Drybone Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 The facts havent changed. The NHL owns the stanley cup and controls all the arenas. The NHLPA has the current talent . One will still own the stanley cup and control the NHL 6 years from now. The other will have a group of aging players in the KHL while the NHL drafted new talent for 6 years under a new union. The players have no leverage in the long run at all. They just get older and get replaced. The owners are hitting them short term by making sure they dont get paid . Some owners take a hit but know that in the long term they will win this battle. Players should simply accept a 50/50 split in the revenue Players accept 5 yr max salaries and 28 year old UFA NHL keeps the cap at 70mil and only when it drops below 50% then the cap can rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 The facts havent changed. The NHL owns the stanley cup and controls all the arenas. The NHLPA has the current talent . One will still own the stanley cup and control the NHL 6 years from now. The other will have a group of aging players in the KHL while the NHL drafted new talent for 6 years under a new union. The players have no leverage in the long run at all. They just get older and get replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 [Edited for brevity.] The NHL owns the stanley cup and controls all the arenas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballisticsports. Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Again...without the fans/players...there is no revenue stream. Players can organize their own games...there are numerous other arenas they can play at...tix at $20 to watch NHL caliber players compared to watching AHL players at $50 combined with bad PR (the new NHL), I think the fans will be drawn to the players games. The players/fans can do without the NHL...whereas the NHL cannot do without the fans/talent. TBH, I'd be down/fine with folding this whole league and starting all over again..but having a team with our current roster of course in a new league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 @adater Good point by Dreger: Jarome Iginla will sacrifice $15 million over two lost seasons. Think he'll want that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Really ?? You think that Even if they were able to arrange arenas,pay the wages, bills,flights,accomadations,food etc on and on, That and only charging $20 ticket and no tv contract or sponsorship contracts they would not be anything close to what they were making in the NHL If there was no NHL, the only option would be overseas, and still they will not have it as good as they Ever will have it with the Nhl. The players really only have only 3 choices Agree to never play in the NHL again and never accept any offer or Take the offer and play and be an instant Multi-Millionaire or Play for less than what the NHL is offering them right now and play Overseas the rest of their careers The entertainment field actors,musicians,athletes have all been taking a hit and not making as much as they were Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Fans come to watch their favourite players and not because of loyalty to the owners/league/team...even the Canucks lost fans when the team was dismantled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Not me. I've been a Canucks fan from the start. In that time they've gone through several owners and a boat load of players, but it's the team I cheer for. In some ways, I am part of the problem. The NHL is banking that fans like me will be back, no matter how long this takes. They're probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 They lost me and I stopped watching during the Messier era and traded away Linden, amongst other principal players like Bure, and Bure was the reason why I started paying attention to hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I'm not denying that some people are more a fan of the players than they are of the team. I'm still a Bobby Orr fan. Those are the fans that are at risk here. Without their favourite players, it may not matter if the teams come back as some people are advocating. It's interesting though, that all the players you listed have retired. Is there anyone you follow today like you did with Bure or Linden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanBeef Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Sick of this crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Well, the answer SHOULD be obvious, but apparently the NHPLA doesn't understand basic math. Also, let's say you're an NHL player and you have no more than six years left in your playing career. You have a choice: [A] Take a 12% haircut on your current salary but play for six years or Lose a full year's salary and forego AT LEAST 17% of the rest of your professional hockey income that you'll ever make? I say "AT LEAST" because that assumes that after a lost season they go right back to getting 57% of league revenue (which is NOT going to happen). So, that player is more likely to lose 20%-25% of the rest of his career's income by losing a full season. Do players understand BASIC math? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 How did you derive that? (More importantly, is that in the CBA somewhere?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Career-ending injuries happen every year. So, let's say you're a player who gets such an injury mid-way through the 2014-2015 season AND we have lost the entire 2012-2013 season. That player, by losing this season, will have lost...forever...40% of his remaining professional hockey player income!! To take that risk is...insane. But, apparently, emotions...not brains...are driving player decisions (at least thus far)... Take the 50-50 split and don't lose and entire year of your finite steam of NHL income!! If we lose a season, I can GUARANTEE this: There will be a ton of current players who, when they are 40, 50, and 60 years old would KILL to get back the income they will have lost with this lost season. But that income will have been lost forever and a lot of those guys will be schlepping along in some banal, low-paying (i.e., regular) job with little coin in the bank thinking: "God, it would be great if I could get my hands on that $700,000 I flushed down the toilet when we gave up that 2012-2013 season!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MashedBananas Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 12% haircut? O.o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n00bxQb Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 OP is chalk full of ignorance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni_14 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 let's see... if I had 6 years left before having to "retire" due to age, I would possibly be in my early 30s. If I'm good enough to play in the NHL, that would mean I'm good enough to play in Europe. And with the frequency of "lockouts," I think I'd just leave and play in Europe the last 6 years and make my money over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus099 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Career-ending injuries happen every year. So, let's say you're a player who gets such an injury mid-way through the 2014-2015 season AND we have lost the entire 2012-2013 season. That player, by losing this season, will have lost...forever...40% of his remaining professional hockey player income!! To take that risk is...insane. But, apparently, emotions...not brains...are driving player decisions (at least thus far)... Take the 50-50 split and don't lose and entire year of your finite steam of NHL income!! If we lose a season, I can GUARANTEE this: There will be a ton of current players who, when they are 40, 50, and 60 years old would KILL to get back the income they will have lost with this lost season. But that income will have been lost forever and a lot of those guys will be schlepping along in some banal, low-paying (i.e., regular) job with little coin in the bank thinking: "God, it would be great if I could get my hands on that $700,000 I flushed down the toilet when we gave up that 2012-2013 season!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 How did you derive that? (More importantly, is that in the CBA somewhere?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorentjd Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 dp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.