Could We Be Looking At Another Strike/Lockout?

[LeftWinger 4,961]

http://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2016/11/mckenzies-latest-olympics.html

 

Quote

How will they come to an agreement? “Outside of shutting down the league and going back and fighting the battle over the salary cap and the share, I don’t know how you solve that… There’ll be blood on the tracks for escrow to come down in any meaningful way, other than by not putting the inflator in or the Canadian dollar getting stronger.”

Hopefully for hockey fans, the two sides can figure it out without costing fans the chance to see NHLers at the Olympics in 2018 and beyond, and avoid another season-long lockout.   -McKenzie

I have about had it with strikes/lockouts! What, including the ref's we've had 4 under Bettman? UGH!

[MabusIncarnate 5,344]

This sport cannot take another lockout. Period.

They must work this out and avoid a disastrous situation or it could potentially threaten the entire future of the NHL. It's already the least popular professional sport in the states.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

As long as there is a CBA there will be lockouts. So I would bet on it

[kliq 3,755]

I understand the 50% on revenues issue from the owners perspective. I just had a meeting with our own accountant and she warned me about our payroll coming close to 47%. Its just one of those standard rules of business. Payroll should never exceed more then 50% of gross revenue's in most circumstances (I'm sure there are exceptions in some industries). I'm a bit lost on the escrow though.

As far as the treatment of players, I am completely for this. I am sick of tired of refs changing their philosophy depending on the night, the period, and the team. Refs need to become consistent so players can understand what they can and can not get away with. You want to stop cheap shots with no enforcer, harsher penalties. If a guy throws an elbow to the head of a player, suspend him for 25 games, not 1. Though this should be towards all players, not just stars. When a guy can get away with throwing an elbow one game and then gets suspended the next game, its confusing.

Either way, if there is another lockout I will be pissed. The year after the last one I boycotted spending money on anything NHL in protest. It just pisses me off that the fans are being used as leverage by both sides.

[LeftWinger 4,961]

2 hours ago, kliq said:

I understand the 50% on revenues issue from the owners perspective. I just had a meeting with our own accountant and she warned me about our payroll coming close to 47%. Its just one of those standard rules of business. Payroll should never exceed more then 50% of gross revenue's in most circumstances (I'm sure there are exceptions in some industries). I'm a bit lost on the escrow though.

As far as the treatment of players, I am completely for this. I am sick of tired of refs changing their philosophy depending on the night, the period, and the team. Refs need to become consistent so players can understand what they can and can not get away with. You want to stop cheap shots with no enforcer, harsher penalties. If a guy throws an elbow to the head of a player, suspend him for 25 games, not 1. Though this should be towards all players, not just stars. When a guy can get away with throwing an elbow one game and then gets suspended the next game, its confusing.

Either way, if there is another lockout I will be pissed. The year after the last one I boycotted spending money on anything NHL in protest. It just pisses me off that the fans are being used as leverage by both sides.

Are you talking about the NHL? Or the United States Government?

[shocky2002 36]

It's a near-guarantee IMO. I have no idea how the NHL agreed to the last CBA. That was an NHLPA blowout.

[ami 273]

as long as there is a union, there would be a lockout. the useless socialistic bureaucrats need to prove their usefulness from time to time, otherwise they risk loosing any source of income.

[toby91_ca 620]

On 11/18/2016 at 6:52 PM, kliq said:

I understand the 50% on revenues issue from the owners perspective. I just had a meeting with our own accountant and she warned me about our payroll coming close to 47%. Its just one of those standard rules of business. Payroll should never exceed more then 50% of gross revenue's in most circumstances (I'm sure there are exceptions in some industries). I'm a bit lost on the escrow though.

I'm not sure who told you about 50% being some general rule, because it just can't be.  That will be far too much for some businesses and far too little for others.  Every business is different.  I suppose you can go industry by industry and try to generalize that way, but 50% as a general rule doesn't really exist.

[kliq 3,755]

5 hours ago, toby91_ca said:

I'm not sure who told you about 50% being some general rule, because it just can't be.  That will be far too much for some businesses and far too little for others.  Every business is different.  I suppose you can go industry by industry and try to generalize that way, but 50% as a general rule doesn't really exist.

I'm basing it off of what my accountant has told me who I have a lot of trust in and respect for due to her track record, financial advisers, and research I have done. I didn't just pull a number out of my ass. If you look at my posting history I hope it proves that I am not someone who just throws false numbers or claims out there.

A number like this can change depending on the industry, but as a general rule of thumb 50% is typically the max number. Of course it can be less, no business would complain about payroll being too small if gross sales and net profit are high, I didn't mean to insinuate that payroll cant be smaller then 50%, my post was about it exceeding 50% so I agree with half of what you said. Personally I run a business where gross sales are contingent on payroll, so if our payroll is down, gross sales are down. The higher our payroll, the higher our net profit, though our model is setup where 50% will not be exceeded.

Out of curiosity, do you run or work for a business where this is incorrect? I don't personally know of a business model where payroll should be greater then 50%, but I admit that it could exist. 

[toby91_ca 620]

7 hours ago, kliq said:

I'm basing it off of what my accountant has told me who I have a lot of trust in and respect for due to her track record, financial advisers, and research I have done. I didn't just pull a number out of my ass. If you look at my posting history I hope it proves that I am not someone who just throws false numbers or claims out there.

A number like this can change depending on the industry, but as a general rule of thumb 50% is typically the max number. Of course it can be less, no business would complain about payroll being too small if gross sales and net profit are high, I didn't mean to insinuate that payroll cant be smaller then 50%, my post was about it exceeding 50% so I agree with half of what you said. Personally I run a business where gross sales are contingent on payroll, so if our payroll is down, gross sales are down. The higher our payroll, the higher our net profit, though our model is setup where 50% will not be exceeded.

Out of curiosity, do you run or work for a business where this is incorrect? I don't personally know of a business model where payroll should be greater then 50%, but I admit that it could exist. 

I'm the wrong person to ask that question as I'm in an industry where the payroll is likely closer to 90% of total revenues (that's a total guess though).....professional services firm.

[kliq 3,755]

36 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

I'm the wrong person to ask that question as I'm in an industry where the payroll is likely closer to 90% of total revenues (that's a total guess though).....professional services firm.

I'll be the first to admit, there are exceptions and outliers to every rule.