thema Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 But the owners OWN the NHL . The NHLPA does not. So when the CBA expires, one side still owns the NHL, and the other side owns .............N....O......T......H.....I.....N.....G...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 All i had to see was your first line to come to the conclusion that your post is garbage . The owners are locking out the players not the players striking meaning the issue hear is the owners.The players have said they are more then willing to play and negotiate at the same time and they have a right to fight for what they feel they deserve just like anyone else that pays union dues so stop being so selfish as hockey for us fans is entertainment and for players its a job were they earn there income . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I didn't realize that there was NHL revenue not considered hockey related. I recall a time when players were wanting to count things like concert and event proceeds towards a team's revenue, but I didn't realize there was NHL revenue not counted as hockey related. In any case it doesn't change my point of view or the spirit of my post, however I will take the time understand that aspect of the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodzillaDeuce Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Poetica will you marry me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigE Posted October 14, 2012 Author Share Posted October 14, 2012 Because I think a 50/50 split is the fair option I do see the players as the reason things aren't moving forward. It may be true that I am over simplifying things by taking that position, but I choose to take the owner's claims of most teams losing money and increased operating expenses at face value. I suppose one's point of view will vary greatly depending on how much one choses to trust those claims. After a review of the books by the NHLPA I haven't heard anything about the NHLPA contesting those claims. My letter was more about the displeasure I felt in seeing players go to play elsewhere and threaten to not come back. That is what is really at the heart of my message. I suppose there is also the cold hearted logic side of me that is annoyed because in the end it simply doesn't matter. The players will end up playing for less money no matter what they do. This may not be fair but it is truth. If they sit out a season, the average player will lose 2.5 million in salary. If they instead take a 7% reduction (175,000), it would take them over 14 years to lose that much money. I'm pretty sure the new CBA will have expired before then. The math clearly shows that sitting out a season isn't worth it for players, a sentiment echoed by Bill Guerin who felt it was the wrong decision the last time around. I get that it is an unfair position to be stuck in, but it is the reality. I just hope a season isn't sacrificed on a principal that won't make financial sense for the players no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 You start out with this theory that the players somehow OWN half the league and therefore are equal partners with the Owners and NHL . You make it seem like the league OWES it to them to give them anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Poetica will you marry me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Because I think a 50/50 split is the fair option I do see the players as the reason things aren't moving forward. It may be true that I am over simplifying things by taking that position, but I choose to take the owner's claims of most teams losing money and increased operating expenses at face value. I suppose one's point of view will vary greatly depending on how much one choses to trust those claims. After a review of the books by the NHLPA I haven't heard anything about the NHLPA contesting those claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigE Posted October 14, 2012 Author Share Posted October 14, 2012 But I think the major disagreement is the idea of who is responsible. Are owners responsible for making good business decisions to ensure the success and health of their business or should the employees be limited in how much they can benefit to offset the bad business decisions of owners? Yes, costs are going up for all businesses and the players need to take a reduction in their profit share to help cover that, and have said they will. However, it's the owners who've found ways around the rules and sent salaries soaring, not the players. But instead of enforcing the rules for the owners, they simply want to further limit the players. So, I think the bottom line question is: does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I hope they get this thing solved, because in the end it will be the owners and the players that lose the support of fans such as myself, regardless of who anyone feels is to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Dear NHLPA, Don't listen to fans who don't know the difference between a lockout and a strike, their a$$ or a hole in the ground. Instead, start forming your own league: that will get the owners back to the table in a hurry. You have an incentive to play but it seems the owners don't, so you have to do something to put the situation on a different footing. Challenging their choke-hold on elite hockey in North America would be a game changer. solidarity forever, Manniwaki Canuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodzillaDeuce Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Dear NHLPA, Don't listen to fans who don't know the difference between a lockout and a strike, their a$$ or a hole in the ground. Instead, start forming your own league: that will get the owners back to the table in a hurry. You have an incentive to play but it seems the owners don't, so you have to do something to put the situation on a different footing. Challenging their choke-hold on elite hockey in North America would be a game changer. solidarity forever, Manniwaki Canuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 as much as I'm on the players side, that's not very likely lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 ...and the players ARE the NHL and without the players the NHL is.........N........O....T.....H...I....N...G.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Dear NHLPA, Don't listen to fans who don't know the difference between a lockout and a strike, their a$$ or a hole in the ground. Instead, start forming your own league: that will get the owners back to the table in a hurry. You have an incentive to play but it seems the owners don't, so you have to do something to put the situation on a different footing. Challenging their choke-hold on elite hockey in North America would be a game changer. solidarity forever, Manniwaki Canuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc44 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 If you understand Don Fehr then you understand why the NHL will not negotiate and continue to play games. Example 1994 MLB, while playing under an expired CBA August 12th Don Fehr and the MLB players walk out and strike cancelling the World series for the first time ever. Fehr was trying to use the play offs as his ace in the whole. I would rather the players be locked out for 2 or 3 years then have a season start, have us getting all excited about play-offs and then players walk out in March because they don't have the deal they want. 15% of players are willing to play oversea's for less but they will not do it here. I can't wait tell these guys have to get a real job after their hockey career's are over to fully understand the value of money. When the million dollar contracts are gone and they are making $75G a year, taking 7% less wouldn't have been as bad instead of losing 100% of the 2012-13 season. Let's all shed a ter for Iginl because after all he is losing $85G a GAME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Great post by the OP. As many of you know, I have been writing this since the whole thing obviously was not going to happen. I was in total denial at first. My common sense told me neither the players or the owners had anything to gain this time. There would be no lock out. Then I find out the players do not want to even go down to 50 / 50 ? Not even help by capping it at 5 years max contract? They even hire a loaded gun from the baseball lockout . Thats not a sign you want to compromise. I obviously wasnt paying attention at the time but when I found that out, I knew we were in for a long battle, as other had said before me. I cant even imagine taking all the risk in a business, but only getting 43% of the revenue? 43% of my own money? I bet everyone here would be royally pissed off about it too. the players get 57% guaranteed profit . the owners get 43% , and then have to start deducting for losing teams, and then transfer payments blah blah marketing building new stadiums or buying enough politicians to get it done blah blah............dont forget about minor league payrolls rising taxes etc........ That 43% starts to look like 25% and even less in the end. The players blew it by hiring a guy who is known for STONE WALLING and hard bargaining. There is no way the NHL ownership group is going to let Fehr push them around. The league and the Stanley Cup belong to the Owners, not the players union. And since they got Fehr, there is little chance he is going to cramp his EGO to get a deal done either. So there will be no hockey. i say FIRE the NHLPA and hire new players and invite them to start a new union willing to accept 50% and 5 year max contracts. In fact I would argue do it now so we can start playing games. They will be bush league at first yes, but at least there will be hockey and we can just move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Please share this link if you support me in my point of view. Link To Website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I understand your frustration, but not your letter. First, players did NOT receive 57% of "league revenue." They got 57% of the final HRR, which is certain revenues minus allowed deductions for costs, arena upkeep, etc. Even under the limited definition of HRR, because of allowed deductions players still did not 57% of all "league revenue." Not even close. Second, I do not understand your point if you say players are half the problem but you are only writing an angry letter to the NHLPA. Shouldn't your anger be directed at both the NHL and the NHLPA for their collective head-up-their-own-arse-itis? Third, you seem to forget that players took a 24% reduction last time and gave the owners everything they said they needed to make the league financially successful, including the cap system. The players showed a love for the sport and a desire to keep the league healthy by giving in to every demand the owners made. And it worked. The league has record revenue (though to be fair, the rise of the loonie is a huge factor.) The owners, on the other hand, found every possible way to sneak around the rules they insisted on and are now demanding even more cuts from the players' end because they say the rules they demanded last time aren't working. So, let's review: Owners demanded. Owners got. Owners skirted the rules they created to get what they wanted. Owners mad their collective skirting of the rules is bad business. Owners demand even more from players. Fourth, ignoring the fact that players generate the income for teams, not just with their actual work but also with their names and faces, it's unfair to imply that players face no risk unlike the owners who face so much. In reality, players have very real risks every time they take the ice for a game or practice, or even when they just workout. (Look at the 2 of our players hurt this summer while working out!) Their risk may be physical, but it is real. Owners, on the other hand, take very little financial risk. They get huge tax breaks (more than almost any other industry gets) despite research showing that sports teams do not have a significant positive impact on local economies (as most of the money ends up leaving the local area) and government funds for arenas the likes of which any other industry would do dirty things for. (Name another industry where public funds are used to construct buildings for a private corporation and then the private corporation is allowed to pay back only a small percent of the cost of said building over decades at little or not interest while keeping almost all of the profit!) Some teams even get yearly bailout money from the league that, despite them reporting losing money might actually mean owners took home a profit. Even if a team fails, the league might buy it from you or help you find another owner to buy the bum team for relocation. Name another industry with so many safety nets. The owners' risk is actually a lot lower thank you think it is, and certainly lower than they want you to think it is. Do not be fooled. If you believe (as common sense would seem to indicate) that the owners are smart enough in business to have amassed the kind of fortune to it takes to buy an NHL franchise, then realize they would not be dumb enough to stay in the NHL business unless there was money to be made. Even the teams crying poverty to the public may not have actually been in the red thanks to shuffling how they report HRR and avoiding revealing the other revenue their arenas generated (while often attributing the upkeep costs to the team alone). And fifth, please remember that the owners are the ones who locked out the players. The players offered to keep playing under the old CBA while a new one was negotiated. And it's the owners who are demanding gross amounts of concessions (not just in pay, but also in limiting contract lengths while also increasing entry level contract lengths, and removing players' rights to arbitration to name a few) from the players while offering to give up nothing themselves. The players have already offered a reduction in their HRR percentage. It just wasn't good enough for the owners. Again, I absolutely understand your frustration and anger. I just think it's best applied with a little knowledge. And I think the best way to express our anger over this absolutely avoidable situation is to speak with our wallets since the almighty dollar seems to be the only language the league speaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 If NHL players went to a pond in the middle of nowhere, I know that thousands of people would try to go watch them play. Myself included. No one I know goes to an NHL arena to enjoy the atmosphere with no games going on. The owners own the venue. The players and the fans own the game. I support the players in fighting for their right to a fair piece of the pie. The owners can eat their own feces. My 2¢ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.