Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#5851 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,870 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

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.



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.


Who`s the sucker? The people thinking the owners are having a hard time making money? Or the people thinking the players are the victims, despite making record salaries, and making an average wage of 2.5 million?


Who's the sucker? I'd say anybody painting billionaire owners as victims would be sucker #1.

Sucker #2 would be the guy blaming players for owners locking them out of the contracts they supposedly signed in good faith.

And sucker #3 would be people who think that players with million-dollar contracts and expert legal counsel aren't able to act in their best interests, which is obviously just to 'shut up, sign it, and play hockey'.

Edited by D-Money, 03 January 2013 - 04:52 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#5852 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,000 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:42 PM

@SpectorsHockey: @DarrenDreger reports a source claiming #NHLPA might consider a 7-year term limit on contracts, rather than 8 years. #NHLCBA
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5853 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:42 PM

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.


Those Slimy Bastards.

If they don't get a deal done now, it will be all on the players.

These guys have to realize that they've had it pretty good for the last little while, but it wasn't going to continue forever. The rest of the world is in a recession, and alot of people don't even have jobs.

Just check your egos and sign a deal. They're going to be making more than they could be playing anywhere else, or doing anything else. Passing up a full years pay because of principle is not a smart thing.


Well if the Owner's are going to pull crap like that, it's on them.

You don't think these Billionaires are getting their a$ses kicked in this economy? I can assure you they are. I'm sure there are some that are doing quite well, but the majority of them are hurting too. It's easy to just say "oh well they're billionaires, they can afford it". But the reality is, they've got businesses to run too, and they've got shareholders to earn money for.

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, it's not gonna last. Expenses for these owners have gotten too high relative to the amount of money they're making.

I agree that the best people in their fields should get paid top dollar for it. However, it has to all be relative to what people in similar fields are making. The fact is, the NHL is a small time league when compared to the NFL or MLB. They have a fraction of the fans, and a fraction of the viewing audience. They're probably the 5th biggest sport in the US after college football, maybe even 6th if you include Nascar. So salaries have to be relative to what the size of the league is, and salaries should be compared to these other top athletes.

Shea Weber and Ryan Suter are arguably two of the best defenseman in the league. They're making 14 million and 12 million dollars a season respectively. When compared to Peyton Manning making 32 million a season, the salaries are not relative to the size of the league. The NHL isn't a third as big as the NFL, not even close.

Something needs to give. This is the owners hitting the reset button because things have gotten out of control. Salaries have inflated way beyond what they should be. And if anything these rules need to be put in place to protect themselves against themselves.


The issue's in this league run way deeper than anything this CBA could fix, the NHL keeps trying to take from the players to fix there mistakes.

There is no reason this should be pinned on the players if we don't start a season, they just try to protect what they have left, guarenteed contracts will go out the window.


Changing this cap won't fix anything, we will be right back here again at the end of the next CBA, when the big market teams push the cap up again.
  • 0

zackass.png


#5854 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:43 PM

Sorry but I've never understood the variance issue. What is it actually?
  • 0

#5855 AFrame14

AFrame14

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

Bettman is getting fired with the signing of the new cba. One of the conditions
  • 0
NUCKS FOR THE CUP

#5856 AFrame14

AFrame14

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

Bettman is getting fired with the signing of the new cba. One of the conditions
  • 0
NUCKS FOR THE CUP

#5857 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,865 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:55 PM

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.


I agree the problems of this league have been created by the owners. I don't think there's any denying that. But the fact is, the problems are there. And the bottom line is, there's only so much money to go around, and the owners want to be rewarded for their investments.

The owners are covering the losing teams, that's what revenue sharing is all about. But the owners who are making money can only share so much. Otherwise you just have a league where no one's really making any money.

This deal would not hurt the players as much as they're pretending it is. The top players will still get paid top dollar, and the average players salaries will go down slightly. As far as contract limits go, there's only a handful of players that have over 6 year contracts anyways, so again, not gonna hurt them.

If they don't accept a deal because of pensions and the salary cap, it's on them. From the sounds of it, the deal is good enough to be agreed to right now.

Edited by DeNiro, 03 January 2013 - 04:57 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5858 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,865 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:59 PM

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


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

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5859 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:05 PM

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.


Oh so like how well the league does financially will determine how much more he can make on his contract signed under the old cba that was rolled back in the new cba? Or just any contract has the ability to grow 30% if his team makes money?

Or is this to do with the back diving contracts

Edited by thad, 03 January 2013 - 05:07 PM.

  • 0

#5860 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,865 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:12 PM

Oh so like how well the league does financially will determine how much more he can make on his contract signed under the old cba that was rolled back in the new cba? Or just any contract has the ability to grow 30% if his team makes money?

Or is this to do with the back diving contracts


Yea. It's to do with the back diving contracts. The NHL simply wants to eliminate the contracts that have 2 or 3 years of 1 million dollars tacked on at the end.

It will keep teams from trying to circumvent the cap.

Edited by DeNiro, 03 January 2013 - 05:12 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5861 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,844 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:12 PM

Oh so like how well the league does financially will determine how much more he can make on his contract signed under the old cba that was rolled back in the new cba? Or just any contract has the ability to grow 30% if his team makes money?

Or is this to do with the back diving contracts


It's 30% variance year to year. So a deal could start at 10m in the first year and drop to 7m in the second. It's more for cap hit compliance, and I suppose it could work for UFA's in their early 30s who would make virtually nothing by the end of the deal.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5862 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:28 PM

It's 30% variance year to year. So a deal could start at 10m in the first year and drop to 7m in the second. It's more for cap hit compliance, and I suppose it could work for UFA's in their early 30s who would make virtually nothing by the end of the deal.


Seems like more of a bonus to owners than players other than the fact they can get paid big bucks up front instead of later. I don't see how it leads to them making more money?... Why would the variance matter if you put the rule that the signing team will be on the hook for the cap hit in the end in case of retirement.

Makes more sense to me to just have the rule in place. That way it gives some teams the wiggle room to circumvent slightly and still be able to get rid of the guy down the road when your "Cory Schnieder" emerges. But it also makes you more cautious to not sign the rediculous ones that dive down to 1 million but leave a cap hit of 5.3
  • 0

#5863 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,939 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:34 PM

It's 30% variance year to year. So a deal could start at 10m in the first year and drop to 7m in the second. It's more for cap hit compliance, and I suppose it could work for UFA's in their early 30s who would make virtually nothing by the end of the deal.

But 30% makes very little sense in that context, since you could end up ~$1M or even less in the final years of a 7 year deal depending how it's structured. A 30% variance from the highest year to the lowest wouldn't leave as much room to move ($10M year one down slowly to $7M in year seven?) so not sure about that either.

I haven't actually seen who said 30% anyway, but I did see Elliotte Friedman say 60% from highest year to lowest:

FriedgeHNIC On variance, NHL has proposed 60 per cent limit. Therefore, lowest salary of any multi-year deal must be within that amount of the highest.


That'd mean a contract with $10M as the highest year could go as low as $4M. That's a different process from, but basically the same results as, a front loaded 7 year deal with a 10% variance. It's not quite the same depending on how many years the contract is and if it's front loaded or not, so may give GMs more room to play just the previous 10% variance we'd been talking about recently.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#5864 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,865 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:36 PM

The issue's in this league run way deeper than anything this CBA could fix, the NHL keeps trying to take from the players to fix there mistakes.

There is no reason this should be pinned on the players if we don't start a season, they just try to protect what they have left, guarenteed contracts will go out the window.

Changing this cap won't fix anything, we will be right back here again at the end of the next CBA, when the big market teams push the cap up again.


I understand that. But the issues the NHL has right now are real, and they need to be addressed. The only way to do that in the next year or two is to reduce player salaries.

The only real way to fix the problem, is to get teams out of weak markets. That isn't something the league can do overnight, it takes years and years. They have to make sure they have good owners and proper arenas in place in the markets they want to move to.

I can guarantee as soon as Seattle gets everything in place, the NHL will begin the process of moving a franchise there. But that could take a couple years. It's not like you can just pack up teams and move them to new cities. Alot needs to be in place first.

Until they can get those teams in order, they still have a league to run. And the majority of teams are having a hard time making money.

We forget in Canada, that the recession has impacted alot of American cities really hard. Even a historic team like the Red Wings have taken a major hit financially the last few seasons. Detroit is a depressed city, and when fans have 3 other major sports teams to spend what little disposable income they have on; hockey usually loses out.

Why should the players salaries continue to go up, despite what's going on in the cities around them? Should they not have to feel any impact of the financial loss that's happening in most of the owner's businesses? I don't buy that.

Edited by DeNiro, 03 January 2013 - 05:39 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5865 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:47 PM

It's hard for an owner to stay motivated about a league that makes them 0 dollars. That's not a good investment no matter how you spin it.


$3.3B is far greater than 0. With adequate revenue sharing, they would all likely be profitable.

And if they're not motivated to stay in the NHL business, they can sell. Their motivation level isn't my concern any more than it is that of the players, and it certainly is not an excuse for owners to force players to pay for their mistakes.

Sure franchise values go up, but when a team is losing an average of 5 million a season, for 15 years like the coyotes did, the fact that their value went up 30 million really means nothing. Especially when you factor in inflation too.


You really don't get it. Owners do not pay any shortfalls of their company's. An owner puts in what they pay for the business and nothing else. If the value of the team goes up and the owner sells, they keep the profits. Even if your team had to file bankruptcy, you would only ever lose your original investment and not a penny more. That's how it works.

So, let's say you get a franchise for $100M. It's a crap team in a crap market and loses $4M a year for all 3 years you own it. Even still, you do not have to pay that $4M. It's up to the business to figure out the finances and many of them get loans, public handouts, etc. to cover their shortfalls. You decide you can't "stay motivated" about your luxury purchase of a sports team so you decide to sell. During the 3 years you owned the team, thanks to TV deals and other factors, it increased in value by $20M. Better still, you actually find someone willing to overpay you what the team is worth, like so many other NHL owners have done, and you get paid $140M for it. You not only got your original investment returned in full, you also made $40M in profit in only 3 years. Even with inflation, you did well. That's not spin. That's the reality of most NHL franchises.

There are also alot of owners who's teams aren't increasing in value too. I would imagine the St.Louis Blues and Carolina Hurricanes aren't increasing in value, they may be even decreasing.


According to Forbes, there are only 3 teams (St. Louis, Carolina, and Columbus) that have dropped in value over the previous year and 2 (Tampa Bay and Phoenix) that have held their value. All other NHL teams increased in value over the previous year, and 11 of those teams saw a double digit increase in their value.

You're right about St. Louis being one of the few teams losing value, but what you don't seem to realize is that the team is currently valued at $130M even though it was just bought in 2012 for $120M, meaning the owners already have a potential $10M profit.

Likewise, Carolina is currently valued at $162M and was purchased for only $48M in 1994. Even with inflation, that's a huge profit for the owner if they decided to sell.

Even if they don't sell, owners can use teams as collateral to secure funding for other projects and in that way, even if they don't sell, owners get immediate benefit from value increases even as the teams themselves report losing money.

This lockout is more important than the owners just sucking as much money as they can out of the players. They need this lockout to get the league back on track, cause right now it is in pretty rough shape when you look at the low market teams. What's complicated this whole thing is Bettman trying to hit a home run for the owners, instead of just making a fair deal.


If you could prove that owners are trying to do that or making rules that will actually make that happen, I'd love to see it. But the reality is just lowering the salary cap will never fix the problems they have built into the system, especially if they aren't willing to do the type of revenue sharing that is clearly needed and is proven successful in other pro sports leagues.

Bettman's not trying to hit a home run, he's trying to make players pay for owners' greed and selfishness as they continue to refuse the only obvious and real solution to their ongoing problems. He said he hit a home run last time, remember? He swore that CBA would fix all of the problems. It didn't, and the owners just created more. Now, he's having to try to fix the problems the owners created and force to players to get even less despite revenue being higher than ever just to keep owners from having to behave like adults and take their medicine. Until he, or whoever comes after him, make the owners take their medicine this league will remain sick and we will be suffering these bouts of greeditis every time the CBA expires.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5866 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,640 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:47 PM

I don't know why Raymond is creeping into this CBA talk but i will say here now that I don't like him as a Canuck..I wish he stayed on his feet and was tougher/stronger. That last wraparound he tried and failed at staying on his skates finished him off as a potential for me...now he is older than a young up and comer and he still hasn't arrived...so he is, for me, a plug.
  • 1

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5867 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:51 PM

I don't know why Raymond is creeping into this CBA talk but i will say here now that I don't like him as a Canuck..I wish he stayed on his feet and was tougher/stronger. That last wraparound he tried and failed at staying on his skates finished him off as a potential for me...now he is older than a young up and comer and he still hasn't arrived...so he is, for me, a plug.


Because we're bored, and because we'd rather be talking about who's a good player, who's underrated, and who's gotta go instead of salary caps and contract variances.

I miss NHL hockey...
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5868 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:53 PM

If they don't get a deal done now, it will be all on the players.

These guys have to realize that they've had it pretty good for the last little while, but it wasn't going to continue forever. The rest of the world is in a recession, and alot of people don't even have jobs.

Just check your egos and sign a deal. They're going to be making more than they could be playing anywhere else, or doing anything else. Passing up a full years pay because of principle is not a smart thing.

Do your principles have a price?
  • 0

#5869 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:01 PM

Do your principles have a price?


Using the word "your" is kind of wrong here. Everyone's do if they outweigh your greater good.

PA's collective principles shouldn't. They should be all for the greater good of the collective and the future members.
  • 0

#5870 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,865 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:03 PM


Again, people mistaking revenue for profit. Profit is the only thing that matters in business. It doesn't matter if the NHL was making 10 billions dollars if their expenses were $9,999,999,999. Right now their expenses are simply too high. In no other league do you see the players getting 57% of the revenue, that's absurd. The players have been blinded by money for so long, they think they're entitled to it.

And when I say expenses, it's also the cost of travel, accomadation, food expenses, arena expenses, employee expenses. All of these things have gone up in the last few years. It's hard to keep up with those things when a team isn't making any money.

You say that owners don't actually lose money, which is true. But you don't think they'd actually like to make a profit? They're in the business of making money afterall. And every team that loses money has to be subsidized by the teams that do make money. You think those owners wanna do that?

And it's not just as simple as selling a team. You need a buyer to sell a team, and right now, there aren't a whole lot of Billionaires in the market to buy an NHL team. Especially one that is a proven loser. The reality is a team is only worth as much as someone's willing to pay.

Sorry but I don't feel sorry for a player if they make a million less a season. There's too many players in this league right now that are getting paid more than they should. And too many players that are collecting paychecks they're not earning. In any other business in the world, if you don't earn your paycheck, you get fired. Feeling sorry for the players here is wrong. They'll be fine after signing this CBA, just like they were fine after signing the last one.

Edited by DeNiro, 03 January 2013 - 06:12 PM.

  • 3

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5871 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,805 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:09 PM

I understand that. But the issues the NHL has right now are real, and they need to be addressed. The only way to do that in the next year or two is to reduce player salaries.

The only real way to fix the problem, is to get teams out of weak markets. That isn't something the league can do overnight, it takes years and years. They have to make sure they have good owners and proper arenas in place in the markets they want to move to.


They managed to move Atlanta pretty darn fast. I think it is incorrect to say that lowering player salary is the only way to fix things.

As you know and continue to disregard... there is plenty of money overall in the NHL pot. The owners can re-allocate those profits around to give them time to get their league-wide finances in order. that reallocation can happen immediately.

The bottom end teams are doing really well out of this agreement. Some increase in revenue sharing; much lower cap floor; ability to retain cap space/salary (meaning they can get a lot of good players being dumped by cap ceiling teams for next to nothing).

Edited by Provost, 03 January 2013 - 06:11 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5872 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,865 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:36 PM

They managed to move Atlanta pretty darn fast. I think it is incorrect to say that lowering player salary is the only way to fix things.

As you know and continue to disregard... there is plenty of money overall in the NHL pot. The owners can re-allocate those profits around to give them time to get their league-wide finances in order. that reallocation can happen immediately.

The bottom end teams are doing really well out of this agreement. Some increase in revenue sharing; much lower cap floor; ability to retain cap space/salary (meaning they can get a lot of good players being dumped by cap ceiling teams for next to nothing).


They had plans of moving Atlanta for years. The fact that Winnipeg already had an arena and a good ownership group helped speed up the process.

Yea, this CBA is clearly meant to help the weaker teams. If they don't do that, the NHL was going to be in a very bad position in the next 5 years.

There is money in the pot, but it's being made by a third of the league. Why should these owners have to give up a big chunk of their profits to bail out the other teams? If it comes down to giving up more of their profits, or paying their players slightly less, I think they'll choose paying their players less. Who wouldn't?

And it's not like the players can cry poor. The fact that they should have to give back a bit of their salaries when they're at an all time high, should not be that big of a deal. They claim to have gotten screwed in the last CBA, but really who came out better off? The players were collecting 57% of the revenue while receiving ridiculous contracts. I think they did just fine. Don't be fooled into thinking they won't come out very well after this CBA too.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5873 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:41 PM

Again, people mistaking revenue for profit. Profit is the only thing that matters in business.


Exactly. So pay attention this time: Owners make PROFIT when they sell teams for more than they purchased them for, even if those teams lost money while they owned them.

Again, people mistaking revenue for profit. Profit is the only thing that matters in business. It doesn't matter if the NHL was making 10 billions dollars if their expenses were $9,999,999,999. Right now their expenses are simply too high.


Sorry, I must have missed that financial report. Can you give me a link to where you read exactly what the NHL's expenses were and how much each team actually made in PROFIT? Funny all I've been able to find are old articles crowing about how much their revenue is increasing and how well their teams are doing, until CBA time and then I can't find anything but vague whining about "increasing costs."

In no other league do you see the players getting 57% of the revenue, that's absurd. The players have been blinded by money for so long, they think they're entitled to it.


Are you serious? That number didn't come out of no where in the last CBA. The 54-57% players' share was because it was what other leagues had. The NBA just signed a new CBA at the end of last year that lowered the players share from 57% to a 49-51% range. A little fact checking can go a long way!

You say that owners don't actually lose money, which is true. But you don't think they'd actually like to make a profit? They're in the business of making money afterall. And every team that loses money has to be subsidized by the teams that do make money. You think those owners wanna do that?


Of course they want to make profit, but if that was all they wanted they wouldn't have bought money losing teams, now would they? And yet they do. Why? Because there is profit to be made.

No, obviously owners don't want to subsidize money losing teams, which was one of my points in my last message. TOO BAD! They want a league that gets the benefit of those other teams. They want to profit from those other teams via TV deals and the like. They want to negotiate as a collective using the power of those other teams to get a better deal for themselves with players. So, they should be sharing the profits to make sure those other teams are successful. If owners don't like that, they can sell and get into another industry. Team revenue sharing is standard in pro sports these days and NHL owners are simply being greedy and selfish in trying to avoid that reality.

And it's not just as simple as selling a team. You need a buyer to sell a team, and right now, there aren't a whole lot of Billionaires in the market to buy an NHL team. Especially one that is a proven loser. The reality is a team is only worth as much as someone's willing to pay.


You have a list or something? Otherwise, your endless owner biased conjecture is meaningless.

In reality, teams don't generally have trouble selling. The NHL had to turn away prospective owners for Phoenix, arguably the worst located team in the league. And they're getting someone to pay them more than it's worth just 2 years after they bought it. [CORRECTION: 3 years after they bought it. Who changed that calendar?!] So, yes, teams are worth what people are willing to pay for them and people have proven over and over again that they're willing to pay more than teams are valued at.

Sorry but I don't feel sorry for a player if they make a million less a season.


And I don't feel sorry for billionaires who knowingly buy into a money losing business and then whine that it's....wait for it.....it's shocking so hold onto your hair.....losing money. Boohoo. If they want money making businesses they should have bought into one! And if they make a few dozen million less in profit while they own the team, I don't feel sorry for them, especially when they were costing taxpayers millions in tax breaks and public handouts.

In any other business in the world, if you don't earn your paycheck, you get fired.


Where do you work? Because I don't know anyone who can't name at least one person in their office who hasn't actually earned their paycheck in years.

Edited by poetica, 03 January 2013 - 08:49 PM.

  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5874 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,000 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 07:21 PM

@reporterchris
The NHLPA says it expects to hear from mediator Scot Beckenbaugh tomorrow morning about when CBA talks will resume.
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5875 Kyosama

Kyosama

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 07:29 PM

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. Even in shot accuracy, probably Raymond's biggest weakness, he wasn't that far beyond Booth.


Just for the record, and this is under the assumption that you were saying that Raymond should have a lower +/- because he's on the PK, which I may have misunderstood, players on the PK don't receive minuses when they are scored against, and players on the PP don't receive pluses when they score.
  • 1

#5876 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 08:01 PM

Lp
  • 0

#5877 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 08:46 PM

Just for the record, and this is under the assumption that you were saying that Raymond should have a lower +/- because he's on the PK, which I may have misunderstood, players on the PK don't receive minuses when they are scored against, and players on the PP don't receive pluses when they score.


I honestly had to look that one up, but you're right. They don't. Thanks for the correction. :)

Still think Raymond's a better deal per salary than Booth though.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5878 amkia

amkia

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,687 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 07

Posted 03 January 2013 - 09:14 PM

Lp
  • 0
Posted Image
credit goes to egatti

#5879 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,377 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 10:03 PM

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.
  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#5880 Wh!stler R!der

Wh!stler R!der

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 10:13 PM

Lp


Good gym sesh? Better than CBA talks today I hope.
  • 0
This city deserves a championship. This is the best era in Canucks history, keep bleeding blue n green always!
Win it for Ripper, Luc and Demo.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.