2458 replies to this topic

[F.Michael]

Those poor players, getting paid millions to bang super hot chicks (as many as they want), skate around playing hockey for 15 years and retiring at 40. That must really suck.

It's a good thing someone pays them to do this sort of thing. Otherwise, working at Arby's , getting zero ***** and getting sodomized in a bar by a burly Canadian fellow in a restroom at the local watering hole seems like the only alternative.

Seriously guys these players are nuts. The only thing they can do is play hockey. They get paid well with lots of perks, I'm pretty sure most of them want to play the game. This union nonsense has to stop. The union rep,doesn't care about that it's about $.

It's about time we got this season started.

I gotta agree though...Outside of playing a kids game - what do these players offer to society, or the workforce?

Nothing against them, but the players must realise that they're placed atop of a pedestal by us fans, and outside of playing the great game of ice hockey - they pretty much offer little else.

[Dabura]

I gotta agree though...Outside of playing a kids game - what do these players offer to society, or the workforce?

Ask downtown Detroit.

[chances14]

That comment really only applies to a very small portion of total NHL players. The vast majority, beyond 90%, have very short careers and need to find another job after playing to support themselves.

Edit: couple more thoughts on recent talks/developments:

- I'm a bit angered by the NHLs response to the NHLPAs latest proposal. The NHLPA came back and gave a lot, got a lot closer to the NHLs offer. I wouldn't expect the owners to accept the offer, but they could have at least considered it and countered. What they have basically done it take it and say....no, we aren't budging. This is what they did 7 years ago when the players finally agreed to a 24% rollback...they said thank you....now what more will you give us. My worry is that they will simply sit there and wait for the players to give in because they will eventually. Then, 5, 6 or 7 years from now we'll be back at the same place with the owners wanting the players to give back more and the owners will be willing to sit without hockey knowing it's only a matter of time before the players give in again.

i think what angered the league is that the pa slipped in a de linked component in their proposal that states that player revenues can never be lower than the previous year even if revenues drop. the owners have made it clear that they want linkage. until the pa gives in to that, there won't be much progress on contracting issues.

- mediation - makes some sense, but far too late in the process if you ask me. Hopefully it's not just a PR move to show everyone that they are trying their best. The only glimmer of hope I take from it is that both sides fell like they could settle in the middle somewhere but don't want to admit to it (i.e. lose the negotiation). The mediator would allow them both to admit a tie and suggest they were pushed there by the mediator. It is a stretch, but a logical one too. I'm not optomistic at that it will go down that way though.

i think it's a bit of both. for the pa, this is the final step before they decertify. that way when they go to court, they can say that they tried everything to negotiate a deal and aren't trying to use simply for leverage in negotiations.

Edited by chances14, 27 November 2012 - 04:29 PM.

[LeftWinger]

Ryan Miller with a detailed explanation of why he's in favour of decertification, from the Globe and Mail.
Maybe Roman Hamrlik should start his own union. But, he shouldn't count on Erik Cole and Troy Brouwer joining.

...and I just lost all respect for Ryan Miller...


Decertify the Union and return to the good old days of owners actually "owning" players....

Everyone out there who thinks the Union is the bad seed here please go watch the movie "Net Worth."

The owners are no different than the CEO's of this world...If Hostess hads't taught you anything then nothing will...liqiudate the company and STILL award CEO's and Top managment MILLIONS of dollars in bonuses...They sure were hurting for money, eh?

Edited by LeftWinger, 27 November 2012 - 05:20 PM.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

I gotta agree though...Outside of playing a kids game - what do these players offer to society, or the workforce?

Nothing against them, but the players must realise that they're placed atop of a pedestal by us fans, and outside of playing the great game of ice hockey - they pretty much offer little else.

Fans just need to stop paying and the pedestal would disappear. But they do so it appears that players do provide something of value and fans are willing to pay for it.

[GMRwings1983]

I gotta agree though...Outside of playing a kids game - what do these players offer to society, or the workforce?

Nothing against them, but the players must realise that they're placed atop of a pedestal by us fans, and outside of playing the great game of ice hockey - they pretty much offer little else.

Both sides in this lockout are convinced the fans will love them no matter what, and that hockey is the most popular sport in this country that people watch constantly in all regions. They're either that naive, or simply don't freaking care as long as they get paid.
If it's the latter, they have to realize they will get hurt long term by a full season lockout. This league can't afford another lockout in this country.

[Dabura]

Report: Pittsburgh area loses $2.1 million per Penguins' game lost

http://prohockeytalk...uins-game-lost/

[Wingzman91]

I gotta agree though...Outside of playing a kids game - what do these players offer to society, or the workforce?

Disagree, if you want to make it player vs fan then ya, fans make the NHL; the conflict is between the owners and the players, players work way harder for their % of the NHL the the owners do.
The owners locked out the players for a bag of cash, polarized the issue and watched as the fans ripped each other apart.
There is a perfectly sorted reason for this lockout and the tactics the owners employed, that reason has to be discussed on a different site though.

[frankgrimes]

This lockout to me at least is just bogus. Players offered to continue under the old CBA till a new one is finalized, league declined add to that the shameful lowball starting offer, I don't even have to think about whom to side with.

I watch the players not a bunch of havanna smoking CEO types, who aren't in this business to win it but to make a quick buck. I am glad the best owner in all of sports is against RS and all that crap just shows us how lucky we as Red Wings fans can be, to have such an outstanding person running the show. Let's not forget this is an owners - BOG? - lockout.

Yes, the money has to go to someone but I'd rather see it going to the guys who are giving their all each and every night, risking injuries and are working their asses off just to entertain us, instead of a bunch of "we are losing money" guys who at the same time are buying secondary mansions worth 20 m$.

Edited by frankgrimes, 28 November 2012 - 12:42 AM.

[chances14]

This lockout to me at least is just bogus. Players offered to continue under the old CBA till a new one is finalized, league declined add to that the shameful lowball starting offer, I don't even have to think about whom to side with.

I watch the players not a bunch of havanna smoking CEO types, who aren't in this business to win it but to make a quick buck. I am glad the best owner in all of sports is against RS and all that crap just shows us how lucky we as Red Wings fans can be, to have such an outstanding person running the show. Let's not forget this is an owners - BOG? - lockout.

Yes, the money has to go to someone but I'd rather see it going to the guys who are giving their all each and every night, risking injuries and are working their asses off just to entertain us, instead of a bunch of "we are losing money" guys who at the same time are buying secondary mansions worth 20 m$.

Of course the players were willing to play under old CBA, They were raking in the money. if the players felt the same way about the current CBA as the owners do, we would have seen a strike. And with fehr's history of striking during the playoffs, there was no way the league was going to risk getting the playoffs (their biggest revenue making part of the season) wiped out. That would have given the players basically all the leverage. Back in 1992, bob goodenow led the players on a strike on the eve of the playoffs. Bettman was promptly brought in the following year.

I know that the players are the ones who put on the entertainment, but without the owners, the players wouldn't be able to put on that entertainment in the same capacity as we have now. They pay the players and they assume all the financial risks that comes along with putting the product out on the ice. Bottom line, the players and owners both need each other in order to survive and prosper.

[55fan]

This lockout to me at least is just bogus. Players offered to continue under the old CBA till a new one is finalized, league declined add to that the shameful lowball starting offer, I don't even have to think about whom to side with.

I watch the players not a bunch of havanna smoking CEO types, who aren't in this business to win it but to make a quick buck. I am glad the best owner in all of sports is against RS and all that crap just shows us how lucky we as Red Wings fans can be, to have such an outstanding person running the show. Let's not forget this is an owners - BOG? - lockout.

Yes, the money has to go to someone but I'd rather see it going to the guys who are giving their all each and every night, risking injuries and are working their asses off just to entertain us, instead of a bunch of "we are losing money" guys who at the same time are buying secondary mansions worth 20 m$.

Not to mention that the last time the league locked the players out, the players were forced to accept the current terms and conditions of their employment or risk losing another season. Unfortunately for the League, profits grew and so did the cap, which means that the players are getting more money.

I am baffled that the League would insist on a rollback and a salary cap then, and now blame the players for being greedy because they're making more money now than they did then.

Last time I sympathized with the owners for the reasons that many have cited here: They take the financial risks and take the losses if they fail, so they should reap the profits if they succeed. The players are employees.

However, now that the employees have agreed to what the owners wanted, they should be paid that which the owners set forth as allowable in the last CBA for contracts that were signed under that CBA.

I got to thinking last night about this. The League wants the players to take a smaller share of the smaller pie. The players want contracts honoured. This won't work out for some teams as this means that the cap will go down.

Would this be possible? Agree that each team may spend up to the cap on 23 players (at a time, IR is another kettle of fish). However, current contracts must be honoured first. If the team reaches the cap without filling the 23-man roster, that team may extend above the cap by filling its roster only with league-minimum players until they either trade some of their higher-paid guys or until the current contracts end. After that, they must be cap-compliant.

This would screw the ones who rushed out and signed huge contracts anticipating a rollback and reward those who planned wisely. It would also mean that the players would get the money they agreed to.

I would also do away with escrow. If the league miscalculates the cap, or if owners spend right up to it and the league and/or team doesn't rake in as much as they thought they would, then tough titties. They still have to pay what they said they would and it would have to come out of the owner's pocket who gambled that it would be covered.

Just some thoughts that entered my head.
(EDIT for clarity)

Edited by 55fan, 28 November 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[Z Winged Dangler]

...and I just lost all respect for Ryan Miller...


Decertify the Union and return to the good old days of owners actually "owning" players....

Everyone out there who thinks the Union is the bad seed here please go watch the movie "Net Worth."

The owners are no different than the CEO's of this world...If Hostess hads't taught you anything then nothing will...liqiudate the company and STILL award CEO's and Top managment MILLIONS of dollars in bonuses...They sure were hurting for money, eh?

That's the exact thing I was talking about with my dad a couple days ago. Ted Lindsay started the NHLPA because guys were getting injured and getting dumped by their teams and they were paying for their own moves when they got traded from team to team and the last straw for Lindsay was when an old teammate of his died in his car after he got cast from the team due to injuries. The union was brought in to give the players their HUMAN RIGHTS, not to make it so they can use things like decertifying the union to take the cowards way out of the lockout and try to basically scam the owners, which will tie the lockout up in court and we'll be lucky to see hockey next year let alone this year.

I'd love to hear what Terrible Ted has to say about decertification. Maybe a pioneer of the game that used to make $7,000 per year to be one of the greats can talk some sense into the millionaires. I've been on the players side from the beginning, but i'll lose the players respect if they decertify the union that's given them so much over the years.

[drwscc]

I really hope they do decertify the union. Just blow everything up, and take it to the courts for years and years. You want to talk about some rancor between the players and ownership now? Just wait until the 3rd and 4th liners get released when they get hurt, or take below current league minimum since that will be gone, because you know they're not going to have the pull a Crosby or a Datsyuk has, and 3rd/4th line talent is everywhere.

Ryan Miller is a star, so of course he'll be fine. But Justin Abdelkader is going to have to be very careful under that system.

However, I think it's really moot. The league will just argue that the players are doing it for leverage, and the courts will throw it out. You can't be a union when it suits you, and then not be a union when it gets tough. Plus, as soon as the lockout ended, they'd just reform the union. It's posturing.

[Dabura]

I'll be amazed if they decertify. I'll be even more amazed if it actually gets them anywhere.

[StormJH1]

This whole thing is so sickening. Even though I feel like the NHLPA still has some measure of additional support from the public/media as compared to the owners...it feels like even the people who support the NHLPA have allowed this entire debate to be stuffed into the framework laid out by the NHL. The idea that "we have to get to 50/50", which is really just a completely arbitrary distribution that SOUNDS non-arbitrary, necessarily called for a massive reduction in player revenues and a lockout. What rationale could there possibly be for completely shutting down the product and asking the players to shift hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue back to the owners, when the product (as a whole) was actually generating far more money than seemed possible in 2005?

We don't see the actual numbers behind these purported losses by the 18 NHL franchises. What part does the players share of revenues have in the fact that about half of the league can't operate at a profit...any more than the players have to do with the fact that some other franchises have turned CONSIDERABLE profits? Moreover, if the cap floor is fixed at $16 million below the cap maximum, why don't we see 15-20 teams bottoming out as close to that floor as they possibly can, if they're hurting for money so bad anyways? Heck, you have a greater chance of making the playoffs as you do missing the playoffs anyway (16 out of 30), why not just save $10 million a year by bottoming out and hoping that enough other teams do the same? If Nashville and Phoenix can make the playoffs multiple times with all the issues they have financially, couldn't anybody?

The surprising truth is that most owners actually want to win. They want to win so badly that they will cheat their own CBA provisions as much as they can, waste money on stashed minor leaguers, backloaded deals, and bonuses that don't even appear in the cap, and overpay undeserving players like Ville Leino, Mike Cammileleri, and Jeff Finger chasing the dream. Then, when the bubble bursts again, they'll just ask for more money every 7 years. I'm sorry, but that's not the way to run a business. I don't blame Jeff Finger for taking huge money to play a game he loves, to support a career that could be over tomorrow if he crashes into the boards wrong. I do blame the guys who thought paying that money was a good idea, and drooled over expansion fees without putting any type of revenue sharing in place to support struggling teams.

[chances14]

according to forbes, 13 teams are losing money

Our data illustrates the league’s conundrum. Fueled by a 9% increase in overall revenue to $3.4 billion during the 2011-12 season, the average National Hockey League team is now worth $282 million, 18% more than a year ago.

But the spread between the rich and poor teams is dramatic. The five most valuable teams–the Maple Leafs ($1 billion), New York Rangers ($750 million), Montreal Canadiens ($575 million), Chicago Blackhawks ($350 million) and Boston Bruins ($348 million)–are worth $605 million, on average. The five least valuable–the Carolina Hurricanes ($162 million), New York Islanders ($155 million), Columbus Blue Jackets ($145 million), Phoenix Coyotes ($134 million) and St. Louis Blues ($130 million)–are worth just $145 million, on average.

There is also an incredible bifurcation of cash flow. Overall operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) almost doubled during the 2011-12 season, to $250 million. But the sport’s three most profitable teams–the Maple Leafs ($81.9 million), Rangers ($74 million), Canadians ($51.6 million)–accounted for 83% of the league’s income, while 13 of 30 teams lost money, before non-cash expenses and interest payments.

[haroldsnepsts]

according to forbes, 13 teams are losing money

People keep repeating that but it's not true.

According to Forbes analysis with the financial info they have available to them, those teams have a negative operating income before things like taxes, depreciation and amortization. But it's inaccurate for them to simply say they're losing money.

These owners have multiple corporations with revenue and expenses moving between one and the other. The goal with corps is not to show a huge profit because you want to reduce your tax burden.

Clearly there are teams that are struggling financially but the Forbes report isn't a complete or accurate financial picture. In 2004 Bettman had an extensive audit of franchises to show in irrefutable detail how many were losing money. Strange how he didn't do that this time.

There's the secondary issue of how much it's actually the players fault that these franchises aren't profitable. Unlike 2005 the real issue is the disparity of the franchises, not the un-capped costs of player salaries.

[Playmaker]

I gotta agree though...Outside of playing a kids game - what do these players offer to society, or the workforce?

Nothing against them, but the players must realise that they're placed atop of a pedestal by us fans, and outside of playing the great game of ice hockey - they pretty much offer little else.

Apparently, they do enough to entice you to come to a message board to comment on them even when they aren't even playing.

[Jedi]

LeBrun's tweeting that the meeting is still going on, as of about an hour ago. He also speculated that we won't hear much in the way of news updates from today's meeting...

[chances14]

nhl sponsor client rips into the league

“The league has become known for lying to its fans, to its sponsors,” said Ed O’Hara, senior partner of New York-based SME Branding, which helped devise the strategy for the NHL eight years ago and still counts the league among its clients.

and here's an article which points out a good example of why i think all the bettman hate is misguided. it needs to be directed towards the owners like jacobs.

also, a great read by ted lindsay

Edited by chances14, 28 November 2012 - 06:57 PM.