Jump to content


Pskov Wings Fan's Photo

Pskov Wings Fan

Member Since 05 Aug 2006
Offline Last Active Aug 02 2014 07:18 PM
*----

#2330734 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Johnz96 on 04 October 2012 - 10:49 PM

Does anyone think these owners or players really give a s*** about fans being upset?

I don't.

Do we really give a s*** how the owners and players feel? All that we care about is that we get to watch our game. And considering we flocked back to the game after the last lockout, we are most responsible for this one.
It's only a game we watch for our amusement, it's their livelihood for Pete's sake


#2330614 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by sibiriak on 03 October 2012 - 06:30 PM

I suppose we can agree to disagree then. It should at least concern anyone who is pro-NHLPA and anti-owner when their side waits until the last minute to negotiate and their side is the big beneficiary of the last deal.

The players were the big losers last time. The just expired CBA was dictated by the owners and was designed to benefit them. Prior to the current CBA the players share of the revenue reached 74%. There was no salary cap. If the players won and kept the old system, the top salaries now would have been nearing $20 mil./year and the average salary would have been higher by at least a quarter, and given the existing then trend, probably even higher.

As for the motivations behind both sides, I really don't know how we got to this point. The players don't want to give that much and the owners want to take more than the players want to give. No common middle ground? Can't figure out how to split a $3 billion dollar pot? The owners locking the players out doesn't put the blame on the owners 100% thats for sure. Both sides need a swift kick in the ass and a mediator.

Hrm, NHL says the union doesn't want to budge while the NHLPA says the owners want to much. Both sides are way too greedy. Fire both Fehr and Bettman, and get some people in place that are willing to negotiate. Its that simple.

Let me clarify it for you. The owners want to cut the players salaries and limit their growth in the future. Since the league revenues went up 50% over the life of the existing CBA, there was no rational way to explain to the players why they would have to give up another 20% of their salary every year, when the players have signed contracts on hand. Since the owners didn't have any rational arguments, they had to somehow force the players to give up money they were contractually promised. The lockout is the most obvious option.
This is not only about greed. This is also about players' pride and self-respect. If the lockout lasts till January, and the players then win (that is their CBA offer,as it stands now, is adopted) the players would still lose more money then if they accepted the league offer right now. And the players know this.
The players motivation is to make sure that in the future they will not be forced to give up part of their salary any time the owners feel like taking it, without a fight. So the next time the owners want to redistribute income in their favor, they will know that they would have a fight on their hands.


#2330597 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 03 October 2012 - 02:25 PM

I suppose we can agree to disagree then. It should at least concern anyone who is pro-NHLPA and anti-owner when their side waits until the last minute to negotiate and their side is the big beneficiary of the last deal.

As for the motivations behind both sides, I really don't know how we got to this point. The players don't want to give that much and the owners want to take more than the players want to give. No common middle ground? Can't figure out how to split a $3 billion dollar pot? The owners locking the players out doesn't put the blame on the owners 100% thats for sure. Both sides need a swift kick in the ass and a mediator.
...

Big beneficiary? Prior to the last lockout, the players were getting 66% of all revenues. Those revenues rose nearly 50%, but player salaries rose less than 27%. But somehow the players are the big winners from the last lockout? Players are employees, so they're always going to "win" as long as they have a job, but don't even try to suggest they're making more than they would have been if they'd been able to defeat the hard cap.

The revisionist history is ridiculous. The owners are acting like 57% is some obscenely unfair split, like the players held a gun to their heads to get that deal. It was the owners idea, and the numbers say even that split still leaves a decent profit margin. The owners asking players to take ANOTHER pay cut, when the league as a whole is profitable, is beyond ridiculous. It's retarded, and demonstrates just how little the owners value their most valuable asset.

If, that's IF, the floor is a problem for too many teams, then the owners need to come up with a better way to solve that issue without taking from the players. The floor in 06 was around 74% of the midpoint. Now it's 87%. If they used a precentage instead of a fixed amount, the floor now would be around $46M. Pretty close to where it would be if the owners get the split they want. Problem solved without taking from the players. Owners should be thankful that players are willing to slow their salary growth to take a lower percentage. Instead they want an NFL split. If it were me, I'd say they can have it when they have NFL revenue. I'm sure the PA would be happy with 47% of $9 billion.


#2330563 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by sibiriak on 03 October 2012 - 09:53 AM

With 6 months to negotiate instead of 6 weeks, a lockout could have been avoided. Just because they are at an impasse now doesn't mean with more time they wouldn't have been able to come up with a solution. We don't know for sure either way, but I will take more time than less that's for sure.

I think that is the key point. The league and the players are at an impasse on money. You appear to believe that there exist a solution that is a win-win for both parties, and if only they had some more time to hash it out, then we'd be seeing hockey right now. I believe that this is a zero-sum game and there is no solution that does not require at least one party to give up a significant amount of cash going forward. The league believes that the way to achieve that solution is to put so much financial pressure on the players, that they would cave in to owners' demands. And therefore the league had to lock the players out. They could have started to negotiate in 2005, and still we would have this lockout.


#2330183 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by toby91_ca on 27 September 2012 - 10:53 AM

No offer was tabled, but the NHL was on record saying that they were ready to start the process in January. I remember reading about it, but I didn't find much on it other than snippets of info.

---

Back in January, NHL fans were assured initial negotiations regarding the next round of NHL collective bargaining would begin following the All-Star Game.
That subsequently changed to a vague point later in the regular season,to some point following the Stanley Cup Playoffs
It’s believed there’s been some quiet talk behind the scenes between the two sides , but the real negotiations probably won’t start until mid-July at the earliest, allowing time for the NHL Awards, entry draft weekend, and the opening week of unrestricted free agency.
In mid-March, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman professed to be unconcerned (“I’m not worried. At all”) over when negotiations would start, saying his side was ready whenever the PA was ready to talk.

---

http://spectorshocke...ws-may-17-2012/

You do realize that's all public posturing right? The league suggesting they are willing to negotiate and any time whenever the PA is ready is no different than the PA saying they are willing to start the season under the existing CBA while a new one is negotiated. I'm not sure why either side is really all that interested in getting public support on their side though, I don't see it as having any real impact on resolving any differences they may have.

I'm not one of those guys that are against the players from the view that they make too much money, etc. If an owner generates $100 million profit off a player, is it fair for that player to get $5 million and the owner get $95 million? Extreme case, but some would look at the player and say "hey, you are making $5 million, how much do you need...suck it up and play".....however, I think that's hardly fair.

That said, I think it's a fine line trying to determine what is fair and what's not. I'm not sure what math is being used to demonstrate that. I am more on the player's side right now though as their proposals at least attempt to address the issues faced by the NHL. I'm not sure about the fairness of the NHLPA's numbers, but their approach at least attempts to address the issues. The NHL's proposal, whether the sharing is fair or not is plain dumb as it does not address their issues.....all it would do it make the richer teams richer and the poor teams be a little less poor in the first year or so.

My solution would be as follows:

Determine an appropriate fair profit margin to be earned by the league as a whole (based on appropriate risk weightings and market data, etc.). If overall league revenues are $3.4 billion, all other expenses before player salaries = X.....after deducting X, you can determine how much should be allocated to a player salaries while maintaining an overall profit margin of 10% for example (not sure what that appropriate number may be, but it should be easily calculated, shouldn't be a number out of the air).

In terms of then moving down to the individual teams, that's an ownership issue. You are going to having some owners profess their lack of willingness to share profits with other teams who aren't running their businesses properly, etc, which is fine, but if the league really wants parity, they have to figure out a way for the owners to share the wealth with each other......that should not be a player's concern.


#2329656 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by sibiriak on 21 September 2012 - 07:10 PM

the NHL will not pay them one dime until they are cleared by league doctors and to the owner's satisfaction that the player is 100% fit and able to perform

With all due respect Mr.D, I think the players only need to be 76% fit, because you are going to pay them only 76% of what you agreed and promised to. :P


#2329596 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Tim Cheveldae's Ghost on 21 September 2012 - 12:42 PM

Lockouts are commonplace amongst all industries, so this is no surprise. Its only until recently that owners of companies have begun to exercise that right more, knowing they can squeeze their employers down to their demands eventually.

I hope the NHLPA never gives in to what the owners want and the league ultimately suffers a great defeat. I'm a Red Wings fan, NOT an NHL fan, so I could care less about the other 29 franchises. The longer the players refuse to negotiate, the better it will be for them in the end. They can always play overseas and marginal players with 2-way deals can play in the AHL. I think the whole season will be missed, maybe more, and the NHL will fade into obscurity in the American sports realm. The owners have brought this upon themselves and they will get what they deserve.


#2329535 Team or Players?

Posted by Barrie on 20 September 2012 - 09:48 PM

I have no interest in watching replacement players.

I think you can tell from my posts I support the players. I always support the players, because I don't go to games to watch the owners, plus all the owners care about is profits.


#2328660 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 September 2012 - 12:09 AM

I finally get it. frankgrimes is Jim Balsille. One of the 3 people left on earth who use a blackberry, and has a total hate hard on for Bettman and the owners to the exclusion of everything else. Still mad they wouldn't let you buy the Pens or Predators, or circumvent everything for the Coyotes?

Seriously, we get it. The owners should be forced to give 99% of the revenue to the players, pay for all other costs out of their own pockets, and let the players pick what nights they play and who their teammates are. Hell, lets dismantle the front offices, and let the players have a multibillion dollar beer league. Screw the owners who pay for the buildings, staff, insurance costs, medical, etc.

Has anyone in this thread put together a reasonable argument for the owner's side without resorting to a straw man or some other fallacy?

Everyone is just accepting that players need to reduce their share of revenue (including myself), but why exactly? The most common argument I hear involves comparing it to the NFL or NBA, which has little relevance to hockey.

Yes yes, the Forbes report where it lists 18 teams as having negative income. Forbes lists the Coyotes as dead last with -24.4 mill operating income. Their payroll was a very reasonable $55 million last season. They made it to the conference finals. I'm pretty sure the Forbes report was before the playoffs but assuming they didn't have a positive income (using the Forbes standard) if a team can't turn a profit with that payroll and a conference finals finish, the problem is not players salaries.

Obviously that's just one example, but my point is it's not as easy as saying they need this reduction because the league is in trouble. This isn't 2004. The NHL overall is profitable.

With a combination of contract limits, revenue sharing AND a reasonable reduction in player salary, the league could help the smaller markets succeed. Or at least give them the opportunity to succeed if they have any idea what they're doing. Instead they are asking for massive reduction in player's salary, with little compelling evidence as to why exactly other than they're willing to hold hockey hostage until the players cave. And at the same time they want to re-define what even constitutes the Hockey Related Revenue before they even give players less of it.

As Fehr pointed out, what's in it for the players in any of these offers from the NHL? The concessions the union is mainly asking for is a less insane reduction from the league. They're not asking to get rid of the cap. The league is so fixated on ratcheting down players salary that it seems like they haven't even discussed things like contract length. And that's where I think the union can do some giving. Length of CBA. Length of player contracts.

Instead, Bettman uses the nuclear option again and we as fans lose more hockey.


#2328093 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by Nev on 09 September 2012 - 02:36 AM

I wish I was just as confident. Neither side is willing to budge. I think we won't see hockey until November.


Why should the players budge? Bettmans proposal is take, take, take, take, take, take, take and take. Not a single proposal to sweeten the pot, no "we want to take this, but we'll give you that in return" to make them go "OK". Bettmans proposal isn't a negotiation, its an ultimatum. He's treating the NHLPA like a vanquished foe trying to get the least punitive terms out of an unconditional surrender, rather than an equal partner in negotiations for the mutual good.

I was on the owners side last time around, and as I've mentioned previously he did some good things for the players such as significantly raising the minimum salary (important when ~ 40% of the NHLPA are on mimimum salary), but this is just pure greed and stupidity. Bettman needs to go as point 1 of any new CBA.


#2327930 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by sibiriak on 06 September 2012 - 07:44 PM

Has it already been mentioned that the players who are going to play in other leagues for less money during the lockout only prove the owners point that they are paid too much? or is this just angry fan speak?

esteef

Using the same logic, owners being willing to forgo the revenues proves that they don't really have to charge as much for the tickets? Let's face it, the players would play this game for 100k/year since they are not likely to make even that much in any other job. But every dollar that the players don't get goes into the owners pockets. Personally, I don't really care how much money players make or how much profit the owners get. It's just that when the 2 sides squabble over the division of the money, I tend to sympathize with players because they are the ones I like to watch playing. The owners give out the contracts of their own free will, so I have no sympathy for them.


#2327472 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by sibiriak on 31 August 2012 - 08:18 PM

If you want to get technical, it is only an option for the union. Even if they exercise it, their average share for the life of the new CBA will certainly be lower than 57%. Also, the definition of the hockey related revenue is being changed, so the players would get 57% of the lesser total, which would be a defacto decrease in salary.
Not to mention the fact, that the current system was put in place by the NHL, who used the last lockout to roll over the players union and force them to accept this CBA. If you listened to Bettman speeches then, the expiring CBA was going to set he economic house of hockey in order. :ninja: And now the system they devised is suddenly favoring the players? FYI, average share of wages, salaries etc. in all the other industries of American economy is near 70%. So the owners are already getting a good deal.

What it amounts to is that the league appears to try to shake down the players at the end of each CBA period for as much as they can get away with. And lock them out if they resist. Rinse, lather, repeat every 4-5 years.

Personally, I resent their bully tactics that result in my loss of enjoyment of my favorite sport.


#2327181 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 29 August 2012 - 12:32 AM

Also this...

"

The NHL is not asking for any rollback in current contracts, suggesting that the adjustment could be made through changes in contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and contributions to player escrow."


Link:

http://www.rgj.com/u...ll|img|Sports|p

So the Red Wings could potentially be in a great position to absorb some salary dumps, depending on what these adjustments are. As it stands now, they would be a little more than $800k under a $58mil cap.


Am I missing something?

How do teams, who were basing their decisions on the projected $70 million cap, shed $10+ million without any salary rollback?

The new NHL deal also includes redefining what constitutes hockey related revenue. So when they say the eventual split is 50/50, that's not really the case. They're taking money out of the pot while also asking the players to take less of it.

And it sounds like the NHL's proposal still didn't address revenue sharing. This offer at least doesn't sound completely insane. But the league is standing firm on ignoring revenue sharing as a solution and expect the players to bear the burden of saving these struggling franchises by "partnering" with the league.

In 2005, I thought "2012, hell, that's 7 years. Who cares about a lockout then. That's light years away"

And here we are...

The only hope is Bettman won't be commissioner then, otherwise, I wouldn't make any hockey-based plans in 2019.


#2319557 Sal Galatioto Predicts NHL Cap & Floor Dropping

Posted by toby91_ca on 17 July 2012 - 11:54 AM

Not trying to come across as purely disagreeable, but my question to you would be... how does revenue sharing help fix the problem of teams in a weak hockey market that cannot sustain themselves? The only way that revenue sharing would ever *potentially* be viable is if a team in a strong hockey market experienced a local disaster that effected revenues and needed support for a few years until it became financially soluble again. A team that's just in a weak market offers no reasonable guarantee that it will be soluble, and revenue sharing therefor becomes a perpetual band-aid at the expense of successful teams.

I guess we are probably looking at it differently. I don't necessarily see revenue sharing as a "fix" to a temporary issue for which the smaller market team will come out of. I see it more of a permanant thing whereby teams share revenue since overall revenues are driven by the league, not necessarily individual teams. I'm not suggesting you take all the revenues and divide it evenly amongst all the teams in the league (though I'm sure there are people out there that might suggest that), I just think there shoudl be sharing of revenues that are not necessarily team specific. A team can't make money if they aren't playing another team.

To use an extreme example, if the league was made up of 2 teams and they just played each other all the time and the only revenues being generated were from the gate, if one team was in a different geographic region, different economic factors, etc., they might be bringing in significantly more revenue than the other team. In that model, it would make sense for one team to be bringing in more money, but it wouldn't make sense if there was an enormous disparity between the two.

Look, I think the ultimate solution is to get rid of the teams in struggling markets, but I think we need to forget about that, it is not an available option.


#2317285 What happens if the new CBA lowers the Cap?

Posted by toby91_ca on 09 July 2012 - 10:57 AM

The correct answer is that any ramifications from the new CBA will be dealt with in the new CBA, so no one really knows at this point. If I were to guess, I'd assume the cap will be unimpacted inititially and the structure will just move from their based on how they structure the new deal. That said, it is entirely possible that they agree to move the 57% down to 54% or 52% or 50% of league revenues for players. They could take that downward movement and lower the cap proportionately and also then lower all existing contracts down proportionately as well.

I'm pretty confident in saying that the new CBA should not cause teams to have to get rid of any existing players.