Jump to content

Photo

Bettman "There will be a lockout if there is no deal by September


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#21 Matteau#32

Matteau#32

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 994 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 08:15 AM

If there is a lockout this year it will be the third while bettman is commissioner. Why the hell is he still in charge?!

Because even though he is technically the mothpiece for the owners, in reality he is more than that. The owners love him as most are making a ton of money, and most of them do exactly as he says.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#22 Chuck the Duck

Chuck the Duck

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:11 AM

They need to come up with a REAL revenue sharing plan. One that calls for teams like the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, to contribute a good chunk of their local tv deal into a centralized pool to help the smaller market teams. Without it, the CBA and threat of a lockout will come up every 6-7 years. As a Rangers fan, I could not possibly care less about whether Dolan takes a $50MM profit or a $5MM profit, or if he breaks even or even loses money. I just want to stop hearing about the CBA. In the 60's guys like the Maras and the Redskins owners (Not sure who it was back then) gave up their local tv deals for the good of the league and look at the NFL now. They print money. Obviously, the NHL could never have a full national deal like the NFL due to the schedule, but the bottom line is those guys gave up money for the good of the league, the NHL owners should do the same.

At the time, the 94-95 CBA was seen as a HUGE win for the owners. They wanted to control the RFAs. They were not worried about the UFA's thinking they wouldn't warrant such huge salaries. Well, advances in exercise science and sports nutrition in a short period of time, allowed these older players to keep playing at an elite level. Plus, if you look at the drafts from 92-98, for the most part they were pretty weak. You didn't have younger players pushing the older guys out. Well, 3-4 years into the deal, there was already talk that the owners needed more.

They lost a whole season over the salary cap. Bettman said they need this so that all 30 teams can be profitable. Well, 2-3 years in, the salary cap was already past (or close to it) the highest payroll pre-cap and there was talk that the owners needed more. The players could accept the current offer today, and in a few years we will be hearing grumblings that the owners are not happy with the deal and need more.


I agree with everything you said here. The owners clearly can't control themselves and their spending, so they keep looking to the players to do it for them in the form of negotiated give-backs. That is never going to change.
  • 0
Posted Image

#23 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,788 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:36 AM

At the time, the 94-95 CBA was seen as a HUGE win for the owners. They wanted to control the RFAs. They were not worried about the UFA's thinking they wouldn't warrant such huge salaries. Well, advances in exercise science and sports nutrition in a short period of time, allowed these older players to keep playing at an elite level. Plus, if you look at the drafts from 92-98, for the most part they were pretty weak. You didn't have younger players pushing the older guys out. Well, 3-4 years into the deal, there was already talk that the owners needed more.


It wasn't that advances in exercise science and sports nutrition resulted in this - and those guys wouldn't be pushed out anyway - it was that there was a natural scarcity of freely available talent, so the price for it went through the roof. The Rangers had a terrible farm system as well as some brutal luck with young player injuries - if they didn't buy up players, where were they going to get them? I mean, really when you look back, teams undervalued prospects to an absurd extent back in those days - the salary cap has forced them to look at these players in terms of money instead of as only hockey players.

They lost a whole season over the salary cap. Bettman said they need this so that all 30 teams can be profitable. Well, 2-3 years in, the salary cap was already past (or close to it) the highest payroll pre-cap and there was talk that the owners needed more. The players could accept the current offer today, and in a few years we will be hearing grumblings that the owners are not happy with the deal and need more.


It seems the mid-market teams are going along with what the big-market teams are selling, and I think that's a mistake. Then again, the owners can always claim the players are greedy and they will always win that battle. I don't know how this has happened, and granted I believed it too for years, but I don't know how owners managed to sell people on the idea that players don't deserve a great deal of compensation for their talents. If the money doesn't go to the players, it goes to the owners, and what talent did the owner have besides making enough money in another discipline to afford a sports franchise, or being born into a family that owns one? I recognize that if their franchise is well-run, owners should make a profit, but there are too many shoddily run franchises that get to print money by virtue of where they're located and the fact that under NHL bylaws another franchise can't invade 'their territory' without paying exorbitant fees.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#24 Devils Dose

Devils Dose

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:09 PM

At the time, the 94-95 CBA was seen as a HUGE win for the owners. They wanted to control the RFAs. They were not worried about the UFA's thinking they wouldn't warrant such huge salaries. Well, "advances in exercise science and sports nutrition in a short period of time," allowed these older players to keep playing at an elite level. Plus, if you look at the drafts from 92-98, for the most part they were pretty weak. You didn't have younger players pushing the older guys out. Well, 3-4 years into the deal, there was already talk that the owners needed more.

I'm by no means a big PED's cop, but when I read this part, I immediately thought this.

Back on thread topic. . .

Then again, the owners can always claim the players are greedy and they will always win that battle. I don't know how this has happened, and granted I believed it too for years, but I don't know how owners managed to sell people on the idea that players don't deserve a great deal of compensation for their talents. If the money doesn't go to the players, it goes to the owners, and what talent did the owner have besides making enough money in another discipline to afford a sports franchise, or being born into a family that owns one? I recognize that if their franchise is well-run, owners should make a profit, but there are too many shoddily run franchises that get to print money by virtue of where they're located and the fact that under NHL bylaws another franchise can't invade 'their territory' without paying exorbitant fees.

And somehow this is true in every sport. People get mildly pissed at the greed of the owners, but the rage for the players is almost untempered. You hear people say things like, "I have to do 60 loads of laundry every day from 8am to 3pm, earn $2 over minimum wage, and these guys who get paid millions to play a game want more?!" It's absurd of course. These players have to work so hard to stay ahead of the dozens of guys trying to take their spots. They only get to have time off when their bosses let them (game on your wife's birthday? Too bad), and they only get to earn money this way for 3-12 years. But most importantly of all, simple supply and demand. Only so few guys can supply us with the kind of entertaining hockey (or baseball, or football, etc.) that we demand, and we've proven that we demand it by spending the money or the time watching the shows.
  • 0
Season Ticket Holder since Jan.2009
Section 226 Row 2 Seats 15-16

#25 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,302 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 08:51 AM

The players are way on the right side of the PR war in this one. They're not asking for anything different - simply to keep the CBA the owners lost a season for. They're going to come back with a revenue sharing plan to make smaller market teams profitable.

Look, in the end, the owners have all the leverage but from a PR standpoint, as long as the players don't all collectively go on a #danellisproblems rant, they'll be fine in the public eye.
  • 0

"This team was never the same once we lost Patrik Sundstrom"- Lou Lamoriello


20082719943.png
_________________________________________________________________
“They’re the ones that makes it happen,” Lemaire said. “It’s not us. It’s not me. It’s not the other guy. It’s not the guy before. It’s not the guy after. It’s them. And they have to take care of business.”
-
"I guess I just miss my friend" (#28)


#26 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,498 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:56 AM

Tri and DD are right though, it doesn't matter who's in the right realistically, it's always the players that get the brunt of it. Fans don't grow up dreaming of owning teams, they grow up dreaming of playing for them.
  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#27 DJ Eco

DJ Eco

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:14 AM

Tri and DD are right though, it doesn't matter who's in the right realistically, it's always the players that get the brunt of it. Fans don't grow up dreaming of owning teams, they grow up dreaming of playing for them.



I don't know, not this time. In the past few years, the tide has turned on how people in this country, and especially in this AREA feel about "higher-ups", for lack of a better word. Billionaires and filthy rich corporate owners are not looked favorably upon in the past few years. Like sundstrom said, if we average Joe Schmoes don't get to watch hockey in the Fall, I think the filthy rich owners are going to get the brunt of our anger; the players aren't really trying to change anything.

Edited by DJ Eco, 14 August 2012 - 10:15 AM.

  • 0

#28 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,788 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:33 AM

I don't know, not this time. In the past few years, the tide has turned on how people in this country, and especially in this AREA feel about "higher-ups", for lack of a better word. Billionaires and filthy rich corporate owners are not looked favorably upon in the past few years. Like sundstrom said, if we average Joe Schmoes don't get to watch hockey in the Fall, I think the filthy rich owners are going to get the brunt of our anger; the players aren't really trying to change anything.


I don't think so. Fans always look at it this way 'Oh, big deal, you go from making $2 million a year to $1.8 million a year, boo hoo!' Which is true. But we weren't born with superb athletic talent, and presumably we didn't work our ass off through our youth honing that talent. I can see the guy who went to the same 6 AM practices, the guy who missed out on a pro career because of injury, and so forth, being resentful - but why is that guy even watching pro hockey in the first place?

The problem is that even if the players are winning the PR war - and right now I think they are - the only leverage either side has is a widespread 'I'm not coming back if there's a lockout'. And with cost certainty, with the way the NHL grabs back paychecks if there are revenue shortfalls, the players lose just as much as the owners if that's the case.

Edited by Triumph, 14 August 2012 - 10:35 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#29 njd3b1ink

njd3b1ink

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 974 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:06 AM

Bettman and fehr are two extremely stubborn people. Neither is going to budge much during these negotiations, which is a shame because i believe the league could take a huge step forward from this CBA negotiations. They have the opportunity to make the league way more healthy, and level the playing field somewhat between the big and small market teams. The owners initial demands were definitely high, but i actually liked alot of the things they proposed. If the sides could meet in the middle it would be great.
  • 0

#30 NJDEVS1730

NJDEVS1730

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:57 AM

HAHAHA

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
As NHL's negotiating committee arrived, one fan yelled: "Hey Gary, are you going to take a pay cut too?"
Retweeted by Tom Gulitti
  • 0

#31 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,302 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:58 AM

Bettman and fehr are two extremely stubborn people. Neither is going to budge much during these negotiations, which is a shame because i believe the league could take a huge step forward from this CBA negotiations. They have the opportunity to make the league way more healthy, and level the playing field somewhat between the big and small market teams. The owners initial demands were definitely high, but i actually liked alot of the things they proposed. If the sides could meet in the middle it would be great.


the owners proposal was almost 100% ludicrous. Since I assume that a luxury tax is a non starter for everyone (even though i think that in conjunction with the salary cap it makes the most sense), where this really should end up is with the players lowering their share from 57% to about 54% and the owners doing more revenue sharing from the rich teams to the poor teams. Having Florida and Ottawa and Columbus be able to turn profits makes the league more valuable and thus makes the leafs, rangers and flyers more valuable.

i would be ok if local tv and arena concessions (non merchandising) where the team owns or gets a cut of those concessions isn't part of HRR for the players but it is part of revenue sharing to keep lower level teams profitable. players pie should be national TV $, ticket sales, and merchandising.
  • 0

"This team was never the same once we lost Patrik Sundstrom"- Lou Lamoriello


20082719943.png
_________________________________________________________________
“They’re the ones that makes it happen,” Lemaire said. “It’s not us. It’s not me. It’s not the other guy. It’s not the guy before. It’s not the guy after. It’s them. And they have to take care of business.”
-
"I guess I just miss my friend" (#28)


#32 DJ Eco

DJ Eco

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:42 PM

I don't think so. Fans always look at it this way 'Oh, big deal, you go from making $2 million a year to $1.8 million a year, boo hoo!' Which is true. But we weren't born with superb athletic talent, and presumably we didn't work our ass off through our youth honing that talent. I can see the guy who went to the same 6 AM practices, the guy who missed out on a pro career because of injury, and so forth, being resentful - but why is that guy even watching pro hockey in the first place?

The problem is that even if the players are winning the PR war - and right now I think they are - the only leverage either side has is a widespread 'I'm not coming back if there's a lockout'. And with cost certainty, with the way the NHL grabs back paychecks if there are revenue shortfalls, the players lose just as much as the owners if that's the case.



I completely agree... As per the first part, I don't really resent hockey players salaries the way I do, say, baseball players or international soccer players. The money many of them make is ABSURD! I think hockey players' salaries are pretty deserved considering the physical demands of the job, and their grueling schedule. $27 Million per year for A-Rod?!?!?!?! That's just me though hahaha.. And doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion anymore..
  • 0

#33 DJ Eco

DJ Eco

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:57 PM

Some of the news and impressions from today;s talks actually seem encouraging.. Let's hope for the best!

:pray:
  • 0

#34 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,788 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:42 PM

I completely agree... As per the first part, I don't really resent hockey players salaries the way I do, say, baseball players or international soccer players. The money many of them make is ABSURD! I think hockey players' salaries are pretty deserved considering the physical demands of the job, and their grueling schedule. $27 Million per year for A-Rod?!?!?!?! That's just me though hahaha.. And doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion anymore..


Baseball players play twice as many games as hockey players, they basically deserve twice as much money as a result.

I refuse to be encouraged, the league will come up with some gross counter and it'll fester until November.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#35 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,498 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:07 PM

Baseball players play twice as many games as hockey players, they basically deserve twice as much money as a result.

I refuse to be encouraged, the league will come up with some gross counter and it'll fester until November.


Eh it has nothing to do with that, season lengths are all relative, that'd be like saying football players deserve a tenth of the pay for playing a tenth of the games. It has to do with revenue (baseball revenues are much higher than hockey) as well as the fact hockey has a cap and baseball doesn't.
  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#36 DJ Eco

DJ Eco

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:33 PM

Baseball players play twice as many games as hockey players, they basically deserve twice as much money as a result.



Define.... "play"... haha...
  • 0

#37 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,964 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:07 PM

Baseball players play twice as many games as hockey players, they basically deserve twice as much money as a result.


woooo.... i'd be okay with that statement if you were talking about basketball or football or wtv... but baseball ? cmon now, some of those guys are barely moving for the whole game just standing at the same spot and running a little bit, they can even be fat and still be pros at that sport.

hockey is physical, dangerous and demanding physically, baseball is nowhere close to that.
  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#38 Zubie#8

Zubie#8

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,496 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:50 PM

woooo.... i'd be okay with that statement if you were talking about basketball or football or wtv... but baseball ? cmon now, some of those guys are barely moving for the whole game just standing at the same spot and running a little bit, they can even be fat and still be pros at that sport.

hockey is physical, dangerous and demanding physically, baseball is nowhere close to that.

Basketball is God awful, Baseball is extremely difficult, Football is dangerous, Hockey is the greatest thing ever.

Edited by Zubie#8, 14 August 2012 - 04:52 PM.

  • 0

believe-zubrus.jpg

 


#39 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,964 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:04 PM

Basketball is God awful, Baseball is extremely difficult, Football is dangerous, Hockey is the greatest thing ever.


no Jessica Alba is
  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#40 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,788 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:58 PM

Eh it has nothing to do with that, season lengths are all relative, that'd be like saying football players deserve a tenth of the pay for playing a tenth of the games. It has to do with revenue (baseball revenues are much higher than hockey) as well as the fact hockey has a cap and baseball doesn't.


But it has everything to do with that - that and the fact that baseball stadiums have higher capacity than hockey arenas. If baseball had an 82 game season, they'd be paid more than hockey players, but not by all that much.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users