Hurt
Registered User
- Apr 6, 2009
- 28,305
- 801
Confirmed with Link: Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th
- Thread starter The Blue Devil
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
ULF_55
Moderator
Yep.
That way you can be competitive in the lower tier and have some winning seasons, without always trying to compete financially with the real NHL teams.
charliolemieux
rsTmf
- Apr 1, 2010
- 9,715
- 55
I would say yes, but if the buildings are half empty now, what happens when the team is in the B league?
ULF_55
Moderator
Maybe nothing if they are hockey fans. If the buildings are half empty now with the cheapest tickets in the league, what do you do give them away?
charliolemieux
rsTmf
- Apr 1, 2010
- 9,715
- 55
BUt now the best players aren't coming into the building. That would hurt sales even more.
Anthrax442
Registered User
This is how athletes should treat the fans:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/m...y-his-gold-medal/story-e6frfglf-1226537349562
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/m...y-his-gold-medal/story-e6frfglf-1226537349562
ULF_55
Moderator
It isn't like having the best players coming is in the Bill or Rights or Constitution.
If they aren't willing to pay for it why should they get it?
I believe that hockey is a great game... and if those teams had a fighting chance every season, they would have much bigger fan bases.
But the sport can't grow when those teams face such dramatic financial disadvantages.
The previous lockout improved parity substantially but, with the exception of our maple leafs of course due to pathetic management, it was mostly the rich teams that made the playoffs consistently.
Hard to grow a fanbase when you only get a taste of success every 4 or 5 years...
The owners are doing their part to try and grow the game. The owners in non hockey markets lose millions every year, and the owners at hockey markets share HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS each and every season with the poor teams.
Doing their part indeed.
The players, although in a "partnership", fight tooth and nail at any request to do their part to grow the game. They sure love the JOBS at that their "partners" created for them... but no sacrifice at all to try and keep those jobs.
So now the NHLPA is essentially going to hold a vote to decide on whether or not to travel down yet another failed road and this one could very well lead to the PA tossing away their entire secured big fat NHL contracts? Good luck with that one boys! lol The NHL is well prepared for any court battle these greedy high school educated dummies want to initiate and will be successful in defeating it. The PA should also expect ramifications further down this road against the players by the NHL owners if they start court actions.
Fehr & the NHLPA are all a bunch of greedy ungrateful whiners who couldn't give a rats ass about the fans or the thousands of people and business's across the league who's lives have been negatively financially impacted as a result of the PA getting locked out.
Fehr & the NHLPA are all a bunch of greedy ungrateful whiners who couldn't give a rats ass about the fans or the thousands of people and business's across the league who's lives have been negatively financially impacted as a result of the PA getting locked out.
Mess
Global Moderator
The Leafs the most profitable NHL franchise spending to the cap ceiling finished 5th from the bottom of the league standings.. Meanwhile Phoenix are on welfare life support from the NHL, without an NHL owner at present, & playing at the cap floor advanced to the final 4 losing the Western Conference final to the eventual Stanley Cup winners.
I agree we need more parity but that extends beyond profitability only, and for teams like the Leafs we need a CBA that allows us to be more successful on the ice and not just in the owners deep pockets.
Maybe if the Leafs help Phoenix with revenue sharing money $$, than Phoenix GM Don Maloney, and coach Dave Tippett can share their hockey knowledge to assist Leafs management as a consulting fee for that financial assistance provided.
Then Leafs could be better on the ice and Phoenix better financially and parity abounds for all.
Some things need fixing if the NHL's richest most profitable team is the only one unable to make the playoffs (no matter how much they spend) in a Cap World CBA. How is that parity going to be fixed otherwise?
Last edited:
ULF_55
Moderator
Players who were in NY for the meetings:
When they started their playing careers:
Mayers 4 years Michigan
Toews 2 years North Dakota
Miller 3 years Michigan State
Backes Minnesota 3 years State U - Mankato
Parros 4 years Princeton
St. Louis 4 years Vermont
Westgarth 4 years Princeton
Adams 4 years Harvard
Hainsey 2 years UMass-Lowell
Horcoff 4 years Michigan State
Cammalleri 3 years Michigan
Winnik 3 years New Hampshire
Darche 4 years McGill
Since there is no law saying you can't take continuing education after you become a player ...
Others like Dominic Moore with 4 years at Harvard have also been mentioned.
That's the nice thing about free net, everyone can express their opinions, informed or not.
Budsfan
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2006
- 19,218
- 1,365
Well according to this article if they dissolve the union it will void all the players contracts, this might be the NHL's chance to correct the League, by countering with cutting teams and players, axing 10 teams and 33% of the players in one year, would certainly go a long way to doing that.
If I understand the implications of those terms, should all player contracts be voided, then the League could start over, end profit-sharing and deal from a really strong position, frankly I don't see this going well for the players at all.
NHL lockout: Dissolving union voids player contracts, league claims
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs...ng-union-voids-player-contracts-league-claims
If I understand the implications of those terms, should all player contracts be voided, then the League could start over, end profit-sharing and deal from a really strong position, frankly I don't see this going well for the players at all.
NHL lockout: Dissolving union voids player contracts, league claims
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs...ng-union-voids-player-contracts-league-claims
The Magic Man
With God given hands
I agree with most of what you said about parity and growing the league in that matter. I think it's important if they really want a healthy league with more then 16 teams. Dallas is a great example of what parity can do in a non traditional market. They made money hand over fist in the Hatcher/Modano era when they were a consistent winning team. If they'd have only seen a season of two of struggle, instead of continued mediocrity, they'd still have that very solid base and be a continued success.
In a league with better parity where players are spread out a little more, and not all signing 15 year deals well into their 40's on 4 teams, they have to sign somewhere.
In that sense the owners demanded for a max 5 year deal. The players caved from unlimited to 7 or 8 years(not 100% sure which).
They owners demanded for a 10 year CBA. The players wanted a 5 year and moved to 8 with an opt out at 6. Not the best of their concessions, but a concession none the less.
The owners wanted a 5% variance from year to year on real dollars. The players moved from 50% to 25%.
The owners wanted a 50/50 based cap with a redefined HRR. The players moved from 57/43 to 50/50 with an additional 300M make whole sum over the term of the contract.
You talk about the players not willing to sacrifice at all to keep their jobs in poor markets, yet they are the ones moving off the original demands. Not the owners. The owners are the ones initiating a lock-out. It's not a strike.
While I think the sides are close enough that both parties are being stupid and detrimental to the growth of the game, it's the players that have done all the bargaining. It's them that have given back, without receiving anything in return. And in that note, please continue to read my counter points with MLG below.....
I've been involved in collective bargaining and a year long lock out, most of the law suits are thrown out based on being vague. We filed one similar to the owners based on "bad faith bargaining". your supposed to offer up something in return for a demanded concession. But our company demanded 3 major $ concessions just to start the talks of what else we will give up. Their words, not mine. It was a bully tactic spear headed by one of the owners of the Penguins.
We were to submit those 3 key items (2 retirement issues an a cost of living allowance) before we even started discussions. Until we relent those, we wouldn't be allowed to discuss anything further with them. This is contrary to "good faith bargaining." We filed a suit with the courts, and it was dismissed.
I don't think the owners have much of a leg to stand on, the players have every right to disband the PA if they so fit. If it's not working for them, despite their "support" of Fehr, they are within their rights to move ahead freely.
It's all just tactics though anyway, as it won't get that far, and the owners won't win their suit.
PS - that "failed road" worked twice recently.
Warden of the North
Ned Stark's head
The NHL wants contracts voided so that the PA cant sue them on anti trust violations. Nothing more. Its not about correcting the league.
What happens is if the union dissolves then there is no union to lockout so the players could in theory go back to work. As the NHL wont allow them to work without a CBA, the players would then be able to claim anti trust violations as they have contracts with the league. Thus the league wanting contracts voided.
The "fantasy draft" scenario where rich teams can pay players whatever they want, is just that, a fantasy. The NHL will never operate without a CBA.
Mess
Global Moderator
When the NHL expands a new Franchise owner is charged a franchise fee when joining the league and those proceeds are divided up among the remaining NHL Owners..
Therefore each contraction of a franchise would see a similar process in reverse and the remaining owners responsible for splitting the bill of shutting down a franchise.
It was owners greed to receive this franchise fee money originally as to the reason some of these non traditional, financially struggling hockey franchise exist today.
20 remaining owners buying out of business 10 struggling franchises (as you suggest) isn't something I see as an idea going over very well. Revenue sharing money to keep them alive is less costly to them then folding them.
Budsfan
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2006
- 19,218
- 1,365
Thing is they can set their own set of rules, like hard cap, no contracts longer than 5 years etc., just as if they were setting up another league as the WHA did.
The amount of money used in profit sharing, would go a long way to buying out some of these teams and they could restructure moves, to other cities, as many as 5 of those 10 teams, would be placed in locals that support hockey.
The Magic Man
With God given hands
I see what you are getting at, but a more feasible concept would be the loss of a draft pick. Why not have a 4th rounder moved for a piece of profit sharing. The highest contributor (leafs) takes a 4th from the lowest placing of the poorest teams. In this case the Leafs would've received a 4th from (just a guess based on standings) Columbus.
What makes you think an owner like Molson in MON isn't licking his chops at the chance to offer Crosby max money at max terms. Stamkos to TOR. NYR exchanging Brad Richards and Gaborik money at Weber and Malkin. This scenario won't help anyone but the rich. That's why I don't think it works.
Warden of the North
Ned Stark's head
They cant have those rules without a CBA. Its against the law. It would be collusion.
Putting teams into places with existing hockey support doesnt really create new fans, it just redistributes their money elsewhere. Keeping teams in non traditional areas has the potential to create new fans and create more revenue.
Mess
Global Moderator
Keep in mind before the previous lockout in 2004/05 a CBA existed where rich teams could pay players whatever they wanted. It was the instituting of a Salary Cap CBA which prevented that scenario.
You're correct the "fantasy draft" idea is governed by a CBA which set the rules by which such an event would be conducted.. Without a CBA its an every man for himself and any owner can sign any player he wants to whatever he wants and every player a UFA to pick his own destination to go to work.
ULF_55
Moderator
I think the owners are saying they want the courts to void the contracts.
That isn't necessarily what would happen though.
The players would obviously counter with the argument that the contract is between the team and the player. Both the team and the player signed the contract, the league approved it.
As stated the NHL filed in a zone that is supportive of business over unions, but that doesn't mean everything the NHL is asking for will be granted.
In saying that, I like the odds of where the Leafs would end up if they started fresh with no cap, and no restrictions on who they could sign.
I think AO has stated he likes a hockey market. Additionally, maybe we'd see those Ontario boys chase the dollar back home?
Budsfan
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2006
- 19,218
- 1,365
Like I said in the post above, if they set up the League they would make hard and fast rules, Like a hard cap and no contact to exceed 5 years and on and on, with other constraints, yes teams can pick from any of the players and they may have to impose a draft, much like people do in their fantasy drafts but they would have to stay within a budget, to stay under the cap and so by doing this, they can stop a lot of the stupidity, that was of their own making.
ULF_55
Moderator
Who would they apply this hard cap to?
Players would be negotiating contracts individually with teams. If Phoenix will only give Doan 3 million a year and NY will give him twice the length he'd just sign with NY.
CBA protects the owners.
ULF_55
Moderator
The CBA allows the teams to implement those restrictions, and there would be no CBA therefore no restrictions.
This is why the NHL filed suit because they do not want to operate in a free model.
The Magic Man
With God given hands
Why would Molson want to work within Jacobs rules if he doesn't have to. Just to spite the players he (it seems) agrees with. MSG won't give a rats arse to follow any cap if they don't have to either. With the way Rogers is spending money on the Jays, why would he want to implement a 'fair' cap in hockey where he has the power of the Yankees, in the NHL.
Your talking about a group of owners that have flouted the gray area rules for the last few years, knowing full well it will change this CBA. If they have no real rules, they won't follow handshake rules either.
- Status
Latest posts
-
Zegras headshots Rasmussen. Will have a hearing today 02/24- Latest: BigDaddyLurch
-
