• Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room

Dead

Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!)

   130 members have voted

  1. 1. When will we see hockey?

    • Oct 12
      10
    • Nov 12
      19
    • Dec 12
      26
    • Jan 13
      33
    • Feb 13
      1
    • Mar 13
      0
    • Apr 13
      0
    • Oct 13
      14
    • Never
      27

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,718 posts in this topic

Ridiclious comments like this is why I can't stand this group of players...

""When people ask for money, they usually say `Give me your money or I'm going to hurt you,"' said Doan. "They don't say `Give me your money and I'm going to hurt you.'

"That's kind of the point we joke about, but that's where we're at.""

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiclious comments like this is why I can't stand this group of players...

""When people ask for money, they usually say `Give me your money or I'm going to hurt you,"' said Doan. "They don't say `Give me your money and I'm going to hurt you.'

"That's kind of the point we joke about, but that's where we're at.""

I don't love the players either, but how is Doan wrong? The owners' offer takes money out of the players' pockets AND offers downgrades in every other area (FA age, contract length, etc). The owners realistically have to offer 'something' of a carrot somewhere in the deal if they want the players to accept their financial system. Where is the improvement for the players in the current CBA proposal compared to the prior one? I understand they have to take a hit with this deal, but negotiation is not trying to bully a 100% one-sided deal either. It's going to be heavily slanted toward the owners as is when this is all said and done, that's obvious but where's the incentive to ever negotiate if you can just get every single thing you want?

I think the players should have agreed to the 50-50 part with the caveat of trying to negotiate some other issues upward in their favor off that. Honestly it's ridiculous that contract length should be capped at five years when owners were willingly signing much longer-term deals this offseason. Get rid of cap chicanery and then contract lengths will go down organically anyway. Almost every ten plus year deal other than DiPietro, Ovechkin and maybe Crosby has been signed with getting a more favorable cap number in mind.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't love the players either, but how is Doan wrong? The owners' offer takes money out of the players' pockets AND offers downgrades in every other area (FA age, contract length, etc). The owners realistically have to offer 'something' of a carrot somewhere in the deal if they want the players to accept their financial system. Where is the improvement for the players in the current CBA compared to the prior one? I understand they have to take a hit with this deal, but negotiation is not trying to bully a 100% one-sided deal either.

I think the players should have agreed to the 50-50 part and tried to negotiate some other issues upward off that.

I don't love the owners either but it's the tone of these players comments that I've been reading on here and on other places that I can't stand. They act like they are making some great sacrifice for us. that we should feel bad for these guys cause they are going to still make tons of money just a bit less. Where else can you have a union where guys can still go overseas and make millions of dollars instead of standing next to their union brothers. This whole thing is just a disgusting mess.

I'm sure if the owners were making comments and running their mouths all over the internet like the players are I would be just as aggravated with them but this whole situation really makes me contemplate why I even bother to support both sides with my hard earned cash. I'm getting to the point of canceling my season tickets just because both sides simply just don't deserve my money anymore. I have very little desire to support these idiotic, self entitled spoiled brat players. The owners aren't any better either.

It's a lot easier to ignore this stuff during non cba issue years cause the comments that I'm reading aren't around. I'm as big as Devils/NHL fan as there is out there and I'll always watch the games on tv but I'm really getting to the point where I have no desire to hand over a few thousand dollars anymore to support these guys when I feel like I'm being disrespected. I feel like I'm in a bad one sided abusive relationship and I'm finally realizing that I'll be better off if I finally end it.

In this days economy I don't have much desire to talk about the details of this CBA, I just want hockey back, I want my Devils back and I don't care anymore how it gets done, I just want it done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with much of what you posted. If you relabeled the NHLPA Democrats and the owners Republicans you wouldn't see any difference at all between the NHL labor wars and daily battles in Congress. It's all bull****.

The difference between me and you is I don't take this **** personally. I get just as aggravated at the owners and players, but ultimately this nonsense isn't affecting my life other than not being able to watch and spend money on hockey games, which hurts both sides anyway. We can find other things to do with our time and money, they can't make money unless they get their **** together and stop trying to fight a PR war neither side's really going to 'win' in the long-term anyway.

Admittedly, I probably would take this more personally if it were Devil players (no, Barch doesn't count) making fools of themselves publicly like Toews, Bisonette, etc or Vanderbeek being a hard-line *** like the ultimate hypocrites Snider, Jacobs and Leipold. I spend money on the team, not the league as a whole.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not entirely true - they can get there well before that but it will come out of future contracts. you are also incorrect that it is "literally" impossible to do in year 1. it is merely 99% impossible.

here's the best way i can explain this. let's say for easy math that revenue growth is 0 for the next five years and the league revenue is $100 dollars every year.

right now, players are entitled to $57 of that $100 and if you add up all the contracts on the books for this year, they will either equal $57. The players are paid over the season about $50 and the extra $7 is held in escrow just in case the league doesn't actually get $100 in revenue. If the league only makes, say $90 in revenue, the players will not get that extra $7. they'll get $1.30 (which would give them a total of $51.30 or 57% of $90).

so the players want to keep making $57 of that $100. the league wants them to make $50.

but here's the problem with the nhlpa's 50/50 year 1, no escrow suggestion: the players are already guaranteed about $57 for next year of $100. Teams have already committed to that in existing contracts and every side says no rollback is on the table. so unless the leagues revenues go to $114 next year, 50/50 is impossible and there is no way the league's revenues can go up 14% without every team selling out every game and every fan at every game buying a $300 authentic jersey. oh, and the winter classic would have to bring in about $60MM on its own.

in the owners proposal (again, assuming zero growth for easy math sake), you'll get let's say 7 years of $100 in revenue with a 50/50 split. that means the players' total contracts can add up to $50 every year.

as of RIGHT NOW, guaranteed existing contracts likely add up over the next 7 years to something like $57, $54, $50, $45, $42, $35, $20.

what the owners are saying is that the $7 this year and $4 next year that are over $50 will go towards the last 4 years in some way.

So instead of $45, $42, $35, and $20 of existing contracts, you've got $47, $44, $38 and $24.

assuming the same $50 available to players in future contracts, that means new contracts can be $3, $6, $12, and $26.

now in the real world, revenues are increasing and the total value of contracts drops way more each year than in my analogy. but this explains exactly what the owners latest offer is.

again, i don't think it's fair. i agree with triumph that what is "fair" and what would grow the league the most would be 50/50 with a soft cap and a luxury tax league that gives the 10 highest revenue teams a chance to use their advantage and fund the rest of the league through revenue sharing.

Don't get me wrong, this is a great way to simplify a complicated issue for those math challenged people like myself. However, my head just exploded reading this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RIXDkdYbCA

Edited by Chuck the Duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I firmly believe these owners especially Leipold had no intention on paying full price and knew there would be a roll back, or lock out.

A contract is a contract pay the players what was promised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I firmly believe these owners especially Leipold had no intention on paying full price and knew there would be a roll back, or lock out.

A contract is a contract pay the players what was promised.

A contract that was written and signed with the understanding that a CBA exists. That "promise" had conditions that are no longer being met.

This is all ridiculous, the players need to drop the charade and take a 50/50 split and be done with it. Why should the players cave? because half the teams are losing money and that obviously isn't sustainable. If every team was very profitable and the players were arguing for a 5% raise then I would agree with them, but that's not the case. At this point it's about who has the least to lose can afford the longest hold out, and it's the owners for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A contract that was written and signed with the understanding that a CBA exists. That "promise" had conditions that are no longer being met.

This is all ridiculous, the players need to drop the charade and take a 50/50 split and be done with it. Why should the players cave? because half the teams are losing money and that obviously isn't sustainable. If every team was very profitable and the players were arguing for a 5% raise then I would agree with them, but that's not the case. At this point it's about who has the least to lose can afford the longest hold out, and it's the owners for now.

Without increased revenue sharing, the owners will be back here in 6 years saying that 50/50 is untenable and they have to go to 45/55. And so it will continue indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A contract that was written and signed with the understanding that a CBA exists. That "promise" had conditions that are no longer being met.

This is all ridiculous, the players need to drop the charade and take a 50/50 split and be done with it. Why should the players cave? because half the teams are losing money and that obviously isn't sustainable. If every team was very profitable and the players were arguing for a 5% raise then I would agree with them, but that's not the case. At this point it's about who has the least to lose can afford the longest hold out, and it's the owners for now.

My point was that these owners, ok maybe not all, fully knowing their objective is that sign for more than they are worth now knowing we won't have to pay that full amount, to me that is fraud! Let em go back to being FA and let's see what the owners cough up now knowing what everyone knows. Just seems deceptive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without increased revenue sharing, the owners will be back here in 6 years saying that 50/50 is untenable and they have to go to 45/55. And so it will continue indefinitely.

If that's what it takes to have a sustainable league fine. I personally don't think it will come to that, right now a 43/57 split is leaving 20 teams in the red at the end of the year, if a 50/50 can reduce that down say under 7 teams we won't see another lockout. If that's not enough then so be it, this is a business at the end of the day and it isn't healthy when some many teams can't break even.

Sure revenue sharing is one mechanism to help, it's not the solution. The difference between the latest owners offer and players in $40 million WRT rev sharing, the difference between total percent of HRR WRT how much the players will take is $500 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that these owners, ok maybe not all, fully knowing their objective is that sign for more than they are worth now knowing we won't have to pay that full amount, to me that is fraud! Let em go back to being FA and let's see what the owners cough up now knowing what everyone knows. Just seems deceptive.

I think that's a hard argument to make, guys like Parise, Suter, Weber got a ton of money in terms of signing bonus, not exactly the move you make if you are banking on the CBA to lower the value of the contracts after the fact. Also consider the NHL just offered to honor those salaries in full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a hard argument to make, guys like Parise, Suter, Weber got a ton of money in terms of signing bonus, not exactly the move you make if you are banking on the CBA to lower the value of the contracts after the fact. Also consider the NHL just offered to honor those salaries in full.

They absolutely did no such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's what it takes to have a sustainable league fine. I personally don't think it will come to that, right now a 43/57 split is leaving 20 teams in the red at the end of the year, if a 50/50 can reduce that down say under 7 teams we won't see another lockout. If that's not enough then so be it, this is a business at the end of the day and it isn't healthy when some many teams can't break even.

Sure revenue sharing is one mechanism to help, it's not the solution. The difference between the latest owners offer and players in $40 million WRT rev sharing, the difference between total percent of HRR WRT how much the players will take is $500 million.

A lockout is how this works. The owners don't want a 'working league'. They want a league that makes them more money. So that means lockouts, because you can't just take from the players without knocking out games and the threat of taking away even more games. I'll bet anyone that there's a lockout at the end of the next CBA.

I don't believe that 20 teams finished in the red last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They absolutely did no such thing.

I agree with you, but it became a semantic thing. The owners agreed to pay every dollar of the contracts, just deferring the payments above 50% HRR to payments over time. That's obviously a net value drop to the players contract, so while the owners were saying "we're going to pay you every dollar" the players rightfully heard the finish of "but some of the dollars will be in cheaper future dollars".

If the NHL and NHLPA wanted to try and fix that, they could probably add a yearly growth rate to the deffered portions. The owners would probably do that to get the 50/50 locked in at the expense of slightly higher future payments and the players would get the full, or at least fuller, value of their current contracts as a win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lockout is how this works. The owners don't want a 'working league'. They want a league that makes them more money. So that means lockouts, because you can't just take from the players without knocking out games and the threat of taking away even more games. I'll bet anyone that there's a lockout at the end of the next CBA.

I don't believe that 20 teams finished in the red last year.

Forbes had 22 teams with a revenue loss last year, maybe they aren't calculating all sources of income, maybe it's a little less like 15 teams losing money. Even that is totally unsustainable. Of course they want to make more money but they aren't stupid. If 25 teams are making a profit they aren't going to piss away a half season or even a full season to squeeze a few more percents out. They would be in the same boat the players are in now where the lost revenue from missed games starts to eat away at the profits they would make over the long term anyway.

If 23+ teams are back in the black by the end of the next CBA I will gladly take the bet that there wont be a lockout... a strike on the other hand..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 23+ teams are back in the black by the end of the next CBA I will gladly take the bet that there wont be a lockout... a strike on the other hand..

lol there's always going to be some excuse with this Bettman/this group of owners and the Fehrs involved. It really is amazing hockey's the only sport that constantly goes through this though. Can someone explain to me why the NFL hasn't missed games since 1987, MLB hasn't missed games since 1995, the NBA had 66 and 50-game seasons in its two lockouts while the NHL's had 48-game, 0-game and who knows how many game seasons during the last three CBA negotiations? It's a total joke.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

squishy: Again, with the owners plan, they are right back in this boat in 6 years, with another lockout, more givebacks, and so forth. This is not about teams not making a profit - this is about the big-market teams trying to grind out more profits. Who cares if your team 'loses' 2 million dollars when its value goes up by 5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

squishy: Again, with the owners plan, they are right back in this boat in 6 years, with another lockout, more givebacks, and so forth. This is not about teams not making a profit - this is about the big-market teams trying to grind out more profits. Who cares if your team 'loses' 2 million dollars when its value goes up by 5?

exactly its the owners of the big teams running this thing... some teams really couldnt afford a full season lockouts in terms of... they are trying to built a fanbase and its not the best way to go obviously... im sure there's a few who would rather be playing right now but the owners from the big teams are running the show

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going to have a "lockout" after every CBA expires until the KHL or a European league can be competitive with the NHL in terms of salary/benefits and is a threat to sign away talent. The best case scenario though is for a lockout similar to the NFL lockout where no games are missed. The only way to avoid missing games is with a revenue sharing plan that makes all NHL teams profitable and want to avoid missing regular season games (like the NFL). Currently a lot of NHL teams don't mind missing out on regular season games since they supposedly break even or lose money on the regular season, at least that's their position.

At least that's how it looks to me, although the profits the NFL enjoys are probably no where close to being achievable by the NHL and that won't be a great deterrent. Basically until European hockey competes with the NHL for talent I think fans are gonna have to suffer these protracted CBA negotiations every 6-7 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw for everyone following this as an every day thing, expect the owners to back off their offer earlier this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw for everyone following this as an every day thing, expect the owners to back off their offer earlier this week.

Is that from the Colorado source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites