DeNiro Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 They're just going to keep squeezing each other until late on the 11th. We've missed training camp, pre-season, the Boston game, and 3 months of hockey. I can get through 1 more week, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Good gym sesh? Better than CBA talks today I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 In my conflicted position of wanting the season to start while supporting the players, I also just want it to be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Raymond played 49.39 SH minutes and still ended up with a +4, whereas Booth played less than 2 minutes SH ended with a -5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 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 a team in the desert with a terrible lease agreement; letting Mike Milbury anywhere near your front office, then replacing him with your back-up goaltender, etc.) In the real world, poorly run businesses are on ownership, not on the contracted workers. 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 supposedly money-bleeding 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck or Die Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 F***! Just get a deal done already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 If the players want to keep those jobs shouldn't they also do their part in insuring they stay? The owners have offered to up their revenue sharing to teams that they don't own to help keep player jobs. The players don't want those jobs to disappear. Therefore they too should be part of the solution. It's easy to say don't spend more than you can afford, but if you can't compete you won't attract fans. We fans are a fickle bunch and run out of patience when our team loses, and loses, and loses some more. Columbus is a good example. Their first seven years they were in the top ten for attendance. There are hockey fans there. But hopelessly losing and missing the playoffs year after year the fans have finally given up and are disappearing putting Columbus in the bottom ten for attendance now. So what's Columbus to do? They can't afford players to compete because the money makers are setting market value with ridiculous contract offers and they can't attract fans if they can't compete. They're left with a choice lose money to compete and die, or don't compete and die a slower death as the fans disappear. Players saying we don't want to fold teams but we won't take less of the pie is unrealistic. Both sides need to be part of the solution. If I was a money making owner I'd be asking, "Why am I taking money out of my pocket to save your jobs?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 What sickens me is the level of intensity this round of negotiations are at. Where was this type of give and take before the season started? If they had worked this hard to get a deal done we could have had a full season where both sides would have made money. A lockout would have been averted, and league would look better as a result. Oh no. Can't have that. Fehr and Bettman have to let their egos get in the way. Bettman may be an owners lap dog. But, he can get the same results if not better if he had any business sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yeah...file a disclaimer, dis band the union, sue the owners for lost wages...then what? Go back to them on your hands and knees begging for a job? Why can't these guys see the bigger picture? What happens if the NHL shuts down? Sure...you got some money - but what about the new guys coming up? What about the guys who have played only a couple of years? What about us fans? As many others have pointed out - you can't compare a hockey player with a regular job - if that's the case, then you can't "bargain" for workers rights the same way neither. You are in the entertainment industry - now entertain us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanBeef Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 +/- isn't affected if scored upon while shorthanded. Nor is it affected if you score on the PP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 They'll come to a deal @ last minute. It's so they can both say they held their ground. they'll play 1/2 a year and still make money. It's all BS. I will still watch when it starts but I will not Buy any NHL merch or tickets to a game for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yeah...file a disclaimer, dis band the union, sue the owners for lost wages...then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 It's affected when shorthanded but not on the powerplay (unless scored on when the other team is on the powerplay) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I am amazed the players are pushing it this far. I guarantee one thing: they have lost more money in this half season, combined, than they would lose in their combined future careers after the pay cuts. I don't have much faith anymore that the majority of hockey players are all that smart or they would have told the 37 players who are young and overpaid to go EFF themselves and signed the second the league moved to 50/50 split from 43% for the players. The rest is just blah blah blah...players lost because the guy in charge of the players is convincing them all they are 23 year old 7million dollar a year worthy players. The reality is they are 31 and earn 2.4million. THe math is easy once you accept reality. EDIT: my guess was off Here is the reality: Average age in 11-12 season: 27.5 Average age of retirement: 28.4 So these factual average age and average retirement age figures easily show that ON AVERAGE the players who last year earned an average of 2.4million have about a year left to play in their careers, again on average. I would argue that number is higher now, because it is taken from the last 6000 players retirement ages...even if it is triple that and they have on average 3 years left at average 2.4m they already lost more sitting out a half a year than they will lose over three years at the paycut level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 +/- isn't affected if scored upon while shorthanded. Nor is it affected if you score on the PP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 It's affected when shorthanded but not on the powerplay (unless scored on when the other team is on the powerplay) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yep, Kyosama already pointed that out for me yesterday. But thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Sorry, missed that response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 If the players want to keep those jobs shouldn't they also do their part in insuring they stay? The owners have offered to up their revenue sharing to teams that they don't own to help keep player jobs. The players don't want those jobs to disappear. Therefore they too should be part of the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Minny is no different. Management said with the Parise and Suter signings that their fans were getting fed up with losing. That city already lost a franchise to Dallas. The reality of business is that mistakes have to be corrected and the status quo doesn't cut it. When players are the biggest expense they are natural targets for cost cutting. The right or wrong of it means nothing. Another issue ignored by most is 'lost opportunity cost' associated with under performing franchises. Specifically the value of capital tied up in a franchise. Even at a 5% ROI the average team requires a profit of $7.5 million, after tax, to make that kind of return on a team worth $150 million. Not happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.