You are not connected. Please login or register

NHL CBA Talk

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 36 ... 67  Next

Go down  Message [Page 6 of 67]

76 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:15 pm

shabbs


Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
A shortened season at the very least seems inevitable now....

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=402741

77 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:33 pm

Hoags


All-Star
All-Star
shabbs wrote:A shortened season at the very least seems inevitable now....

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=402741

Players will strike if they continue with no CBA signed, they did it in 1992 and Fehr did it in the MLB.

Not that I agree with it, but they HAVE to lock them out otherwise the players get a significant advantage.

They can drag out negotiations until the end of the season and when they have most of their salaries paid they can strike since they don't get paid in the playoffs but that's when owners are counting on playoff revenue.

78 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:41 pm

Cap'n Clutch


Co-Founder
Co-Founder
The players would happily continue playing. When the contract expires they just keep going with status quo until a new deal is reached.

79 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:47 pm

shabbs

avatar
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
The lockout is a formality. Bettman is just re-emphasizing it. Flexing his muscles, or whatever he has under that cape.

Will be very interesting to see what Fehr and co come back with.

Notice they've been very quiet, calm and professional about all of this? Quite a change from previous NHLPA heads.

Buckle up!

80 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:48 pm

Hoags

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
Cap'n Clutch wrote:The players would happily continue playing. When the contract expires they just keep going with status quo until a new deal is reached.


.... and strike right before the playoffs.

At least if there's a lockout, the Leafs can win the Cup again:

http://www.thehammer.ca/content/view.php?news=2005-02-18-toronto-declare-themselves-champions

81 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:26 pm

wprager

avatar
Administrator
Administrator
shabbs wrote:The lockout is a formality. Bettman is just re-emphasizing it. Flexing his muscles, or whatever he has under that cape.

Will be very interesting to see what Fehr and co come back with.

Notice they've been very quiet, calm and professional about all of this? Quite a change from previous NHLPA heads.

Buckle up!

Like I said in the other thread, I've got a bad feeling about this.

The NHLPA appears to be picking on revenue sharing which, really, is none of their business. It is (should be) strictly between the owners. The crux of the matter is the 57% which is too high. Of course the players don't want the salary cap to go down, but don't you dare tell a businessman that he should share his profits with someone else just so the players can continue to make more money. Fact of the matter is that there are some teams that are in markets where they (owners) make more money than in other markets. Why should the rich markets support the poor ones? It's not a case of the Original Six anymore -- there are enough teams that could survive to have a league with a national footprint that would still allow them to have the contract with NBC or whomever.

Let's have a league with 24 teams -- there still will be way more games than you could show on TV, and there would be fewer bad match-ups. If you drop the size of the league to 24 I don't think the TV revenues would drop. The gate would, of course, if they drop the number of games -- but would they?


_________________
Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
- Dicky Fox

82 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:30 am

shabbs

avatar
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
The whole revenue sharing thing seems like a big mess of confusion for the players. I don't even fully understand it as there are a ton of exclusions and clawbacks etc... Perhaps they're looking for a system that makes more sense and is more transparent.

Fehr probably looked at it and said "What the Diddle is this piece of Dung?!?!?!?! We gotta fix this."

Their main concern about revenue sharing is that they are worried that any changes will result in player salary reductions.

83 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:07 am

Hoags

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
I read somewhere that current revenue sharing is rumored to be 7% of the pooled revenues of the top teams.

The problem with dropping down to 24 teams is it means less jobs and less money for the players. They wouldn't like that.

We'll probably have an expansion (Markham and Quebec).

I can see Fehr proposing a soft cap/luxury tax. Big teams can spend more, and the tax goes to the poor teams.

Of course then smaller teams like Ottawa etc. will just become farm teams for the Rangers/Leafs/Flyers etc.

84 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:35 am

NEELY


Mod
Mod
shabbs wrote:The whole revenue sharing thing seems like a big mess of confusion for the players. I don't even fully understand it as there are a ton of exclusions and clawbacks etc... Perhaps they're looking for a system that makes more sense and is more transparent.

Fehr probably looked at it and said "What the Diddle is this piece of Dung?!?!?!?! We gotta fix this."

Their main concern about revenue sharing is that they are worried that any changes will result in player salary reductions.

I hate unions. They refuse to look at long term prospects.

50% of 5 billion dollars is a lot more than 57% of 2.5 billion. That's probably what the difference will be if they go on any kind of extended work stoppage. Hockey will be destroyed if they are locked out. Why would anyone want to watch a game that cares about their fans second?

I can tell you this, if they play 81 games and not 82, I won't ever pay for another hockey game again.

85 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:06 am

shabbs

avatar
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
NEELY wrote:I can tell you this, if they play 81 games and not 82, I won't ever pay for another hockey game again.
Bold statement... do you mean 81 or less or exactly 81?

Wink

86 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:21 am

NEELY


Mod
Mod
If they don't play the full 82 games schedule I seriously won't pay for another NHL game. I'm not giving my hard earned money to people who make millions each and don't believe it's enough. There are other ways to enjoy hockey.

87 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:39 am

NEELY


Mod
Mod
I can be a fan of the Sens and hockey without giving my money away to the rich and richer.

88 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:20 pm

wprager

avatar
Administrator
Administrator
Hoags wrote:I read somewhere that current revenue sharing is rumored to be 7% of the pooled revenues of the top teams.

The problem with dropping down to 24 teams is it means less jobs and less money for the players. They wouldn't like that.

We'll probably have an expansion (Markham and Quebec).

I can see Fehr proposing a soft cap/luxury tax. Big teams can spend more, and the tax goes to the poor teams.

Of course then smaller teams like Ottawa etc. will just become farm teams for the Rangers/Leafs/Flyers etc.

Well of course they won't like it. But the owners can say screw you, don't you dare tell us what to do with our money. I don't see how the players can ever win this staring contest. Many owners are losing money, and a lockout simply means they'll lose less this year. The ones who make lots of money have made lots of money over the years by *not* giving in to the players. Unless it ever comes to a democratic vote I don't see the owners agreeing on significantly changing the revenue-sharing amounts.


_________________
Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
- Dicky Fox

89 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:25 pm

wprager

avatar
Administrator
Administrator
NEELY wrote:I can be a fan of the Sens and hockey without giving my money away to the rich and richer.

After the last stoppage I decided I would not spend any money on NHL. For a couple of years I didn't so much as buy a commemorative stamp. Not a penny. Not that I spent a lot on NHL before, but still. I don't for a minute, buy NEEL's statement about "never" but I believe he will, like me, not spend money on the NHL for a while. What if 10% (conservative amount) of the fans decided to so the same? If revenues drop by 10% the players will regret their actions. The owners will probably charge more for parking and arena rental (non-hockey revenue).


_________________
Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
- Dicky Fox

90 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:58 pm

NEELY


Mod
Mod
wprager wrote:
NEELY wrote:I can be a fan of the Sens and hockey without giving my money away to the rich and richer.

After the last stoppage I decided I would not spend any money on NHL. For a couple of years I didn't so much as buy a commemorative stamp. Not a penny. Not that I spent a lot on NHL before, but still. I don't for a minute, buy NEEL's statement about "never" but I believe he will, like me, not spend money on the NHL for a while. What if 10% (conservative amount) of the fans decided to so the same? If revenues drop by 10% the players will regret their actions. The owners will probably charge more for parking and arena rental (non-hockey revenue).

They go on a lock out revenues will drop by way more than 10%.

91 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:11 pm

Hoags

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
wprager wrote:
Well of course they won't like it. But the owners can say screw you, don't you dare tell us what to do with our money. I don't see how the players can ever win this staring contest. Many owners are losing money, and a lockout simply means they'll lose less this year. The ones who make lots of money have made lots of money over the years by *not* giving in to the players. Unless it ever comes to a democratic vote I don't see the owners agreeing on significantly changing the revenue-sharing amounts.

The owners should care about the overall state/health of the league.

Are the owners really losing money ? Maybe the team is but they make money off the arena and surrounding land. We know the Sens lose money but Melnyk cashes in on Capital Tickets etc.

Of course if the cap keeps rising they will lose money which is what this is about.

92 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:22 pm

wprager

avatar
Administrator
Administrator
A lot of them are losing money and the only way they make some of it back is by selling the franchise (because the franchise fee keeps going up).

Because the cap is a percentage of revenue they certainly risk losing money. If they made it a percentage of profit -- different story. I still don't really understand why the players want more than half of the revenues but are not true partners in that they assume none of the liabilities. You want 57% of the revenues? Then how about you also pay 57% of all hockey-related expenses? Rent of the arena (if they are paying the city), everyone on payroll, advertising costs, equipment costs (you know those $800 skates -- what if you had to pay $350 of that?), travel expenses, uniforms, etc, etc, etc.

Who the %^*S#@ are these guys that they think they deserve more than half of *REVENUES*?


_________________
Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
- Dicky Fox

93 Re: NHL CBA Talk on Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:24 pm

NEELY


Mod
Mod
Hoags wrote:
wprager wrote:
Well of course they won't like it. But the owners can say screw you, don't you dare tell us what to do with our money. I don't see how the players can ever win this staring contest. Many owners are losing money, and a lockout simply means they'll lose less this year. The ones who make lots of money have made lots of money over the years by *not* giving in to the players. Unless it ever comes to a democratic vote I don't see the owners agreeing on significantly changing the revenue-sharing amounts.

The owners should care about the overall state/health of the league.

Are the owners really losing money ? Maybe the team is but they make money off the arena and surrounding land. We know the Sens lose money but Melnyk cashes in on Capital Tickets etc.

Of course if the cap keeps rising they will lose money which is what this is about.

Most of those owners have millions or billions away from hockey. Owning a professional franchise is a hobby for most of them. NHL doesn't opperate why do they care?

The players are and always will be in the wrong. The fact that millionaires have to be part of a union is laughable enough.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 67]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 36 ... 67  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum