• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I think you know where the sport was back in the lockout. Clubs were spending 76% of their gross revenues on player salaries.

The history lesson is here....

http://en.wikipedia...."05_NHL_lockout

If you look at the last 6 years, the players salaries have doubled in that time. The players may have taken those concessions back in 2005, but the 57% of revenues kept the players very happy. By and far, they were making out better than the owners. Which is why its a no brainer why they wanted to keep the gravy train rolling.

Not disputing those facts.

I don't need a history lesson. I'm not talking about where the sport was. I'm talking about your claim that the players "by and far" were making out better than the owners. You keep saying this but haven't provided any evidence.

The players ended up doing pretty well under this CBA, certainly better than they would've expected after giving up nearly a quarter of their salary and conceding to a salary cap. But that's not the same as "they're making out better than owners."

In 2003-2004 Nick Lidstrom, arguably one of the best players in the game, was making $10 million. 7 years later, the salaries of top players in the league are just now approaching that.

So over the 7 years the owners enjoyed a massive reduction in their greatest cost while experiencing record setting revenues. Claiming the players faired not just better but far better is just too general and baseless of a statement to be meaningful unless you have some proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need a history lesson. I'm not talking about where the sport was. I'm talking about your claim that the players "by and far" were making out better than the owners. You keep saying this but haven't provided any evidence.

The players ended up doing pretty well under this CBA, certainly better than they would've expected after giving up nearly a quarter of their salary and conceding to a salary cap. But that's not the same as "they're making out better than owners."

In 2003-2004 Nick Lidstrom, arguably one of the best players in the game, was making $10 million. 7 years later, the salaries of top players in the league are just now approaching that.

So over the 7 years the owners enjoyed a massive reduction in their greatest cost while experiencing record setting revenues. Claiming the players faired not just better but far better is just too general and baseless of a statement to be meaningful unless you have some proof.

When you talk about the serious concessions, it helps to understand where we came from. When clubs were spending 76% of their revenue on players, a large rollback was really the only way to keep the sport going. You say you don't need a history lesson, and its readily apparent you do. Many fans were on the side of the owners back then and for obvious reasons.

So, that being said, with salaries increasing over the course of the CBA leading us up to where we are today, I would say that the players have made out very well. Back in 2011, the average salary was $2.45 million. In 2006 after the lockout, it was 1.4 million, which was at 1.8 million before the rollbacks. Looking at the contracts that have been signed in the last two years, its feasable to believe that the average salary continues to go up.

The owners on the other hand have also done well for themselves but much less. Each team made about $4-$5 million per team the last couple years when you look at $120-$150 million in profit each year. These are the same owners that take the business risk. I firmly believe that the ownership is entitled to a little bit more, but not at the rate they are asking for. Still, in the end, I can make 3% on an investment by throwing all my money into a interest baring checking account. 1.5% average return on investment, and thats if there were no problems that needed to be addressed, is very small for a year.

So I guess that, based on that evidence, how can you not say that the players have made out better than the owners in the last CBA? Furthermore, how can you expect the owners to continue to run their businesses with those kinds of margins? The players had no motivation to negotiate a new CBA when they have the keys to the car. They would have played under that current CBA for the next 5-10 more years. It really is a no brainer to me why there is a lockout going on right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly, you're getting one thing completely backwards. I don't think the way I do because I support the PA. I support the PA because I think the way I do. It's not about what has or hasn't been done wrong on either side, it's what has and hasn't been done right. The PA making the right (IMO) offer, makes any wrongs I might have had a problem with meaningless. They can only be wrong insofar as they contribute to making the offer wrong. If the offer isn't wrong, the actions leading to the offer aren't wrong. The actions themselves are meaningless. All anyone should be concerned with is the offers. You don't agree with the offers. You have your theories on what you think has contributed to those offers (or more accurately, the lack of better ones), but don't let that confuse your true issue.

I will say you make some valid points, especially on your method of thinking. In my mind, both parties are going to be to blame in this lockout. You say that you don't think the way you do because you support the PA. You support the PA because you think the way you do. I think the same way when it comes to my disdain for both parties and the way they conduct business. It disgusts me, and as much as it disgusts me, I know that I won't be able to change the minds who are firmly on one fence or the other.

As I said before, we are going to have to agree to disagree on many of the things we discuss. This isn't a bad thing. We just have two opinions on the way that these negotiations should be run and my thoughts differ from yours. After 20 pages of discussion, this is the way it always will be from the looks of things.

With all this being said, let me throw out another thought that has to do with what you mentioned. You are right, I shouldn't expect anyone who likes apples but hates oranges to smash the apples they have. Same goes for the opposite. I mention this because you substitute the NHL for oranges and the NHLPA for apples, and you get the situation we have right here. I cannot expect you or anyone else that matter to change. You have your reasons for being where you are today, just as I do. The likelihood of us meeting in the middle or changing our minds are nill. Even though I hate the owners and the PA for their actions in this, I can't expect people firmly on one side to follow me in my thought process. There is a reason you are where you are at right now.

As a hockey fan, I hope this gets situated as quickly as possible. At the same time, my fandom of NHL hockey has taken a hit. This is coming from someone who has followed the Wings since I fell in love with the sport. Both the owners and players are not going to feel my paltry impact on the sport of hockey. $2000 a year on merchandise, tickets, travel, and so on don't make a dent in anything. At the same time, I hope that both sides hear my displeasure.

I don't expect you or anyone else to see things the way I do, and its about time I start acting like it. You and others here have done your best to make me see it from your perspective, and that isn't going to happen. I have to just be the guy here to bow out and say, agree to disagree. Don't take it personally, but its just the way that is the best for all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you talk about the serious concessions, it helps to understand where we came from. When clubs were spending 76% of their revenue on players, a large rollback was really the only way to keep the sport going. You say you don't need a history lesson, and its readily apparent you do. Many fans were on the side of the owners back then and for obvious reasons.

I don't. And it'd be nice if you would discuss what I'm saying instead of making condescending lectures.

I'm not arguing the right or wrong of the 2004 lockout. I'm talking about your claims as to the players benefitting far more than the owners.

So, that being said, with salaries increasing over the course of the CBA leading us up to where we are today, I would say that the players have made out very well. Back in 2011, the average salary was $2.45 million. In 2006 after the lockout, it was 1.4 million, which was at 1.8 million before the rollbacks. Looking at the contracts that have been signed in the last two years, its feasable to believe that the average salary continues to go up.

The owners on the other hand have also done well for themselves but much less. Each team made about $4-$5 million per team the last couple years when you look at $120-$150 million in profit each year. These are the same owners that take the business risk. I firmly believe that the ownership is entitled to a little bit more, but not at the rate they are asking for. Still, in the end, I can make 3% on an investment by throwing all my money into a interest baring checking account. 1.5% average return on investment, and thats if there were no problems that needed to be addressed, is very small for a year.

So I guess that, based on that evidence, how can you not say that the players have made out better than the owners in the last CBA? Furthermore, how can you expect the owners to continue to run their businesses with those kinds of margins? The players had no motivation to negotiate a new CBA when they have the keys to the car. They would have played under that current CBA for the next 5-10 more years. It really is a no brainer to me why there is a lockout going on right now.

Holy cow you are misusing and misrepresenting a ton of information here. Since you didn't provide links for any of the numbers you used, I'm also assuming you're basing your figures on the Forbes report from two years ago, which isn't really a complete financial picture of the money the owners made. You're also taking a number for profit for the league and averaging it as if each team splits the pot, which is in now way how it works.

You're also ignoring the value of the franchise. It's not just a revenue stream, it's an asset. Before the 2004-5 lockout, the average franchise value was $163.3 million. According to that source everyone loves to refer back to, Forbes says the average franchise is now worth $240 million. So the average value of the franchise has increased almost $80 million in 8 years. The well run franchises are not just bringing in good money, they're also greatly increasing in value.

http://www.forbes.co...ness-of-hockey/

Again, it all comes back to the disparity between the franchises, not the players salary. The Maple Leafs have had a massive increase in revenue and franchise value under this CBA.

This is from a fairly reputable financial blog, but it summarizes the Forbes info in a more concise way.

Here is the change in NHL franchise values since the 2003-04 season:

Pittsburgh Penguins, $264 Million, 161.4%

Montreal Canadiens, $445 Million, 128.2%

Edmonton Oilers, $212 Million, 103.8%

Vancouver Canucks, $300 Million, 102.7%

Washington Capitals, $225 Million, 95.7%

Calgary Flames, $220 Million, 89.7%

Toronto Maple Leafs, $521 Million, 86.1%

New York Rangers, $507 Million, 79.8%

Chicago Blackhawks, $306 Million, 71.9%

Carolina Hurricanes, $169 Million, 69.0%

Buffalo Sabres, $173 Million, 68.0%

Anaheim Ducks, $181 Million, 67.6%

Ottawa Senators, $201 Million, 60.8%

Atlanta Thrashers, $164 Million, 54.7%

Nashville Predators, $163 Million, 46.8%

New Jersey Devils, $181 Million, 46.0%

San Jose Sharks, $211 Million, 41.6%

Boston Bruins, $325 Million, 37.7%

Detroit Red Wings, $336 Million, 35.5%

Florida Panthers, $162 Million, 33.9%

Minnesota Wild, $213 Million, 30.7%

Los Angeles Kings, $232 Million, 20.2%

Tampa Bay Lightning, $174 Million, 16.0%

St. Louis Blues, $157 Million, 12.1%

Philadelphia Flyers, $290 Million, 9.8%

Columbus Blue Jackets, $152 Million, 9.4%

Phoenix Coyotes, $134 Million, -1.5%

New York Islanders, $149 Million, -6.9%

Dallas Stars, $230 Million, -11.2%

Colorado Avalanche, $198 Million, -19.5%

http://www.davemanue...05-lockout-135/

Your claim that the players have fared far better is your opinion, nothing more. It remains a very sweeping and unsubstantiated opinion at that. The reality is it's just not that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, that being said, with salaries increasing over the course of the CBA leading us up to where we are today, I would say that the players have made out very well. Back in 2011, the average salary was $2.45 million. In 2006 after the lockout, it was 1.4 million, which was at 1.8 million before the rollbacks. Looking at the contracts that have been signed in the last two years, its feasable to believe that the average salary continues to go up.

The owners on the other hand have also done well for themselves but much less. Each team made about $4-$5 million per team the last couple years when you look at $120-$150 million in profit each year. These are the same owners that take the business risk. I firmly believe that the ownership is entitled to a little bit more, but not at the rate they are asking for. Still, in the end, I can make 3% on an investment by throwing all my money into a interest baring checking account. 1.5% average return on investment, and thats if there were no problems that needed to be addressed, is very small for a year.

So I guess that, based on that evidence, how can you not say that the players have made out better than the owners in the last CBA? Furthermore, how can you expect the owners to continue to run their businesses with those kinds of margins? The players had no motivation to negotiate a new CBA when they have the keys to the car. They would have played under that current CBA for the next 5-10 more years. It really is a no brainer to me why there is a lockout going on right now.

Ha, right. The players are the ones with the keys to the car. They're in control. Which is precisely why the league has locked them out from the ability to do their jobs twice in seven years, forcing hundreds of the better ones overseas, while the more average players sit on an absolute loss.

First, we need to understand that the idea of a 50/50 split is totally arbitrary. There is no logical reason that hockey related revenues have to be "equally" shared between players and owners, except that it's the type of logic that makes sense to 4-year-olds, or people who barely pay attention to hockey.

Real-life businesses don't work like that. Companies and management have the power. Say you are an attorney in a law firm and you bill $300 an hour. At the end of a 1900-hour year, you have generated $570,000 for the firm. Your salary is not $570,000. It may be $100,000, or something in that ballpark, but the revenue has to go to cover costs, pay for staff, benefits plans, etc. The attorney looks at that and says "Not fair! I'm only taking home 18% of what I generate for the firm!" But of course it isn't that simple.

Attorneys are very replaceable. There are thousands of law school graduates every year, and lateral hires available from other firms and other markets. But NHL-caliber hockey players are much more rare, and the differences between the really good ones and the really average ones are much more noticeable. Moreover, if you staffed most teams with all the same facilities and resources, but ONLY average players, demand for your product would dry up very quickly.

The 2005 CBA was a unequivocal win for the owners at that time, which became a net win for the players in the coming years due to the growth of the game and the owners own stupidity. The owners found every way possible to spend additional money beyond the CBA constraints they themselves negotiated to put in place. They circumvented the cap, buried NHL-level salaries in the minors, and paid out huge bonuses to front load deals well beyond the what the CBA appears to allow. And yet, teams like Minnesota, Detroit, Toronto, Pittsburgh, etc. can afford to do this and still operate. Teams like Nashville and Phoenix cannot.

The solution to this problem has nothing to do with what percentage of HRR the players take. Increasing the owners' share is just throwing good money after bad. The root cause of the problem is in the lack of revenue sharing to benefit the overall health of the league. That's an owner vs. owner issue, but since all the owners can seem to agree on is taking more money from the players, that's all we ever debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RedWingsDad

Ha, right. The players are the ones with the keys to the car. They're in control. Which is precisely why the league has locked them out from the ability to do their jobs twice in seven years, forcing hundreds of the better ones overseas, while the more average players sit on an absolute loss.

First, we need to understand that the idea of a 50/50 split is totally arbitrary. There is no logical reason that hockey related revenues have to be "equally" shared between players and owners, except that it's the type of logic that makes sense to 4-year-olds, or people who barely pay attention to hockey.

Real-life businesses don't work like that. Companies and management have the power. Say you are an attorney in a law firm and you bill $300 an hour. At the end of a 1900-hour year, you have generated $570,000 for the firm. Your salary is not $570,000. It may be $100,000, or something in that ballpark, but the revenue has to go to cover costs, pay for staff, benefits plans, etc. The attorney looks at that and says "Not fair! I'm only taking home 18% of what I generate for the firm!" But of course it isn't that simple.

Attorneys are very replaceable. There are thousands of law school graduates every year, and lateral hires available from other firms and other markets. But NHL-caliber hockey players are much more rare, and the differences between the really good ones and the really average ones are much more noticeable. Moreover, if you staffed most teams with all the same facilities and resources, but ONLY average players, demand for your product would dry up very quickly.

The 2005 CBA was a unequivocal win for the owners at that time, which became a net win for the players in the coming years due to the growth of the game and the owners own stupidity. The owners found every way possible to spend additional money beyond the CBA constraints they themselves negotiated to put in place. They circumvented the cap, buried NHL-level salaries in the minors, and paid out huge bonuses to front load deals well beyond the what the CBA appears to allow. And yet, teams like Minnesota, Detroit, Toronto, Pittsburgh, etc. can afford to do this and still operate. Teams like Nashville and Phoenix cannot.

The solution to this problem has nothing to do with what percentage of HRR the players take. Increasing the owners' share is just throwing good money after bad. The root cause of the problem is in the lack of revenue sharing to benefit the overall health of the league. That's an owner vs. owner issue, but since all the owners can seem to agree on is taking more money from the players, that's all we ever debate.

The root of the fiscal problems of the league is not "lack of revenue sharing"... that is putting the cart before the horse. The real problem:

1.The NHL needs a diverse geographical viewership in the US to land a big TV deal.

2. The NHL therefore put's expansion teams in warm climates.

3. Areas with warmer clients don't typically have a lot of naturally occurring ice.

4. Areas without naturally occurring ice generally don't give a crap about hockey.

_

In summation, the root cause of the financial problems in the NHL is the weather... and you can't fix the weather.

Edited by RedWingsDad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article on why it will be hard for the players to rein in fehr even if they wanted to

http://www.thestar.c...n-the-nhlpa-cox

No more ombudsmen and player reps and internal counsels to bring down an NHLPA executive director. And no more chance of mutiny because there’s no small negotiating body dealing with the owners.

Now it’s 30 team reps to work with Fehr, and that’s it. That’s why over the course of the summer, 72 different players participated in the “bargaining,” frustrating to the league since very few had a solid grasp of the issues because they were in and out so often. ...

Power has been diffused to such a great extent within the union that no individual but Fehr has muscle now. So this standoff —-...— will go on for as long as Fehr believes it must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your claim that the players have fared far better is your opinion, nothing more. It remains a very sweeping and unsubstantiated opinion at that. The reality is it's just not that simple.

Yup, I suppose showing proof that salaries have increased almost two fold since the last lockout is just an opinion. Please keep going back to that though. If my salary doubled in the last 6 years, I would be pretty downtrodden.

In the meantime, the asset you talk about is about $240 million, which means the profit of $4-$5 million per season equates to about 1-2% of the asset. Going to tell me that you can't get a better return on investment elsewhere?

As I said before, I am backing out of this discussion. Its readily apparent that the numbers if they don't line up to the NHLPA method of thinking, they are incorrect or "unsubstantiated opinion". Lets face facts here, I am not going to be sitting on the same fence as you are. Probably never will. Both sides have had a hand in this lockout and the situation we are in today. It must be nice to live in a fantasy land where the NHL is entirely at fault while the NHLPA walks on water, but I don't have the luxury of having that dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I suppose showing proof that salaries have increased almost two fold since the last lockout is just an opinion. Please keep going back to that though. If my salary doubled in the last 6 years, I would be pretty downtrodden.

In the meantime, the asset you talk about is about $240 million, which means the profit of $4-$5 million per season equates to about 1-2% of the asset. Going to tell me that you can't get a better return on investment elsewhere?

As I said before, I am backing out of this discussion. Its readily apparent that the numbers if they don't line up to the NHLPA method of thinking, they are incorrect or "unsubstantiated opinion". Lets face facts here, I am not going to be sitting on the same fence as you are. Probably never will. Both sides have had a hand in this lockout and the situation we are in today. It must be nice to live in a fantasy land where the NHL is entirely at fault while the NHLPA walks on water, but I don't have the luxury of having that dream.

I've been fairly polite up until now, but keep up with your condescending insults and you will be getting locked out from this forum.

You were the one insistent on replying to my posts even after I made clear it was pointless for us to discuss this, so it would be great if you backed out of this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice article by strickland commentating on both sides

I’ve heard from several people that Bettman’s approach to bargaining has done nothing more than strengthened the player’s stance. If you know hockey players, you're aware they don’t like to be pushed around. The “take it or leave it” approach, along with the embarrassing first offer, and the way certain owners have conducted themselves in bargaining sessions has done little more than make the union stronger. Sources say Boston owner Jeremy Jacobs is a big part of the problem here. If the NHLPA could reach across the table and grab somebody there’s a decent chance they would grab Jacobs before Bettman.

You would think some owners would tell Bettman to change the way he’s acted during this lockout. Bettman has done little to help the perception of NHL owners as a whole. Sure I’ve heard from some players who are unhappy with their union but for the most part the players have given little indication they’re prepared to cave, which if you love the NHL is a scary proposition. Hockey players take a team-first attitude on the ice and have carried that over into these negotiations. In other words I’m not sure any player is ready to undermine the NHLPA. This could always change in a hurry.

The players have been confusing as well, although not to the extent of the owners. The NHLPA has suggested the previous CBA was bad for the players yet Don Fehr said they were willing to continue playing under the same agreement. I have a hard time understanding how the previous deal was bad for any player when you see salaries increase and how much cake these guys bring in every two weeks. If it was so bad then why would you be willing to continue to operate under the same terms?

I don’t like how the NHLPA structures their meetings or conference calls. It truly doesn’t allow for players with an opposing view to speak up. Seriously, who is going to lash out with over 100 other players on the same call? It’s an intimidating setting when you have little support backing you.

From what I hear the first 30 minutes of these calls are spent telling the players how bad they’re being screwed and how bad future NHL players will be screwed as well. All it does is set the mood for the rest of the call. Again it doesn’t exactly create a setting for players to voice their concerns or ask questions.

It’s hard to know who is telling the truth when you hear both sides speak. On one hand Fehr accuses the NHL of being unwilling to negotiate the way contract rights are spelled out in the league’s latest offer, while NHL deputy Commissioner Bill Daly refutes this telling me this is 100% false.

Sources say Fehr has also told the players the deal will only get better the longer you wait. I know of several retired players who lost a full year’s pay in 2004 who would disagree. Then again those players have no skin in the game today so it’s easy for them to say that now.

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice article by strickland commentating on both sides

That is a good piece.

This is the heart of it for me.

At least we thought. Here we are, after record revenues, attendance, television ratings, and popularity, we’re back to square one.

Which leads to one question…what the hell are we doing?

If the NHL and the NHLPA thinks all will be forgiven this go around you better think again. This isn’t the NFL and there will be no celebration this time.

6 months ago I never would've predicted we'd be in this situation given the state of the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Dreger's twitter:

S.Fehr and B.Daly talked extensively on the phone on Tues about a variety of issues. Hopefully it leads to meaningful negotiating.

I know I'm desperate for any positive sign but I think this could be one. Steve Fehr and Daly are likely the best chance at getting a deal done soon.

From what I've heard of Steve Fehr, he's more of a peace maker and diplomat than his brother in negotiations. And it's pretty clear the tone Bettman prefers to set, so the less he's involved probably the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I suppose showing proof that salaries have increased almost two fold since the last lockout is just an opinion. Please keep going back to that though. If my salary doubled in the last 6 years, I would be pretty downtrodden.

In the meantime, the asset you talk about is about $240 million, which means the profit of $4-$5 million per season equates to about 1-2% of the asset. Going to tell me that you can't get a better return on investment elsewhere?

....

Again, salaries have increased only about 56%, not double. And it's only about 28% since before the lockout.

Secondly, 1-2% is not return on investment. It would only be ROI in a theoretical situation of someone purchasing a team today, keeping it for one season, then selling it at the same price. If you want to calculate the actual ROI, you have to use the amount of money that was actually invested, and factor in asset appreciation as well. That number looks to be more like 6%, though we don't have all the numbers to know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I suppose showing proof that salaries have increased almost two fold since the last lockout is just an opinion. Please keep going back to that though. If my salary doubled in the last 6 years, I would be pretty downtrodden.

In the meantime, the asset you talk about is about $240 million, which means the profit of $4-$5 million per season equates to about 1-2% of the asset. Going to tell me that you can't get a better return on investment elsewhere?

As I said before, I am backing out of this discussion. Its readily apparent that the numbers if they don't line up to the NHLPA method of thinking, they are incorrect or "unsubstantiated opinion". Lets face facts here, I am not going to be sitting on the same fence as you are. Probably never will. Both sides have had a hand in this lockout and the situation we are in today. It must be nice to live in a fantasy land where the NHL is entirely at fault while the NHLPA walks on water, but I don't have the luxury of having that dream.

I am not trying to stir up a fight here, but I had to make a point on this last statement you made. Obviously the owners locked out the players, and refused to let them play under the old CBA. That being said, yes the NHL and the PA are both at fault here to varying extents. I believe the owners and Bettman are more at fault, which is partially why I take the players side, lets look at the facts;

- Bettman and the owners have been negotiating in bad faith since day 1 (look at the first proposal they made), and they refuse to negotiate unless it is under preconditioned terms.

- Fehr and the players have consistently put out proposals with different methods of how to get their revenue share to what the league is asking, and they got shot down without any consideration for what they are proposing.

- Bettman and Fehr are both trying to win a PR battle, difference is Bettman is making proposals that look good to fans, so they will back him, but when they players read through it, they realize he never had any intention of doing anything the players asked.

- The players are willing to go down to 50/50, it will take about 2 seasons to get there, but they will get there, all they ask is current contracts thatthe OWNERS willingly signed before the lockout be honored (not a lot to ask, considering they were given a contract right before the lockout stating they would be payed X amount) but the owners are refusing that now.

I am on the players side, but nothing I mentioned was based on opinion, or bias. Everything I wrote is factual, and if you really want I can post links to back up everything I have written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- The players are willing to go down to 50/50, it will take about 2 seasons to get there, but they will get there, all they ask is current contracts thatthe OWNERS willingly signed before the lockout be honored (not a lot to ask, considering they were given a contract right before the lockout stating they would be payed X amount) but the owners are refusing that now.

What's kind of funny about that is that the players have never been guaranteed the money due to the escrow system that they negotiated in the last cba.

The only money that they have ever been guaranteed is signing bonuses.

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's kind of funny about that is that the players have never been guaranteed the money due to the escrow system that they negotiated in the last cba.

The only money that they have ever been guaranteed is signing bonuses.

True, but I think what makes this worse to the players is when a team like Minnesota gets into a bidding war and shells out two 13-year $100 million contracts, then three months later the owner is sitting across from them saying franchises aren't making a profit because player's salaries are too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been fairly polite up until now, but keep up with your condescending insults and you will be getting locked out from this forum.

You were the one insistent on replying to my posts even after I made clear it was pointless for us to discuss this, so it would be great if you backed out of this discussion.

One thing is for certain, its pointless for either of us to reply to each others posts. We definitely see this situation in two different lights. Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='Euro_Twins' timestamp='1351711486' post='2333129']

I am not trying to stir up a fight here, but I had to make a point on this last statement you made. Obviously the owners locked out the players, and refused to let them play under the old CBA. That being said, yes the NHL and the PA are both at fault here to varying extents. I believe the owners and Bettman are more at fault, which is partially why I take the players side, lets look at the facts;

- Bettman and the owners have been negotiating in bad faith since day 1 (look at the first proposal they made), and they refuse to negotiate unless it is under preconditioned terms.

- Fehr and the players have consistently put out proposals with different methods of how to get their revenue share to what the league is asking, and they got shot down without any consideration for what they are proposing.

- Bettman and Fehr are both trying to win a PR battle, difference is Bettman is making proposals that look good to fans, so they will back him, but when they players read through it, they realize he never had any intention of doing anything the players asked.

- The players are willing to go down to 50/50, it will take about 2 seasons to get there, but they will get there, all they ask is current contracts thatthe OWNERS willingly signed before the lockout be honored (not a lot to ask, considering they were given a contract right before the lockout stating they would be payed X amount) but the owners are refusing that now.

I am on the players side, but nothing I mentioned was based on opinion, or bias. Everything I wrote is factual, and if you really want I can post links to back up everything I have written.[/u]

Where is the fan outrage at owners not wanting to honor already signed contracts? When a player does this in any league he becomes the devil incarnate. I despise the tactic used by the owners during the days leading up to the expiration of the prior CBA. They outragously outbid eachother to overpay the few top end FA's fully knowing their future intentions of reniging with new CBA negotiations. That's dirty. I side on the side of the players because of this. I'm not a basketball fan at all but maybe this is the season that draws my interest. Sad.

Can somebody please tell me why everything above is underlined? What button did I push to make it stop?

Edited by haroldsnepsts
removed underline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not trying to stir up a fight here, but I had to make a point on this last statement you made. Obviously the owners locked out the players, and refused to let them play under the old CBA. That being said, yes the NHL and the PA are both at fault here to varying extents. I believe the owners and Bettman are more at fault, which is partially why I take the players side, lets look at the facts;

- Bettman and the owners have been negotiating in bad faith since day 1 (look at the first proposal they made), and they refuse to negotiate unless it is under preconditioned terms.

- Fehr and the players have consistently put out proposals with different methods of how to get their revenue share to what the league is asking, and they got shot down without any consideration for what they are proposing.

- Bettman and Fehr are both trying to win a PR battle, difference is Bettman is making proposals that look good to fans, so they will back him, but when they players read through it, they realize he never had any intention of doing anything the players asked.

- The players are willing to go down to 50/50, it will take about 2 seasons to get there, but they will get there, all they ask is current contracts thatthe OWNERS willingly signed before the lockout be honored (not a lot to ask, considering they were given a contract right before the lockout stating they would be payed X amount) but the owners are refusing that now.

I am on the players side, but nothing I mentioned was based on opinion, or bias. Everything I wrote is factual, and if you really want I can post links to back up everything I have written.

I will say this, you have hit the nail on the head with every one of your complaints. At the same time though, as you mentioned, the NHLPA has fault in this which you didn't mention at all.

The NHLPA has not been negotiating in good faith either. Their delays with their first proposal (3 weeks) and waiting until the last minute to come to the table after the league said it was ready to start negotiating in January. I have called out the NHL proposal already numerous times. No sense of urgency and dragging things out is not negotiating in good faith.

Fehr has been looking at "alternate methods" and I applaud him for doing so. At the same time, if one side is speaking English and the other side comes to the table with an agreement set in Spanish, is that necessarily right? I do get what you are saying. The NHL should be looking at these proposals and be more willing to consider them. What I fault Fehr and the players with is not speaking the same language when they come to the bargaining table. This is where the disconnect lies right here. You would think by now both sides would be speaking the same language and they are not.

Bettman's proposals are definitely not what they are being advertised to be. The NHLPA is also guilty of this as well. For instance, in the NHLPA 3rd proposal, the numbers never get to the 50/50 split that the NHLPA makes it out to be.

http://espn.go.com/b...tter-to-players

None of the players proposals actually make it down to 50/50 in year 2 or 3.

So before you talk about misrepresentation, lies, not bargaining in good faith, look on both sides of the ledger. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Oh, and I am not surprised that our resident mod "liked" your post. It offered nothing in terms of pointing out these failings of the NHLPA and everything involving the sins of the NHL.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, salaries have increased only about 56%, not double. And it's only about 28% since before the lockout.

Secondly, 1-2% is not return on investment. It would only be ROI in a theoretical situation of someone purchasing a team today, keeping it for one season, then selling it at the same price. If you want to calculate the actual ROI, you have to use the amount of money that was actually invested, and factor in asset appreciation as well. That number looks to be more like 6%, though we don't have all the numbers to know for sure.

True, it is not double, but you also cannot count before the lockout either. Clubs were spending 76% of their revenue on salaries and changes had to be made for the long term survival of the league. Remember, this was needed at the time.

Player salaries average after the lockout year concessions were 1.4 million. In 2011 they were 2.45 million. I would guess they have gone up in the year after that, but thats 75% higher and we still have another year to tack on which we don't know the numbers for.

As for the ROI, you are correct. I am just calculating how much they are making in terms of the asset they own. By the way, making $5 million off a $240 million dollar asset is only 2% of the asset in terms of the profit. If the owner instead took $240 million and put it in an interest baring checking account, he would make 3% on his investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but I think what makes this worse to the players is when a team like Minnesota gets into a bidding war and shells out two 13-year $100 million contracts, then three months later the owner is sitting across from them saying franchises aren't making a profit because player's salaries are too high.

i agree. what leipold did puts a really big stain on the owners image. can't believe that he is on the negotating committee.

but my impressions from reading some of these quotes by players is that they act like they have always gotten every penny of their contracts in the past cba, which isn't true. i think it just shows how misinformed some of these players are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

friedman speculates on who the hardliners are

The commish has three groups of owners: the ones who want to play; the ones in the middle, including Tampa and Nashville, who want a better collective bargaining agreement but recognize not playing is worse; and the hardliners. It would be a mistake to underestimate the last group. There are several who would rather cancel the season than accept a bad deal because they are hemorrhaging money and need immediate satisfaction.

While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas -- enough to block any agreement from getting done (It's tough to lock it down because owners are forbidden to discuss this stuff. Attempts to talk to a couple were politely shot down).

also another couple interesting tidbits from the article

Thought for sure Minnesota would be in the hardline group with Wild owner Craig Leipold on the negotiating committee. But a few sources said they think he wants to play, eventually. Too much momentum to lose
Comcast chairman and CEO Brian Roberts on a conference call last week, courtesy Adweek: "I can tell you we're pretty disappointed with regard to the lockout. I don't think we should say a heck of a lot more. I think that we're just hopeful that the ownership and the players can get together and get on with the season." Comcast owns NBC and the Philadelphia Flyers.
Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is even more questionable why Bettman changed the rules to only need 8 owners to back him in order to initiate a lockout. It should be a majority, not a minority. The hardliners are doing their part to destroy the popularity of NHL hockey, which is bad for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note to those of you who I have been interacting with....

First off, I would like to apologize for my crappy behavior. I have sent out a few parting shots at people, and this isn't the way to act on a public forum. As many of you know, I feel strongly about this situation in blaming both sides for their conduct. I also understand that I am in a forum of people who, as a majority, like the NHLPA and what they stand for. While I don't agree with everything everyone says here, there are some good points being made for the NHLPA that I acknowledge. There are also some things which I believe to be incorrect that I have tried to correct people on, but not the right way to do so. Some of the parting shots I have thrown people have not been right and I wouldn't like it if I was put in your shoes.

To put it simply, I am going to be tossing in discussion points, but I won't be engaging people in active discussion like I have been. I really have been almost emotionally involved in this discussion because of just how upset I am with the NHL and NHLPA with this whole mess. This lockout has consumed me to a certain point, and that is bad for my health. I have spent time on social networking publicly speaking about the faults of both of these sides and how upset I am with them. This is not the kind of person I am to be honest. This coming from someone who is positive, energetic, a leader, respectable, and most importantly, a real hockey fan.

To those of you who I have upset, I apologize.

To those of you who are typing up responses to things I have posted here, don't anticipate a reply.

I will still be active, but I am really going to knock things down and go low key for a while. Its time I put this lockout and the way I feel about it out of my head and concentrate on something else. Maybe computer games, work, refereeing hockey, or any one of the many things I enjoy doing. This lockout is really upsetting, but its time to move on.

Thank you all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.