sprouticus Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I havn't read every post in this thread, or every thread on this board, so I don't know if this has been brought up yet........but if there is a lock-out........is EA's NHL 13 going to be really just a poker game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I havn't read every post in this thread, or every thread on this board, so I don't know if this has been brought up yet........but if there is a lock-out........is EA's NHL 13 going to be really just a poker game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattA16 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 People on this board seem to be way too sympathetic on the players side in this whole debacle, although that is to be expected. Hockey players are heroes to many around the world and it is easy to jump on the bandwagon of the players rather than the "greedy" owners who are rarely portrayed positively under any circumstance. While it is easy to get caught rooting for the players, it is so, so essential that we not forget the big picture. The reality is that the players are EMPLOYEES, and the owners are EMPLOYERS, and that the NHL at the end of the day is a BUSINESS. the NHL is not public healthcare, the fire department, the police service etc. It is not an organization that is essential to our society. The NHL is a private organization, and whether you agree with it or not, the owners (employers) should have almost absolute financial power over the players (employees). In a capitalist society, that is how things run. In this particular situation, the union in my opinion has an absurd amount of power in this organizations. People need to understand that unions were originally formed to create minimum wage, and to ensure workers are working in a safe environment. Those two issues were very prominent in the early 20th century, that is why unions were created. fast forward to 2012, and we have a union of professional athletes making a minimum of something like $600,000 a season (probably more) saying they want 57% of the leagues revenue!? Excuse me? When the average wage in Canada is something like $45,000, many of whom are hard workers who work year round 5-6 days a week to feed their families, It is absolutely absurd. Supply and Demand, I get it, but the players need to realize just how ridiculous this is. They are sucking away money from their employers that are already struggling to keep their franchises afloat. While I disagree with many of Gary Bettmans decisions, particularly his thirst to dominate in non hockey markets such as Phoenix and Columbus, this is no reason to attack the man. He is trying to expand a business (while i agree, he did a terrible job of doing so), and if he needs to lower the player wages to keep them afloat, then by all means he should have the power to do so. As long as the players don't drop below the minimum wage, there should not be an issue. If the employees (players) don't like it, find another job. I finish by asking all CDC members, what does Bettman truly owe the players? Is it a travesty if the players fall below 50% of the revenue? Is this truly how a business runs? How about we take a step back and realize how selfish and ignorant the players are being. Look at your bank accounts, and then look at the average household income of a Canadian. REALIZE that if the owners are giving you all of their money, they will go bankrupt. Bankruptcy = closure of business which = loss of jobs for the players. Smarten up NHLPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 While it is easy to get caught rooting for the players, it is so, so essential that we not forget the big picture. The reality is that the players are EMPLOYEES, and the owners are EMPLOYERS, and that the NHL at the end of the day is a BUSINESS. the NHL is not public healthcare, the fire department, the police service etc. It is not an organization that is essential to our society. The NHL is a private organization, and whether you agree with it or not, the owners (employers) should have almost absolute financial power over the players (employees). In a capitalist society, that is how things run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Shirokov Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Looks like the NHL upped its proposal by about 2% to 48%, with 49% in first years and ending with 47%. Don't think the NHLPA will take it. Me thinks the NHL will offer a last minute proposal on sept 14th and get them to 50-50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I've said from the start the players are just as responsible as the owners for these larger than life contracts that are clearly meant as loopholes in the expiring CBA. The top players pit teams against each other and drive up their own price when they can, and some team will have a need great enough to bite. The owners could stop offering these insane deals but the players (and the NHLPA as a whole) could also take their own stand and work on keeping contracts more within the confines of the CBA. Now, I know people will say, "good on them for getting what they can," and that'd be fine if it was a free market open employment system. It isn't though, it's a union. The union is meant to protect all players, not just the top ones, and they have a responsibility to set guidelines to help keep jobs as much as they can. They have some interest in that, trying to get the owners more involved in revenue sharing for the less privileged teams so they can have more jobs, but they've fallen short in trying to protect against obscene contracts like we saw this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 If there is a lock out I blame the players. They are in lala land. Hockey does not have a Big Network tv deal.No Billion dollar cheque to divvy up. No one watches, they are lucky to get paid 2 mil on avg a year. yet they want more than 50% of revenue. F off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 lock the players out for 10 years, start a new league up with no gaurenteed contracts and no curent NHL'er can play in the league for 10 years. I challenge any of these players to live on what I make a year. I assure you it's not an average of 2.2m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucksbiggestfan Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 The fair way to split everything would not be 50/50, it should be 51% for owners and 49% for players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 In what world do employees split revenue 50/50 or anything close to that? This is so insane on both sides. The fans are the ones who get hurt. It should go to arbitration immediately on September 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 lock the players out for 10 years, start a new league up with no gaurenteed contracts and no curent NHL'er can play in the league for 10 years. I challenge any of these players to live on what I make a year. I assure you it's not an average of 2.2m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 In what world do employees split revenue 50/50 or anything close to that? This is so insane on both sides. The fans are the ones who get hurt. It should go to arbitration immediately on September 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questforthecup Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Last page (on iPhone) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 If there is a lock out I blame the players. They are in lala land. Hockey does not have a Big Network tv deal.No Billion dollar cheque to divvy up. No one watches, they are lucky to get paid 2 mil on avg a year. yet they want more than 50% of revenue. F off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 If the NHL were to start a new league with new players and or young rising talent, will the tickets be cheaper? If so, I would gladly support the new league and my new version Canucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattA16 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Heres a question for everyone to wrap their heads around. The New Jersey Devils are as close as close gets to bankruptcy right now, yet they made it to the Stanley Cup Finals and sold out every game. Jersey and other merchandise sales skyrocketed during their post season run, yet despite all this they as an organization are losing money. Hmmmm, I wonder if it has to do with paying guys like Kovalchuk upwards of 10 million a year? Now if NJD are going bankrupt and their selling out arenas, imagine how bad teams like Columbus, Phoenix, etc are doing? Players/fans have this crazy idea that the owners percentage of the revenue goes straight into the owners pockets. Apparently they don't realize the owners have to pay for arena maintenance, arena staff, etc. So if they are losing money despite selling out arenas, maybe it is because they are paying the players too much money? Yeah sounds about right to me. So If the players keep making the same amount of money and teams are going bankrupt, the owners only have a certain amount of options. #1: they cut the arena staff's salary. This means the high school students selling pizza at the concession stands go from minimum wage to... oh wait that won't work. #2: they raise ticket prices. Now I know that for the average fan who already dishes out absurd amounts of money to go to a game will have to pay even more, but of course if it means the players keep making 2 million a year instead of 1.5 million then so be it, right? Of course the other option for Bettman is to "spread the wealth", so that teams like Vancouver who make plenty of money give some profit to teams like New Jersey. That means sacrificing salaries to scouts, trainers, etc. all valuable assets that our team has so that we can keep failing teams afloat who spend all their money on the Kovalchuks and Webers of the world. I'm sure the Aquilinis would love that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenMachine Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I'm with the owners on this one. Players making 57% of revenue is nuts. In many (most?) industries, staff making more than 50% of revenue would bury you. When I worked for Tim Hortons years ago, you'd get in crap if your wage costs were over 50%. The reality is that we're talking about millions of dollars, but I am willing to bet that many PLAYERS make more money than owners per year. The owners assume all of the risk of running a business that might be up one year and down the next. The players may have health risk (which many industries also have) but as far as financial risk, there is little to none. What if the players made a % of the TEAM's revenue? That can't happen because we have hockey in markets like Phoenix, so that more PLAYERS can make money. The NHLPA would have none of it if the NHL were to shrink to 26 teams and be more profitable because it means that about 15% of their players would lose jobs. Sorry players, suck it up, and drop salaries. You have been making more and more money each year during a GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS. 50% should be more than fair, something I assume the NHL would agree to to avoid a lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I do not like projections and hard numbers and for an external party to impose that on a business is odd and adds pressure and expectations on a company of which they dont even run?? A better, healthier, more efficient formula is one that better reflects reality, a formula that reflects the true financial state of the league and in sync/moves with the financial condition of the league which I believe is the formula that currently exists hence the movement in the cap. Hence during healthier times, the cap goes up and teams can spend more and are able to pay the players more, and during trying times the cap is reduced. Granted it is just as odd that the owners complain about the players salaries when they're the ones offering it?? Perhaps they're just going to have to move a few players to reduce their salary costs to meet their bottom line. Not all teams can be financially equal, that's just the nature of things so you just have to work within your means. And a system should be in place so they do not have to hash this out every couple of years, so if the formula moves with the condition of the league then everyone is compensated fairly and appropriately. 50/50 cut seems fair..think of the alternative...and any other revenue related to the player generated by the NHL, the player gets a cut. The player is also free to generate their own revenue through endorsements, commercials subject to league review. A company who spends 57% on salaries as a fixed cost would be hard pressed especially if the revenue isn't coming in, and in any other case the company would have to cut back their salaries or face closing the shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 with so many teams in trouble right now the players aren't willing to help them out. If the game keeps growing like it has over the last 7 years imagine a league with a salary cap of 100M per team. how many teams would be in trouble then? I love the fact the players want to spend the owners money through revenue sharing, you hear the players company line, is that you are a partnerships. If that's the case then maybe you should put 57% of a certain amount of money into a fund and the owners put their 43% into a equal share fund to help save some teams from folding. Have the players put ny money into PHX over the last few years? I think it has been the legue footing a 25M bill to sve 21 jobs. Do the players understand at the end of the day ticket prices are going to go up meaning less people are going to be able to afford to go to games thus bringing revenue's down. Maybe owners should be flying players in coach and staying at days inn's while they are on the road insted of first class accomadations. Lock them out for a couple of years, let them go play in the KHL for 65% of what they would make in the NHL. They will take av 35% decrease in pay to play in the KHL but not a 9.7% decrease to play in the NHL. Get rid of gaurantee contracts as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I don't know anywhere near enough about big dollars, big business, and hoity toity lawyery happenings to be qualified to comment on the matter. There's a couple posters that should remind themselves of the same. I want to watch NHL hockey. Period. Oh, haha, new league. Awesome idea. Actually, in no way is that an awesome idea. That's dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.