Jump to content


haroldsnepsts's Photo

haroldsnepsts

Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Jan 29 2015 08:26 PM
***--

#2330115 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 26 September 2012 - 02:02 PM

No, it still works. It's just a select group of 30 cattle ranchers that have Kobe cows. There are other ranches with angus cows, longhorns, etc, but in order to get a Kobe ranch, you have to be approved by the other ranchers. They can't have you going insane, selling your cows for pennies on the dollar, or making changes to the breed that will hurt the other ranchers.

Right. Because 20,000 people travel for miles and pay hundreds of dollars to watch cows graze several times a week. Buy cow outfits to wear with the brand of their favorite cow on the side. Watch cows grazing on television for hours on end.

Totally a solid analogy.

And if ranchers did that it would be collusion. The NHL is a pretty specific situation.


#2330081 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 26 September 2012 - 09:40 AM

I am not going to see that for the price of NHL ticket. At $5 a game maybe.

And therein lies a truth that a lot of people ignore in the lockout debates.

the reason we fans are willing to shell out an insane amount of money for tickets, parking, beer, jerseys, directv packages, etc, is because we're watching the best players on the planet play the game. That's why they're not exactly cattle.


#2330080 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 26 September 2012 - 09:36 AM

I guess I have to have my head so far up the NHLPA's ass to see what you see in those greedy screwballs. Its all or nothing in your mind. The NHLPA has zero fault while the NHL has 100% fault. I can't just put all the fault on one party, when it most clearly is the fault of both why we are in a lockout right now. As I said before, 60% at fault with the ownership group, but the players carry 40% of the burden easily.

And here we are again. You unable to understand anything other than all or nothing so you misrepresent my position, in spite of my repeated posts about it.

My point, which you once again missed, is not that it's 100% anyone's fault (god I'm sick of typing that). I can understand the opinion of people who think the owners should be able to get what they want from their proposal because it's their franchises and the players are employees, so they should pretty much just agree to the deal. I don't agree with it, but I can see the position.

What baffles me is you consistently misrepresenting what they players union has offered and saying both sides have essentially conceded nothing. It's patently false.

I think a fair and equitable agreement could be made at 52% for the players and 48% for the owners on the core economics side of things.

I would like to know why you think that I expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree? I have said numerous times that there is room for both sides to give something in these negotiations. The ownership can easily give back to the players just as much as the players can give back to the owners. Its not that hard to see that concessions can be made and they don't have to all come from one side.

What you don't acknowledge much is that the players have already conceded a ton. Hence my analogy. Their starting point was a heck of a lot closer to the middle than anything the league proposed. So if both sides keep moving forward equally from where they are now, in the end it means they end up with a deal heavily swayed towards the owners.

If they were to both concede equally from here to arrive in the middle, then the union's starting point for negotiations should have been to get rid of the cap.

This is what I don't understand and maybe someone here can educate me.

I believe a fair and equitable agreement can be made between both sides. As has been pointed out numerous times, any two sides who were cooperative and were bargaining honestly could hammer out an agreement in a couple hours. I don't see many people on the sides of the owners here, and on the flip side I see many on the sides of the players. This makes sense due to the offers that were shelled out and Fehr's comments to the press. What I don't understand is why someone has to be either for or against one side. There is no looking at the big picture and seeing faults with both. There is no looking at the offers that were put forward and comparing/contrasting them.

I guess its a lot like religion or political preference. "If you aren't a (insert affiliate name here), then you are wrong" mentality. I guess that its time for fans to get mad, not take sides.

This has little to do with my political preference, it has to do with looking at the facts. The league overall is profitable. Revenues are up over a billion dollars since the last deal. That's up 50%, which is amazing. The Winter Classic is a big hit. The NHL is now on several NBC networks.

What should have been a relatively simple CBA negotiations went off the rails with the owners first offer. It was completely insane and hostile. As I've said before, the only way the owners could have expected the players to get anywhere near that first proposal is to break their will, which requires locking them out.

The owners and Bettman's strategy was built upon a lockout.

Yes there's things both sides could do better, but in terms of who's the biggest (not 100%, but biggest) reason we won't be watching hockey? It's Bettman and the owners by a country mile.

The profit margins for these teams are really razor thin. The people who are for the NHLPA like to think that owners are fine just losing millions per year for their stake in the team. Is that the right mentality? At the same time, is it right for the owners to have to lose money? Shouldn't there be a fair and equitable deal in place in order for both sides to profit equally?

Do you have access to the teams books? How do you know they're razor thin?

As has been said countless times, the accounting is not that simple. It varies by what's included in HRR, expenses, if it's really a "loss" when you include the arena's other uses, etc. But you keep repeating this same conjecture as if it's fact.


Everyone keeps repeating that 18 of the 30 franchises are losing money but that's based on a report in Forbes from a couple years ago. When Bettman started the CBA negotiations in 2004, he had a lengthy audit to show definitively that the league had grave financial problems. This time, it simply does not.

It also ignores the overall increase in values of the franchise, even the ones listed as losing money. Even if it is losing money, it is in asset that is appreciating in value. It ignores the owners role in handing out bad contracts that hurt their franchise. It ignores that franchises in non-hockey markets are going to have a harder time financially, which is in no way the fault of the players. It was a choice Bettman and the owners made.

These billionaire owners aren't stupid. If so many of these franchises were truly financial black holes that were damaging the owner's overall wealth and strategy, they'd sell it in a heartbeat.


#2329967 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 25 September 2012 - 12:15 AM

At this point, the players and the owners just need to let the league die. The owners are acting like entitled brats while the players are not willing to give any ground. Seriously, screw this league and the greed. I already promised myself the only money the league is going to see from me for the next 5-6 years will be what I watch on TV. No more center ice. No more hockey tickets. No more merchandise. I will end up saving about $1500-$2000 a hockey season by not spending a dime on these greedy screwballs. If thats the only way to make them listen, then I will do my part to get their full attention.

The players gave ground with every proposal they've made. As has been pointed out multiple times, they're not asking for anything more. They just want to lose less.

If we're trying to meet in the middle and you start by backing up 100 yards, it doesn't really matter if we both take 3 steps forward.


#2329946 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 24 September 2012 - 08:22 PM

True, it kind of falls apart when you think that without the rancher, the cows live a nice long life, and without the owners, the players have to either play in lower leagues/go play overseas or go get real jobs.

It falls apart when you consider that if all the players left for some other league, then that league would become the best in the world.


#2329923 Datsyuk scores a goal off his head

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 24 September 2012 - 04:15 PM

Not bad, for cattle.


#2329921 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 24 September 2012 - 04:13 PM

1. Really? Sure seems like the owners own or control the teams and arenas, no? Kind of like a rancher owns and controls the ranch and everything on it.

2. People do shell out tons of money for leather goods, beef, dog treats, etc. i.e. the cows are the product too. Kind of like the players in the NHL.

3. This is true. It doesn't help the owners, and probably wasn't the best thing to say. However, Selanne and various other players bagging on the owners/Daly/Bettman is also stupid, and helps keep the sides at odds. But everyone applauds the players and Fehr, so what can you do?

1) That doesn't make it a fact. Thinking that analogy is accurate is an opinion. Comparing players to cattle hardly makes sense, other than as an insult. Unless cattle can decide to go to ranches in Europe and graze?

2) In the broadest sense yes they are both product, but that hardly makes it a good analogy. Hockey players are highly skilled, elite level talent and ultimately entertainers. Through their skill they generate a massive amount of revenue besides just tickets to games. Television contracts, marketing, video games, merchandise, concessions, parking, etc. Cows are ground up and eaten.

3) People probably applaud Selanne because the owners are being the bigger idiots in this mess. And I haven't heard any of the NHLPA side say anything as stupid as comparing the players to cattle.


#2329719 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 22 September 2012 - 12:11 PM

Devellano has had a huge hand in the Wings success, but whether he believes them or not, those comments are idiotic. I'm guessing it's just misplaced and poorly worded loyalty to Ilitch, but I wonder how the Wings players feel like being called cattle by the Senior VP of the Wings.

I also don't get the part about him saying about what Fehr would have people believe about the cap. What Fehr believes about the cap or not, never in this negotiation has he proposed eliminating the cap. The proposals have been less of a reduction in players salaries.


#2329715 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 22 September 2012 - 12:05 PM

Yup. I don't really care that they are overpaid but I do get annoyed when people try to justify entertainers/pro athletes getting paid millions of dollars. There is none

I can think of 3.3 billion reasons why they get paid as much as they do.
  • Nev likes this


#2329483 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 20 September 2012 - 11:44 AM

Another decent perspective on the lockout. Towards the end he hits upon one of the reasons why I put a lot of the blame on Bettman and his strategy.

The NHL and its wealthier franchises certainly have a responsibility to support those teams in weaker markets, especially since those teams were born of the league's own vision for expanding the game.


http://www.tsn.ca/bl...ylor/?id=405623

Bettman wanted to expand the game into non-hockey markets. Fine. Then when those franchises struggle he points the finger at the players as to the biggest reason why and locks them out.

It's going to take time and commitment to turn a non-traditional market into a good one for hockey. It's not the players fault that people in Phoenix just don't want to watch hockey that much. Right out of the gate owners of franchises in Detroit, Toronto, New York, etc have a HUGE advantage over those in places like Nashville and Phoenix.

It has to do with the history and popularity of the teams, the length of time hockey has been part of a culture in that market, and also the strength of the Canadian dollar. The biggest reasons for the economic disparity has nothing to do with the percentage of revenue allocated to paying players.

Bettman apparently doesn't have the skills or the will to get his owners to share more revenue and actually address the economic disparity, instead he goes after the players because it's easier and something all his owners can agree on.

Unfortunately his spineless strategy is terrible for the fans and ultimately for the NHL.


#2329389 Who is the Best Russian the Wings Have Ever Had?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 19 September 2012 - 09:21 AM

We've all seen the jaw-dropping things Dats can do, but for those who are too young or don't remember, here's some pretty good highlights from Fedorov.




#2329236 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 September 2012 - 10:17 PM

First, no, you're wrong, revenue is up 50% not profit.
Second, it matters what they want more money for - owners need more money to cover increased expenses, where players just want guaranteed money. business doesn't work like this.

Business also doesn't typically have a lottery to pick its employees as 18 year olds and tell them which franchise they work for, own their rights to be employed, or trade their employees for compensation.

You're really oversimplifying how a professional sports league works.


#2329209 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 September 2012 - 04:42 PM

Jim, there's no need to get so upset here. Besides, if the league had let you buy Phoenix, you'd be on the other side of this argument now. :)

A fair CBA does exist for all 30 teams, it's just a matter of getting there. The quickest thing to do would be substantially lower the cap floor. The floor, while a good idea in theory, just serves to drive up the cost of scrubs while cheap teams need to fill roster space to get to the floor. If it wasn't for Florida needing to get to the floor, does anyone seriously think Tomas Kopecky makes anywhere close to 3 mil per season? Your bottom dwelling teams are all offering these crazy contracts to the same scrubs they always have, but now you have Ville Leino saying "If Kopecky is worth 3.5 a year, then I know I'm worth 6." Of course the players love this. If you're Jeff Finger or Wiznewski, you love getting a fat check for a mediocre skillset. But that's not healthy longterm, and leads to escalations of salaries ala Suter/Parise/Weber.

You say noone forced the owners to give these guys the contracts. This is true. However, if the owners all got together and decided they wouldn't spend more than x dollars for any contract, everyone would be complaining about collusion and how the system's not fair. Can't have it both ways.

If they got rid of the salary floor, or made it a percentage rather than a hard number based on the cap, and removed revenue sharing, that would go a long way to sorting this out. Let the CBJ spend nothing on players, and let them die. But they players wouldn't accept that either. Teams going away means less jobs in the NHL, and Ericsson, Emmerton, Drew Miller, etc. would end up in the AHL.

There's no easy solution here, but you can't pretend the players are operating in a vacuum either, and that the only party at fault is the owners/league.

The salary cap is exactly that. It's not collusion because they're all franchises of the league. But by linking players salaries to revenue and putting a hard cap on it, the owners have already done exactly what you're saying.

I'm not understanding how removing revenue sharing would help given the big problem is the disparity between the rich and poor franchises.

I do agree though that there's other ways to helps costs by doing things like lowering the cap floor. The owners seem fixated on just reducing players salaries, but they could help contract inflation through other avenues besides the players percentage. Lower the cap floor. Limit the length of contracts. have the yearly payout be the same as the cap hit instead of the average. Eliminate signing bonuses (I honestly thought those were already gone).

I'm guessing the problem is that the owners of the wealthy franchises like all those things because they give their team a competitive advantage. 30 owners may have voted for the lockout, but don't forget that the Flyers made an offer sheet to Weber structured so it would basically financially cripple Nashville. But the one thing they can all agree on is it would be great to pay players less.


#2329196 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 September 2012 - 03:10 PM

Being as that some of the clubs are not profitable right now, them asking the players for rollbacks doesn't surprise me. What surprises me are the levels of rollbacks the owners are asking for, which is just pure greed.

If anything, the owners in these areas that aren't selling tickets well need to be relocated. The owners don't see it this way though. I don't believe the players should have to go down to anything further than 52% of their share, with no rollbacks in salaries. The owners just have no interest in hearing any of that. The players don't believe they should drop their share except on a temporary basis.

Honestly them asking for rollbacks doesn't surprise me either. I was just surprised at how outrageous their proposal is.

Had they made a more reasonable proposal for a rollback, they probably could've gotten it by now. Instead they went nuclear.

52% seems like a good number. Get the players to give up 5%, but then make the concession that CBA term has to be longer like the league wants. Then when that ends, re-evaluate how many franchises are still struggling and why. The NHL's proposal was as if the league was in a massive financial crisis. It's not.

Like I said from the beginning, a group of knowledgeable hockey fans and hockey reporters could get together and knock out a a pretty equitable CBA in a day. This should have been the smoothest negotiations of all of them. I have to wonder if the owners saw the other league's negotiations and the players share under 50% and started licking their chops.


#2329187 Who is the Best Russian the Wings Have Ever Had?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 September 2012 - 02:52 PM

First of all I don't know if you mean 94-95 or 95 -96, in either case there was a lot more scoring than any of the years datsyuk has played 94-95 5.97 (basically 6) and 95-96 6.29. the league has never averaged anywhere close to 6 goals a game since Datsyuk has been in it

You've mentioned that a couple times now and it's not true.

Datsyuk played in 2006 when the average goals per game was 6.05 or 6.17, depending on the source.

In 2009 and 2010 the average goals per game was 5.83 and 5.68. Both of those are fairly close to 6.

Also, in 98, 99, 02, 03, and especially 04, the average goals per game was lower than any season Datsyuk has played in.

You're overstating the goal scoring discrepancy between the two eras. Like I said before, the biggest years of difference were 91-94. Otherwise it's pretty much a wash.