EPTOn one hand they are screaming about needing to roll back salaries, on the other hand they give Hall 7 million, Parises 10 million, whats his face, that German who used to be decent on the Canucks and awful on the Sabers 10 million. The owners are stupid, and they cant say no, and now we are going to have another lock out.
NHL 2011-2012 Season - Page 115
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On one hand they are screaming about needing to roll back salaries, on the other hand they give Hall 7 million, Parises 10 million, whats his face, that German who used to be decent on the Canucks and awful on the Sabers 10 million. The owners are stupid, and they cant say no, and now we are going to have another lock out. | ||
|
Taku
Canada2036 Posts
On August 24 2012 03:53 Sub40APM wrote: Sorry, its not the players, its the owners are at fault here in the coming lock out. On one hand they are screaming about needing to roll back salaries, on the other hand they give Hall 7 million, Parises 10 million, whats his face, that German who used to be decent on the Canucks and awful on the Sabers 10 million. The owners are stupid, and they cant say no, and now we are going to have another lock out. You're thinking of Christian Ehrhoff, thank god the canucks aren't going pants on head retarded with all these ridiculous contracts (inb4 luongo, different time different circumstances). | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On August 24 2012 03:53 Sub40APM wrote: Sorry, its not the players, its the owners are at fault here in the coming lock out. On one hand they are screaming about needing to roll back salaries, on the other hand they give Hall 7 million, Parises 10 million, whats his face, that German who used to be decent on the Canucks and awful on the Sabers 10 million. The owners are stupid, and they cant say no, and now we are going to have another lock out. I disagree. The CBA is at fault. The owners are mearly operating under it. If owner A doesn't sign a player to a 10 year deal owner B will sign that player to a 10 year deal. They do what they must to appease there teams fans and sell tickets. If the owners just all got together and said no more deals north of 5 years they would get hit with an anti trust lawsuit(just like the one Brady and Manning headed before the NFL lockout ended) and lose HUGE money in it. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On August 24 2012 06:42 Orcasgt24 wrote: I disagree. The CBA is at fault. The owners are mearly operating under it. If owner A doesn't sign a player to a 10 year deal owner B will sign that player to a 10 year deal. They do what they must to appease there teams fans and sell tickets. If the owners just all got together and said no more deals north of 5 years they would get hit with an anti trust lawsuit(just like the one Brady and Manning headed before the NFL lockout ended) and lose HUGE money in it. The CBA that they showed down the throats of the NHLPA, the one that makes them billions in extra revenue and they are still unhappy with? The one that ended hockey for a year? The owners are so greed that even as they have a deal that is suppose to make them money they go out of their way to undermine the deal for selfish gains vis a vis the other 29 owners. I had a commie friend something like "its about time that the US and Canadian governments nationalized the NHL, mandated a hard floor on salaries at 7 million -- because if its good enough for Lidstrom its good enough for anyone else -- and a hard floor at 500k and whatever extra revenue is generated by ticket sales/merchandising/tv rights goes to support kids youth hockey programs" and the longer I stare at Bettman's sneering face and the never ending evidence of owners short term greed and stupidity the more I am starting to agree with him. | ||
|
sharkeyanti
United States1273 Posts
Bettman did say today that the NHL isn't going to lose many fans if a lockout happens, as he and the owners know those who love the sport aren't going to stop watching because of a work stoppage. The problem I'd see is that the rapid growth since the 2004 lockout would really come to halt with yet another lockout. The owners would probably be willing to risk that by having a shortened-season, but I'd think it would be in the NHL's best interest to avoid a full-year stoppage. The owners (apparent) totally uncompromising position is really hurting things here. I don't know if it's greed so much as a power game, where many owners want to make it clear that their demands should be met at all costs, for better or worse. Obviously they have the vast majority of the power in this relationship, especially considering the NBC contract still pays even with a lockout. I think because the owners presented such a radical proposal from the outset, people saw it as the prototypical haggling startpoint: that a 50:50 split was the real goal. At this point -- with Bettman and the owners clearly stating the NHLPA has no leverage -- the players might have to just cut their losses and take the deal. If they maybe take the revenue split and try to negotiate on contract stipulations they might gain some ground, as free agency is something a fair number of teams could welcome. [10 years for UFA is ridiculous] Maybe a restructured RFA period with UFA coming in at 9 years would help? Either way, it will probably encourage more trades. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17682 Posts
If Jamison doesnt get it together and buy the Coyotes by September 15th then both Doan and Roszival will be gone and the Phoenix Coyotes will be the worst team in the NHL by a wide margin. If this happens the Coyotes wil have replaced Doan, Roszival, Aucoin and Whitney with 4 AHL-ers. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On August 24 2012 11:51 sharkeyanti wrote: Billions is definitely an overstatement. Considering the NHL's TV contract with NBC in the United States is in the hundreds of millions, I don't think it'd be anywhere near a billion dollar shift if the revenues changed by ~15% towards the owners. Bettman did say today that the NHL isn't going to lose many fans if a lockout happens, as he and the owners know those who love the sport aren't going to stop watching because of a work stoppage. The problem I'd see is that the rapid growth since the 2004 lockout would really come to halt with yet another lockout. The owners would probably be willing to risk that by having a shortened-season, but I'd think it would be in the NHL's best interest to avoid a full-year stoppage. The owners (apparent) totally uncompromising position is really hurting things here. I don't know if it's greed so much as a power game, where many owners want to make it clear that their demands should be met at all costs, for better or worse. Obviously they have the vast majority of the power in this relationship, especially considering the NBC contract still pays even with a lockout. I think because the owners presented such a radical proposal from the outset, people saw it as the prototypical haggling startpoint: that a 50:50 split was the real goal. At this point -- with Bettman and the owners clearly stating the NHLPA has no leverage -- the players might have to just cut their losses and take the deal. If they maybe take the revenue split and try to negotiate on contract stipulations they might gain some ground, as free agency is something a fair number of teams could welcome. [10 years for UFA is ridiculous] Maybe a restructured RFA period with UFA coming in at 9 years would help? Either way, it will probably encourage more trades. NHL revenue went up from mid 2Billion to 3.3-3.4billion, so increasing your revenue by almost 1/3rd in 7 years seems like a pretty good deal. The fact that Bettman is too stupid to differentiate between fans of teams from the hockey 'heartland' like the North East, Detroit, and Canada and the teams from his sunshine state expansions is just enraging. Of course people in Ontario will tune in again, they are dumb enough to support the Leafs through almost a decade of ineptitude and crony, good old boy network GMs while paying 200 bucks a seat. The problem is losing fans in Nashville and Carolina and Dallas. The people he needed to make his mass expansion plans to make work. As for the leverage, who knows. If the corrupt Russians start throwing 10 million contracts at 2nd tier NHLers and 30-40 millions at the top then what is to keep these guys up here? | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On August 24 2012 06:42 Orcasgt24 wrote: I disagree. The CBA is at fault. The owners are mearly operating under it. If owner A doesn't sign a player to a 10 year deal owner B will sign that player to a 10 year deal. They do what they must to appease there teams fans and sell tickets. If the owners just all got together and said no more deals north of 5 years they would get hit with an anti trust lawsuit(just like the one Brady and Manning headed before the NFL lockout ended) and lose HUGE money in it. It's actually both their fault. They were both dumb enough to sign this CBA in the first place. Anyway, the small market teams cannot operate like this. Salary caps? Please. | ||
|
Flik
Canada256 Posts
I think both sides are being a little too hard headed, both parties need to give in a little. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On August 26 2012 06:32 Flik wrote: I was reading player revenues overall are at an all time high. Total player revenue being about 2 billion and 54% of total revenue. I think a lot of the owners are being hurt by the revenue sharing as well, having to dump huge money into teams that aren't financially stable. I think both sides are being a little too hard headed, both parties need to give in a little. But where are the owners of the poor teams when the salary cap kept getting raised? This is what I find so strange. New York, Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, those guys could absorb any cost and keep on rolling but the plurality of team owners should have just held the line at the 50m cap, adjusted only for inflation. | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
On August 26 2012 06:32 Flik wrote: I was reading player revenues overall are at an all time high. Total player revenue being about 2 billion and 54% of total revenue. I think a lot of the owners are being hurt by the revenue sharing as well, having to dump huge money into teams that aren't financially stable. I think both sides are being a little too hard headed, both parties need to give in a little. Last lockout was all about having expected costs for owners, this one is more about making the numbers make sense financially. Its actually 57% of all revenues. Compared any other business with the same platform (given that the Owners put in the initial capital, do all the marketing, pay for upkeep, as well as take all the financial risks) the players cut of 57% is like 8 or 9 times what your typical business's model looks like. Take a look at Real Estate or any other business like such, the cut your workers get is much more like 6-7%. Not saying Players deserve to be shafted, but having their cut taken down to like 30-40% is not unreasonable at all, especially considering that 30-40% number is actually what most owners are paying in operating costs. And yeah, since the last lockout player contracts accross the league actually are up like 100%. I mean, here is the thing, the league as a whole is making money right now but like 10 teams are losing money; the majority of money made in the NHL is made by about 10 teams. I think what makes the most sense is some kind of luxury cap. Something to the effect of lowering the cap floor to a flat percentage and then despite keeping the hardcap the same place you'd have to pay taxes/revenue sharing to a higher reguard once you pass certain salary thresholds. I think this gives the best of both worlds in keeping the whole league healthy as well as maintaining parity. The thing is you'll never have the "have" owners (you know, the most important and rich ones, The original 6, all the canadian teams, Minnesota) agree to that unless they get some huge concessions from the players. The Owners are coming off as the bad guys this go around, but realistically the players have zero leverage in these negotiations... Who needs who more: Taylor Hall the highschool dropout that is being paid 6 million a year, or Darryl Katz the CEO of a billion dollar drug enterprize? I dont think anyone can realistically say that Katz doesn't like or want to have a hockey team, but he doesn't own a hockey club to make money, it is purely a bragghing rights thing. If Hall didn't have hockey on the other hand, he is making minimum wage at McDonalds. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
On August 26 2012 08:11 Slaughter wrote: Imo the league should reduce the # of teams they have and kill the worst two franchises. Keep growing and strengthening their base and then revisit expansion in a few years. There is no way the Players would comply with that. Means they basically lose 60 jobs. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17682 Posts
He will extract concessions from the players with the threat that teh Coyotes and 25 jobs will disappear. The NHL owns the team so they can do whatever they want with the team. Once Bettman gets the concessions he wants from teh players to keep the Coyotes alive the team will move. That is the only reason the team is still in Glendale. no teams will fold. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
the lockout is retarded because the owners hate the deal they shoved down the players throats last time and want to really fuck them. they can bitch about finances all they want, but the heart of the issue is that there are a lot of teams that dont turn a profit or have slim profits, but dont get help from the league. the leagues revenue sharing program is retarded. there's caveats out the ass. nj and nyi dont get help because theyrei n a major market. cbj doesnt get help because of some stupid thing that their profits grew over a certain percentage over a few years. the whining about the players making too much just sets up for anotehr show down at the end of the next cba because that problem will still exist. the league/bettman is asking for a salary rollback (i think it was 24%, which is absurd) because it is easier to gouge the players than get the big $$ owners to cough up and support the other guys. the league's propsoal is retarded and theyre not compromising at all. i believe they wanted them to go from 57 to 43% iirc, salary rollback, cap contracts at 5 years (dumb), extending rfa periof to nine years instead of seven (holy shit dumb), and killing arbitration entirely. all that shit is ridiculous. the rollback is getting the attention because it is a bignumber, but the rfa and end of arbitration is huge. it will kill player movement and kneecap earning potential. most players would have to hit 30 before they get to be a ufa. insane. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
Have another one. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
@RenLavoieRDS Gary Bettman: "their was some discussion on revenue sharing and I don't know why. Its a distraction." countdown for games lost begins now! | ||
|
XenOmega
Canada2822 Posts
Also, would be great if they would care for us fans. But I guess we don't count for shit | ||
| ||
