D-Bo7 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Hmm, is it not a simple solution to share the burden of struggling clubs? Have 10% rolled back from player salaries and the other 10% in HRR. It shouldn't come all from the owners and it shouldn't come all from the players. Both sides share a stake in this league and should work together to make sure it is healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Bettman, is that you? Just because it is the first offer, that doesn't mean you can't be reasonable. Would you still think it is ok if Bettman offer 99/1 split just because that is the first offer? 54/46 is not just idiotic, but insulting. If you go to a car dealership, and you offer the car salesman a $1 for the car, do you think he will take you seriously? You need to get a grip of what real life is. League revenue has been growing for the past 7 years, and instead of rewarding the players, Bettman is saying "Good job guys! We are making a lot more money than we were 7 years ago, but I would have to cut all your salaries and wages because I have a personal vendetta against Jim Balsillie. Instead of relocating unprofitable franchises to profitable location, I am going to do it my way, but I figure it is better to have you guys pay for the loss. Who doesn't like to have others pay for their loss, right?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 First off the reason that circumvention could happen was because the cap went up exponentially due to substantially increased revenue which is something the NHL did not prepare for at that time. Many predicted that the NHL would go through a phase in the states where everyone hated them, similar to what MLB went through after there strike but that never happend. Due to young superstars such as Ovechkin and Crosby the NHL was able to grow. At the same respect all of this isnt brilliant. At the time, the NHL owners wanted a system that would substantially decrease operating costs of a team which basically hinged on player salary. They attempted to reduce salary through a hard cap but they failed because the cap kept going up and the owners themselves kept spending money. I just dont understand how the heck that is brilliant. They got a cap to prevent increased salary. Salary increased because they started spending. In essence, they did what they wanted the system to prevent them from doing. Put it another way if this still isnt making sense to you (though there is no reason it shouldnt make sense), lets say I install an alarm system to prevent someone from robbing my house. But then suddenly I welcome intruders to steal my stuff despite me putting the alarm system in the first place. How the heck is that smart? Like I said before, it is utterly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Hmm, is it not a simple solution to share the burden of struggling clubs? Have 10% rolled back from player salaries and the other 10% in HRR. It shouldn't come all from the owners and it shouldn't come all from the players. Both sides share a stake in this league and should work together to make sure it is healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 This is NOT about simple solutions or fairness, it is all about relative power, that is what a negotiation is- who will cave? Hard to see a scenario where the players don't cave again, but it will take some time. Sure what you say may make sense, but right now the owners are thinking more like the players should carry most of the burden and the players think that the owners should do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully2Cool Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I need an NHL season, I'm already going through hockey withdrawal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Thats bad not good, watered down product and created mostly welfare cases his reckless pursuit of the corporate dollar and loosening up the free agent rules created the problem, he also blocked a plan for a pay per view service available only in Canada with the revenues going to the Canadian teams, that would have done a lot more than his "Save Gary Bettmans Butt from a lynching" plan (which is what it really was. And you get a cut of this? Has the game become more affordable for fans or more expensive? The players and owners have been doing nothing but fight about how to divy it up, thats good? Pricing out the fans who built the game is good? Maybe you can afford $200 nosebleed tickets and $300 jerseys but most people can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully2Cool Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Lol, did you make that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Players salaries roll back more than WalMart prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Profanity Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Why are you so angry? Over the past few pages you have called other posters dumb, delusional and so on. You tell me to get a grip of what a real life is, I think you need to get a grip of yourself period. This is a hockey forum where ppl come to discuss hockey because they enjoy it, I enjoy a good debate as much as any one but you are one angry dude. The fact you can't see the difference between a 57/43 split and a 99/1 split says a lot about about intelligence. The fact you think offering a 54/46 split is like offering a car dealership $1 for a car says a lot about delusion. For your info currently the players are getting 57/43 split. That's right, players got 57% of the revenue last year. I guess the players got a car for less than $1 dollar according to your reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I am not angry, I just like to point out the stupids. Thanks for being a great example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where's Wellwood Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 So let me get this straight. You don't like Bettman for expanding the league because you claim it creates a watered down league. You obviously don't account for all the Euros in the NHL (23%) that were not here before. You also don't account for the increase in American players in the NHL over the past 20 years. In 1992 there were approx 15% Americans now 23% percent, pro rate this to the extra 6 teams and you can see that the game has seen huge growth. The league is not watered down, it has better talent than it ever did. You don't believe in supply and demand so you resent the ticket prices of an NHL game. Are you aware you can go to an NHL game in certain US markets for approx $20? Again, supply and demand. In Canada you are going to have to pay more, no matter how much of revenue goes to players. You blame Bettman for lossening up the "free agent rules", actually the opposite is truth. The players fought hard to get the UFA age reduced over the current CBA. This is not Bettman's fault. One of the major issues in this negotiation again is UFA age. The league wants to increase it to 10 accrued seasons before a player hits UFA. Bettman recklessly chased the corporate dollar but blocked PPV? You would rather PPV hockey games than watch them for free? The fact is no other league players get 57% of revenue. NHL can't afford it and its going to have to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Profanity Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 If you are what you call smart 99/1 = 57/43 Then I'd rather be..... wait, maybe your math skills = your vocabulary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Wow 17% rollback, that's huge. I doubt the players go for this one, I hope there is a counter proposal though. Any word on what the NHL proposes to do with UFA/RFA status and length of contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The issue is NOT thaat revenues have increased but that some brilliant GM (Holland from Detroit) quickly found a way to defeat the cap. So for example, the cap this year should be about $70 million. Now that would be fine if there was no way to get around it, but there is. For example, will the canucks spend more than $70 million? You bet, the salray of Luongo for example is a lot more than his cap hit. So, what I am saying is that through the brilliance of some GMs who figured out ways around the cap, we have another conflict. Circumventiondid not happen because revenues increased 'exponentialy' (do you even know what exponentially means, just to let you know, it is a lot more than 70% or so over 8 years). It had nothing to do with revenue increase and everything to do with GMs wanting to get an hedge. Your alarm system analogy is all wrong, you have to think of something where you have a group of competitive GMs trying to get an advantage- that is what the reality is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Also I was watching TSN and apparently the PA wants Bettman and his minions to define what the new hockey related revenue would be to the public. As reported by the mainstream media, the new definition of HRR would cost the players roughly 175 million which is substantial but how would this number be brought upon. Personally, as someone who is siding with the players more than owners simply because I have 0 sympathy for the owners, I would be fine if the NHL offered a 50-50 split on the old definition of HRR but that isnt about to happen which is ridiculous. The latest offer proves that NHL owners are nothing more than money hungry pigs who are trying to see if they can break the players again. The fact that Bettman called that offer fair or a significant stepping stone or whatever have you is absolutely absurd. He really thinks the players and fans are stupid. What he and his chumps fail to realize is that Donald Fehr is a fierce negotiator and if Fehr can take the MLB owners on strike one can only imagine what he can do to Bettman and his minions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Update #5: Via Yahoo Sports' Greg "Puck Daddy" Wyshynski, the Fourth Period's David Pagnotta puts the escrow issue in plainer English: Speaking on the basis of anonymity, one source revealed to me this evening that the NHL merely "masked the numbers." What seems good on paper (figure of speech, not the actual document pitched) isn't all its cracked up to be. As part of the NHL's latest proposal, player contracts are to remain the same and there would be no rollbacks in salaries. Okay, not bad. The League also proposed hockey related revenues (HRR) would be split 55-45, with 45 per cent going to the Players (the NHL originally pitched 43 per cent). A step in the right direction. Good. (Here it comes...) But, the NHL wants the current the percentage of player salaries put towards escrow to significantly increase, which, according to the source, effectively cancels out any real changes from the NHL's original proposal back in July and makes today's proposal more or less the same deal. What exactly does that mean? Throughout the season, a piece of player salaries is put into a big pot (escrow). Once the season is completed (the process can take a few months), all of the ticket revenue, merchandise sales, broadcast money and other revenues is totaled. Based on those HRR figures, the cash are divided up and sent to the owners and back into the players' pockets. The NHL proposed a large jump in that percentage figure today. Undoubtedly, this doesn't sit well with the NHLPA. ... The owners are looking for creative ways to pay the players' less. That's what it boils down to. The two sides are getting closer towards revenue sharing, according to Bettman, but that's simply one piece of the equation. If they cannot agree to a framework on player contracting issues, the Sept. 15 "deadline" will pass before you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Wholeheartedly disagree. That loop hole only works if the cap is high. If the cap were at 39 million like the first season I highly doubt you would have these stacked contracts simply because the league max salary would be something around 7-7.5 million. So assuming stars got around 6 million a year anways you cant stack the money up front. Also my point before was the owners and Gms were stupid simply because they wanted a cap to decrease player salaries yet 7 years later they find themselves in the same supposed "mess" where salaries are higher than ever before. If that isnt stupid then I do not know what is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.