Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

-Vintage Canuck-

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

6,228 posts in this topic

That said, I have a lot of faith in Raymond, unlike many on here. I have seen the few times Jensen played in the AHL and the pre season he had a year+ ago. He is far from being near to Raymond imo,however he MAY be a good player for us (2nd/3rd line maybe) in 3/4 years. How is he doing in Sweden anyway?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is the NHL is making money, but it's only about 10 teams that are making all of the money. That's a broken system. You can't have a third of the league supporting the rest of the league,

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else think something's a little fishy with the 60 million salary cap?

Who has Bettman always catered to since day one?.. The big market teams, right?

This 60 million would hurt those teams greatly. And hurt the league in general with the degraded bottom six talent and leaving good players without jobs. You don't think doing this and forcing "the old boys club" big market teams to lose core players they drafted and developed would seriously piss them off?

It just seems to go against everything Bettman stands for and I'm thinking this is all a move to get the players to give in on something the owners actually want... This entire process has been about taking from the players and not hurting the owners an ounce. There's no way they actually want the cap at 60 million so bettmans big dogs can give up a core player and great role player just to fit under the cap.

Every move he has made from day one has been shady and this is going to derail real quick if he doesn't start giving the players reasons to trust him.

I understand your point Deniro, but my opinion is if this derails, it's on the shady commisioner not willing to negotiate in good faith from day 1. Everything he does is some sort of trick and he has called a stop to negotiations as soon as the players don't buy it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it doesn't work the other way around. Because the players need the NHL in order to make a very good living, the owners don't need the NHL, especially if they're not making money on it. They would just as soon walk away then continuously lose money.

The world being in a recession has affected these owners alot more than the players, who have only seen their salaries increase to record levels over the last few years.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't get to negotiate like a collective league and then argue that they are purely individual businesses who need to just look out for themselves... it has to be one or the other or it is just hypocrisy.

They have put in all sorts of rules (all on thebacks of the players) for the good of the league (draft, salary cap, RFA, etc) but balk when they need to put in rules that affect the owners? (eg. revenue sharing)?

You want to solve the economic issues that were created by the league (not the players)? Relocate a couple of crappy revenue teams. Have all the teams evenly share all TV revenue including local deals. Everyone makes money then.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it doesn't work the other way around. Because the players need the NHL in order to make a very good living, the owners don't need the NHL; especially if they're not making money on it. They would just as soon walk away then continuously lose money.

The world being in a recession has affected these owners alot more than the players; who have only seen their salaries increase to record levels over the last few years.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owners are NOT losing money. Teams may be, but owners are not. Owners buy a team and then never put another penny into it. If a team is losing money it does NOT come out of the owners' pocket. And, as I've posted multiple times with facts and figures to prove, even teams that are losing money are more often than not selling for more than they're worth and significantly higher than what the owner originally paid for them. That means owners of teams losing money are actually making millions, often tens of millions, in profits when they sell the team. Even without selling the team, owners benefit by having their personal wealth increase as the value of their team increases (as almost all NHL teams have), even as it continues to lose money.

Look no further than the money suck hole that is Phoenix for proof: The NHL paid $140M for it (and then got $50M in taxpayer handouts...) in 2009 but they are likely getting $170M for it when the deal with Jamison is finalized sometime this year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL makes money. Lots and lots of money.

Even franchises that are claiming to lose money have submitted financial forms indicating overall profits. But minimizing the HRR and crying poor is far more advantageous. Hence the sneaky amendment lowering penalties for hiding HRR in the last NHL submission.

I don't understand how owners who signed players to contracts worth 73% of HRR, who then get an absolute coup in the last lockout with a 24% rollback and escrow to ensure the players only get 57%, just in time for revenues to nearly double, can stand there with a straight face and say their business model is flawed, and they need more...well, everything...

...And in the end, you suckers actually buy all of it!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow NHL has agreed to 30% variance. Quite a move

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SpectorsHockey: #NHL & #NHLPA are having a small group meeting tonight at NHL HQ to discuss the pension issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow NHL has agreed to 30% variance. Quite a move

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think teams like the Coyotes, Blue Jackets, Predators, Blues, Hurricanes, Panthers, Islanders, and Lightning are actually making money? If you think that, maybe you should do some research on these teams. Any money these teams get is from revenue sharing, and even that isn't enough.

Revenues don't mean profits. Record revenues mean nothing when you couple them with record expenses.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SpectorsHockey: @DarrenDreger reports a source claiming #NHLPA might consider a 7-year term limit on contracts, rather than 8 years. #NHLCBA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't take long for the first big hiccup that I anticipated in this post.

Apparently hidden in the 300 page document the NHL gave was some changes to the HRR clause even when the sides had already agreed on not changing it. The PA got steamed about it quite understandably.

Apparently the NHL has backed off on it, but doing crap like that at this late date is pretty likely to derail the process. It means that the players can't make an "agreement in principle" because they can't trust the NHL to not do everything they can to screw them in the fine print.

Why at this point do you keep trying to ensure that there is no trust between the parties? This is the time when you should be starting to talk up the other side in order to start making it possible to having a working relationship when the business starts up again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I've never understood the variance issue. What is it actually?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bettman is getting fired with the signing of the new cba. One of the conditions

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bettman is getting fired with the signing of the new cba. One of the conditions

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As already pointed out, why should the responsibility of subsidizing those teams go to the players? (other than the lowered HRR affecting their salaries?) Did they make the series of poor decisions that made each of those franchises flounder (putting more than one team in Florida, putting team in desert, letting Mike Milbury anywhere near your front office, etc.)

Why should propping up franchises not be subsidized by the owners who are making money hand-over-fist? Or, why not move a couple of those teams to areas where they would make profit instantly? If you expect the players to pay for the discrepency, are they now allowed an equal vote on relocation?

The players just want the money the owners signed them to. It's up to the owners to not spend more than they can cover, and not be stupid with their finances. At least, it should be. That is what ownership is about.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I've never understood the variance issue. What is it actually?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the amount a salary can go up from year to year.

So if a player makes 5 million in his first year, he can make 6.5 million in his second year if there was a 30% variance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.