Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


Recommended Posts

What an ignorant thing to say. Oh, you're so "Canadian".

Also, I have to agree with the Scoobydooby and vancouverdepression. Eff the NHL. The greed is absolutely ridiculous. I couldn't care less anymore.

Thankfully, I'm a huge fan of the NFL, MLB, NBA, and MMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. Forbes quoted 18 of 30, 60% and that is highly debated as it doesn't factor in all costs or revenues. The NHLPA concedes, after reviewing 70,000 documents that 10 teams lose money. What you also don't seem to factor in is that the League as a whole is profitable.

Which is why the NHLPA is willing to work towards fixing that. What they aren't prepared to do is shoulder the whole burden.

The PA has suggested increased revenue sharing so that the first few years transition period would have the rich teams support the poor teams so until a point in time when the ever decreasing share of revenue for the players can cover this shortfall. The PA is willing to do their part but first they want their contracts honoured at face value without it coming out of the pocketbooks of their members. They are willing to sacrifice future earnings to obtain parity but only if the League is willing to do their fair share to see that this happens. The League has so far refused to accept any responsibility for their actions.

On a psych test I believe the NHL would be classified as sociopaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have a vested interest. Ive been a fan of NHL for decades. I'm a die hard Hokey fan. It's in my interest to continue to enjoy a successful league.

My issue is why do we feel we are entitled to someone else paying for our entertainment?

Im curious to know how many people on our online community would be willing to pay for your vacation to Maui? I bet not to many if any at all

Why should we expect NHL owners to lose millions so we can watch hockey. It's a well known fact 2/3 of the teams are losing money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I was wrong. It's not 66% it's 60%.

Revenue sharing? Why is it you feel one businessman should share his revenue with another one down the street. Do you share your paycheck with your co workers?

Why don't the players share revenue? Why doesnt Bieksa give some of his salary to Lappy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think the cap is for? Players don't get to make what they can make in a open, free market. They are limited by the amount each team has left over in the cap after paying other players.

And all major sports in North America use revenue sharing. The only difference is the NHL wanted to have to less of it than everyone else. Their latest offer, even according to the NHL website, just brings their sharing into line with what other professional sports do.

And if owners are so opposed to revenue sharing, they can give up the huge extra tax breaks and taxpayer handouts they ask for and get!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I was wrong. It's not 66% it's 60%.

Revenue sharing? Why is it you feel one businessman should share his revenue with another one down the street. Do you share your paycheck with your co workers?

Why don't the players share revenue? Why doesnt Bieksa give some of his salary to Lappy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I waited at the WestJet Counter in 2004 and no one would buy my ticket to Maui. I guess I should have moved over to Air Canada (the Peoples airline). Proof that the owners are slime balls is that they locked the players out and refused to operate under the old CBA until a deal was struck. The fact that most teams weren't making money under that deal means nothing. We have one idiot on here that keeps repeating that mantra. "They have lots of money, They have lots of money!"

I'm comfortable that the future of BC is in good hands so I'm checking outa here. Cannot handle anymore of this BS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they are not separate businesses as you refuse to recognize. They are a confederation of 30 businesses who are not wholly independent.

If they were wholly independent, then we would not see them negotiating employee costs collectively. They would be negotiated individually between the owners and the players, which is the way it was before the salary cap system. When the NHL Board of Governors held out for a salary cap system they choose to link their businesses together financially. This was not the players' choice.

The players do, in fact, share revenue under this system which is why there is a fixed labour cost. Before 04-05 the teams could spend as much or as little on player costs as they wanted to giving the League no 'cost certainty' which was their big buzz word last time. Now they have it but they refuse to accept their share of the burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players don't have to play in the NHL. They are free to sign with any hockey team in the world. "free market".

They are also free to explore other careers they may be qualified for ie stocking grocery store shelves.

My question stands, why don't players share their revenue with each other ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL Revenue Sharing

The bulk of the league's revenue - approximately $4 billion in 2011 - comes from broadcast deals with NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN and DirecTV. That income is shared equally among all teams. Income from licensing deals - everything from jerseys to posters to team-logo beer coolers - is also shared evenly.

Ticket revenue is split using a slightly different formula: the home team keeps 60 percent of "the gate" for each game, while the visiting team gets 40 percent.

Other sources of revenue - things like the sale of luxury boxes, stadium concessions and the like - are not shared, which does give teams in bigger markets or with state-of-the-art arenas a significant edge in profitability. The new CBA attempts to remedy that in two ways. First, the league will set aside a percentage of revenue in a stadium fund, which will be used to match teams' investments in their facilities. Second, there will be an additional "luxury tax" levied on high-revenue teams, with the receipts set to be distributed to the lower-revenue clubs.

Seems like revenue sharing is a good thing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think the cap is for? Players don't get to make what they can make in a open, free market. They are limited by the amount each team has left over in the cap after paying other players.

And all major sports in North America use revenue sharing. The only difference is the NHL wanted to have to less of it than everyone else. Their latest offer, even according to the NHL website, just brings their sharing into line with what other professional sports do.

And if owners are so opposed to revenue sharing, they can give up the huge extra tax breaks and taxpayer handouts they keep asking for and getting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL Revenue Sharing

The bulk of the league's revenue - approximately $4 billion in 2011 - comes from broadcast deals with NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN and DirecTV. That income is shared equally among all teams. Income from licensing deals - everything from jerseys to posters to team-logo beer coolers - is also shared evenly.

Ticket revenue is split using a slightly different formula: the home team keeps 60 percent of "the gate" for each game, while the visiting team gets 40 percent.

Other sources of revenue - things like the sale of luxury boxes, stadium concessions and the like - are not shared, which does give teams in bigger markets or with state-of-the-art arenas a significant edge in profitability. The new CBA attempts to remedy that in two ways. First, the league will set aside a percentage of revenue in a stadium fund, which will be used to match teams' investments in their facilities. Second, there will be an additional "luxury tax" levied on high-revenue teams, with the receipts set to be distributed to the lower-revenue clubs.

Seems like revenue sharing is a good thing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely different organizational structures. Do they collectively sit at a board meeting determining wages and costs of materials? No, they don't. Are individual business under a banner required to share financials with each other? No. Is Shell required to purchase fuel at the cost the parent company says? You're damn skippy they are.

You trying to compare corporate structures of the NHL with those business shows you don't understand the differences in the business models. The model, mind you, the owners chose themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...