote a few costs. Now you are saying that you don't know whether costs have gone up or not? That's not an opinion thing as you put it. Most would assume costs have gone up due to inflation, but unless you have inside information as to the financial results of the team, you won't know. I can tell you that I have access to financial information of one of the team's in the league. That information isn't rumoured, leaked, etc. It is fact. That team makes a ton of money, but I won't pretend the same can be said for all teams.

Back to the main point. Increasing costs being incurred by the owner's is not a good reason to have their share of revenues to increase. What should be very obvious is that non-player expenses have not increased anywhere near the increase in revenues so the share of the revenues that the owner's are taking should be more than enough to cover increased costs......which is what shows in net profit for the league as a whole (much higher than when the last CBA was signed). So....I'll go back to the issue again and that is disparity amongst the teams. The NHL can try to suck more out of the players to cover that, but it will do nothing to help the issue, so when revneues increase signficantly again and the poor teams aren't generating it, are they going to go back to the players again to get more?

#710 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

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

Posted 15 October 2012 - 11:25 PM

I can tell you that I have access to financial information of one of the team's in the league. That information isn't rumoured, leaked, etc. It is fact. That team makes a ton of money, but I won't pretend the same can be said for all teams.

you must know some pretty high up people if you have access to that information considering how tightly vested the league and pa keep team financials

#711 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

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

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:18 AM

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic. By the way, you mentioned earlier that you think the owner's deserve more for various reasons, most of which is because costs have gone up and you actually quote a few costs. Now you are saying that you don't know whether costs have gone up or not? That's not an opinion thing as you put it.

I really think that you need to take a step back and re-read what I posted. I merely said that anyone here going off of opinion is just that....stating an opinion. For instance, I say that costs have gone up, and you disagree. What makes your point more valid than mine? No data to support each other's stance really doesn't help matters. I think the thing to take away from this discussion is that anyone saying that the owners are fine or that the owners are losing their shirts is really making an uninformed opinion one way or the other. In my opinion, I believe costs have went up if not for the sake of inflation. There should be no problem making a statement like that. Just as I respect those people who say that costs have stayed the same. The point is these are just opinions with no facts to back them up.

you must know some pretty high up people if you have access to that information considering how tightly vested the league and pa keep team financials

I agree with you. I would like to see some hard data before I make any conclusions. This is mainly because it isn't stopping someone ele from posting that they are an informed financial planner working for the Blue Jackets and saying that the team is losing money like crazy. We can only go off of the Forbes report, not supposition.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#712 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

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

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:24 AM

Back to the main point. Increasing costs being incurred by the owner's is not a good reason to have their share of revenues to increase. What should be very obvious is that non-player expenses have not increased anywhere near the increase in revenues so the share of the revenues that the owner's are taking should be more than enough to cover increased costs......which is what shows in net profit for the league as a whole (much higher than when the last CBA was signed). So....I'll go back to the issue again and that is disparity amongst the teams. The NHL can try to suck more out of the players to cover that, but it will do nothing to help the issue, so when revneues increase signficantly again and the poor teams aren't generating it, are they going to go back to the players again to get more?

I really don't have the answer here without having the financials. What I can tell you is that the NHL and the NHLPA have to budge off of their stances in order to get a deal done. IMHO, there is no way that a deal should be this hard to make unless both sides are unwilling to go off of their stances. So far, that is what we have. So I guess the question you have to answer is....

Is it unreasonable for either team to not come up or come down from their stances or is it unreasonable if both sides stay entrenched in their economic beliefs? I think its unreasonable to stay entrenched, but that is just me.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#713 kylee

kylee

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,454 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 05:15 AM

Come on "Big Four" let's get to the core HRR today, enough bs about player health insurance. That will all sort out with a new CBA in place. Any legit reason for optimism for today?

#714 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,448 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:57 AM

you must know some pretty high up people if you have access to that information considering how tightly vested the league and pa keep team financials

It's not a matter of knowing pretty high up people....that really shouldn't entitle you to confidential information. Sometimes if you know people high up, they might leak information to you, but in that case, you have information but you really shouldn't.

I really think that you need to take a step back and re-read what I posted. I merely said that anyone here going off of opinion is just that....stating an opinion. For instance, I say that costs have gone up, and you disagree. What makes your point more valid than mine? No data to support each other's stance really doesn't help matters. I think the thing to take away from this discussion is that anyone saying that the owners are fine or that the owners are losing their shirts is really making an uninformed opinion one way or the other. In my opinion, I believe costs have went up if not for the sake of inflation. There should be no problem making a statement like that. Just as I respect those people who say that costs have stayed the same. The point is these are just opinions with no facts to back them up.

I neither agree or disagree with you when you say costs have gone up, because I really don't know unless you show me the financial statements of every team in the NHL. Even then, you have to wonder what revenues the owners are reporting under non-HRR, etc. My point is that costs being up or costs being down are not opinions, they are guesses. To be honest, my guess would probably be consistent with yours in that costs probably have gone up, but my guess is that revenues have increased at a much higher rate. I'm pretty sure the NHL themselves report net earnings as being higher now than 7 years ago (net earnings, not simply revenues). So, I think it's safe to say that they are not overstating those earnings.

Is it unreasonable for either team to not come up or come down from their stances or is it unreasonable if both sides stay entrenched in their economic beliefs? I think its unreasonable to stay entrenched, but that is just me.

I'll agree with you there, but only because I think the only way a deal gets done if both sides move towards the middle. I can honestly say I have no idea what would be "fair."

I do get annoyed by constantly hearing Daly comment that the league should make a new proposal to get things progressing while the NHL could very well do the same thing. Both sides are stuck in the mud right now. I think the PA should have started at a different spot and given themselves more room to negotiate though.

Come on "Big Four" let's get to the core HRR today, enough bs about player health insurance. That will all sort out with a new CBA in place. Any legit reason for optimism for today?

Agreed...although I'd be more interested in cutting out all the public relations BS and just get to work on a deal....stop paying consultatns to come in and help with PR...get to f'in work on more important things.

I'm not sure why either side would be so focused on winning a PR battle. I'm sure they do so to put pressure on the other side to give in to demands before their public image gets too damaged, but I just don't see it as being very productive at all. Also, the NHL might want to think about the impacts of the players coming out with very bad PR in this...not sure that would be best for their business. I would think the NHL would want the general public to love the players and be on their side in the long run because that is the product they are selling......just a different way of looking at the PR crap.

#715 Jedi

Jedi

    Spell Forged - Unparalleled Quality

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 9,804 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:46 AM

Per Dreger...

NHL makes much needed proposal. 50-50 split in rev. More details will surface. Await NHLPA response.


We might actually have a season, if the NHL has moved to 50/50. I'd be willing to bet, however, that they didn't do anything to address entry level contract length, arbitration, and other things that I'm sure the PA sees as toxic...

snyoep.jpg
"I am the sword in the darkness... I am the watcher on the walls...
I am the shield that guards the realms of men..."


#716 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

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

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:55 AM

Kudos to TSN and their entire staff on their coverage of what other sports reporting organizations seem to think is, at the present time, a non-event.

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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#717 Jedi

Jedi

    Spell Forged - Unparalleled Quality

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 9,804 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:59 AM

Also, per Chris Johnston with the Canadian Press...

Gary Bettman says 82-game season could be played if puck dropped Nov. 2. Says league offered "50-50" share today.


Gary Bettman says compressed 82-game schedule starting Nov. 2 would see every team play an extra game every five weeks.


And finally, LeBrun...

League offer of 50/50 split would begin in Year 1. No phasing in


snyoep.jpg
"I am the sword in the darkness... I am the watcher on the walls...
I am the shield that guards the realms of men..."


#718 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

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

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:01 PM

I wonder if Uncle Gary has started his EA Sports NHL 13 season?

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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#719 Ally

Ally

    just figured out how to change my title

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:02 PM

Please let this be it.

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


#720 kylee

kylee

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,454 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:05 PM

NHLPA PLEASE ACCEPT WTF WILL BE CHECKING LGW/TWITTER DURING CLASS

more possible good news?

Pierre LeBrun@Real_ESPNLeBrun
Also league has taken off table some of the systemic changes to player contracts which they asked for in initial July offer





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users