Bill Sikes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 So are you suggesting that Nashville should have just let Weber walk to Philly? And are you also suggesting that the owners collude to keep salaries down? The owners have played within the rules of the old CBA. They just need to tweak the new CBA to keep things from getting out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 The owners HAVE to spend a minimium of $54M. Add something constructive to your comments you keep sying the same thing over and over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Your the one with nothing constructive to say, this minimum is what the owners wrote into the deal with NO PLAYER INPUT, in fact, the palyers said right away that it wouldn't work and we'd be right back here, and you seem to be surprised by this. The owners crow about their INCREASED revenues for years, then when the CBA expires they suddenly cry poor and try to take away player salaries while at the same time making the very deals they complain about in the CBA, they want to cap deals a 5 years, yet they all scramble to sign 6-10 year deals. Way to go, you actually helped my case rather than hurt it, that whole article points to better revenue sharing as the way to go, problem is the elites like Snider and Jacobs don't want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I am suggesting Philly shouldn't offer 100 times what a player is worth for the purpose of destroying a team either on the ice or financially, do you think they would have made such a ludicrous offer if Webber played for a team like the Rangers who could easily match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunPryde Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Naw, a $2.4 million average salary is not enough compensation for me to play a game I love (apparently). Greedy greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Owners = 8 profitable, 14 marginal in playoff years, 8 not profitable Players = too many, watered down game, too much salary Fans = pay too much, often mediocre product Solution = Remove 6 teams that are turning the least profit. Phx, NYI, FLA, Columbus, Anaheim and then pick from Nash, STL and NJ The play gets better, the game gets better, the league makes more money (not funding the bottom teams). Revenue can be shared properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I see that the NHL players, the wealthy elite, have decided to go overseas and steal jobs from working class players in Europe again just like last time. Screw em, I hope the league breaks their backs. Scumbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 If any other profession were locked out, they would seek temporary employment elsewhere. The teams that are hiring these players are also businesses. Another hypocritical stance by owner backers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derr12 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 It's a ridiculous analogy. Any other profession doesn't have a minimum wage of $500,000+ per year and an average salary over $2M. And in any other profession, when they go seek temporary employment elsewhere, they get jobs where there are job openings. They don't bump other people out of jobs they already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 KHL 1 way contracts still need to be paid weather or not the player bumped down is in the lineup or not. doofus. Nobody is out of a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 It's a ridiculous analogy. Any other profession doesn't have a minimum wage of $500,000+ per year and an average salary over $2M. And in any other profession, when they go seek temporary employment elsewhere, they get jobs where there are job openings. They don't bump other people out of jobs they already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Untrue. If the biggest, baddest financial company was pulling what the owners are, and everyone knew their employees were the most gifted, well-trained and reputable folks in the industry, every other competitor would hire those employees in a heartbeat. The only difference is that in the case of hockey, they can only hire the NHL players for a limited time, which they are clearly happy with or they would not be signing NHL players left and right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lui's Knob Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 TEAM1040 reports that NHL will shut down the Winter Classic if CBA is not signed by November...(aka the NEXT DEADLINE). Threat from Buttman? or is this just the beginning of the end of the season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseBlue Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 boohoo for the leafs if that's the case... anyways...this is becoming more of an owner versus owner where bettman doesn't want to be, so since he works for the owners, he'll try to get the loss from the players pockets...he doesn't want to acknowledge that he's the one who put teams in non-profitable markets... funny thing is that they don't want to relocate just any team to the southern ontario market because they'll make a killing in franchising it instead...with that said, franchising one to the southern ontario market should be looked as a way to stop this stupid lockout... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Shirokov Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Seems to me like the top owners are having to bend over backwards to help out these lower market teams. Not only have they had to provide millions of dollars out of their own pockets to subsidize these small market teams, (Some in ridiculous locations proposed by Bettman).....but they might poententially lose millions more in a lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Except your comparison is imaginary. The difference with NHL hockey is it is happening for real. Besides that, sure the European teams are happy to sign NHL players, but how do you think the displaced players feel about it? It's not like the NHLers going overseas need the money. These are all extremely high paid players that are going over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drive-By Body Pierce Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Ryan Miller: ‘It is hard to trust the owners’ Things are very, very quiet right now on the NHL lockout front. Other than stories about the mass exodus of players signing in Europe and the issues getting insurance coverage (note: it’s expensive) we’re hearing very little else in the way of news. It’s almost to the point that there’s little left for either side to say, at least until the next round of negotiations finally start up again. That said, I’ve had the chance to survey the mood among at least a dozen players this week, and the feeling more than anything is one of frustration. At the NHLPA meetings last week in New York, players were all told what had been offered to the league was a considerable giveback of future revenues while ensuring they’d receive their current contracts. When the NHL dismissed it out of hand, it sparked outrage among a portion of the players, with some of that bubbling over onto Twitter (i.e. John-Michael Liles) when the lockout finally began on Sunday. One of those who has been relatively outspoken about the situation is Buffalo Sabres netminder Ryan Miller, who I have generally found to be one of the more level-headed and intelligent players in the league. A situation like this, however, is enough to put even those types on edge. I touched base with Miller a few days ago, and he said part of what’s so difficult about these negotiations is an immense distrust of the owners and their motives in this fight. It’s still hard for many players to look past what happened during the last lockout, when a win for the league resulted in a large share of those new revenues going to the wealthy teams. “I think the anger and frustration comes from knowing what the owners are capable of under the guidance of Gary Bettman,” Miller said in an e-mail. “They are willing to let a season burn as shown in 2004-05, and it is a path that they are comfortable taking as their choice form of negotiating. “This is the third time and no matter how the NHL spins it, the same story is being told. They claim teams are struggling financially and player salary restriction is the only way to address the inevitable disasters. It is hard to trust the owners when it is the same story after years of documented growth and increasing revenue.” The players insist they realize some teams are losing money, and that’s why they’ve proposed to increase revenue sharing from $150-million to $260-million for next season. (The league has offered to raise it to $190-million, which is why Bettman says they’re not far apart on the issue.) That extra $110-million would then go directly to the six or seven teams that need it most, meaning $15- to $20-million per troubled team on top of what they were already receiving under the last agreement. What the NHLPA and players like Miller have consistently said they will never do is give even more money back to the teams on the top end. After the last collective bargaining agreement came in, the Toronto Maple Leafs, Montreal Canadiens and New York Rangers (among others) all made incredible profits in part because their spending on salaries was limited by the cap and their revenue sharing commitments were so low. The Leafs, I’m told, only paid $20-million into that shared pot last season, for example, which is believed to be roughly 10 per cent of their total revenues. (Some of the NHL’s revenue sharing pot comes out of playoff revenues, which means the Phoenix Coyotes paid more into that portion of sharing than the Leafs last season.) By comparison, rich teams in baseball are forced to share at least 31 per cent of their local revenue. It’s even higher in the NFL and the NBA’s new CBA calls on teams like the Los Angeles Lakers to pay up far more than ever before. And all those leagues have much larger sources of shared league revenue to supplement that local revenue sharing. If the NHLPA could get a deal where Toronto is putting in triple the amount of revenue sharing they do now, there’s another $40-million or so that can go to fixing some of the economic issues. The same goes for a few of the other wealthy teams, albeit to a lesser extent. That wouldn’t get them all the way to where every franchise is healthy, but you can see why players believe it’s part of a potential solution. If revenue sharing is left relatively untouched, however, most of the burden of helping the Phoenixes of the league will fall on the players, which they argue is where the cut from 57 per cent of revenues down to 47 per cent the league is asking for comes in. “That is why our proposal builds in more responsibility to league health as a whole through defined revenue sharing that gets money to the teams that need it,” Miller said. “The proposal is based on Don Fehr spending a lot of time talking to the players and listening to our concerns. “We want a healthy NHL and a league that starts to move past the labour mistrust so that hockey could grow and flourish... And yet here we are again.” “Here” being a stalemate of familiar proportions, even as the two sides don’t really appear to be all that far apart in terms of the overall percentages. Ending it, however, isn’t as simple as it may seem. While many are forecasting that this will all end with the players taking a 50-50 share, their reluctance to do so stems directly from what happened the last time around. The players don’t believe giving back to the wealthy teams will solve much of anything and that, when it comes time for the next agreement in another six or seven years, the league will again be asking for more across the board to help teams on the bottom. And that’s where the frustration comes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Wouldn't mind if the Winter Classic was cancelled. Toronto and Detroit? Really NHL? Anyways are the two sides talking yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I think the problem is that the players don't have enough business sense to understand the real problems with the NHL. Yes revenues have been going up, but so have expenses, which includes players salaries. So just because revenue is growing, does not mean that profit is growing. They can't just expect that their salaries will continue to keep rising year after year. Things need to be slowed down, because the league isn't growing as fast as players salaries are increasing right now. Something has to give. Don't kid yourselves if you think that the players are not being the greedier ones here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Wouldn't mind if the Winter Classic was cancelled. Toronto and Detroit? Really NHL? Anyways are the two sides talking yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.