Leafblooded
Registered User
What a bitter, sad place HF Boards has become. No NHL = life sucks. Its like Christmas got taken away from a bunch of kids, and now we hate the world.
Only game being played is the blame game(CBA Negotiation discussion thread) - Part IV
- Thread starter ColePens
- Start date
- Status
What a bitter, sad place HF Boards has become. No NHL = life sucks. Its like Christmas got taken away from a bunch of kids, and now we hate the world.
The 1.3bil includes, arena rent/maintenance/taxes, utilities, team travel, per diems, insurance, coaching and exec salaries, scouting, etc. We have been over this repeatedly. The figure is a minimum of $30mil in non-player payroll costs per team. That's a minimum of $900mil of the $1.3bil. Some teams are much higher than $30mil through overspending or the cost of doing business in places such as NY, TO and Mont or the excess travel costs in the west.
If you want to take everything left over after base costs and divvy it up, you are talking about $2.05bil not $3.3bil. They have $2.05bil to split between player payroll and owner profits.
I was looking at what comes out in excuses rather than what is reasonable.Intentional (examples): spearing, head butting, hooking (the "family jewels")
Potential grey areas (examples): elbowing, tripping
And what about "follow through" on shots? It's nominally been ruled "incidental" contact, not a penalty, even if an injury results.
Could be that if the guy's not a repeat offender, unintentional acts might result in monetary fines. While intentional and repeat offenders would result in suspensions.
We'll see how this comes out.
I don't think "follow through" is on the table.
The elbow/shoulder type calls always get feedback/argument from the offender (eg Torres although he did make the claim that he wasn't doing his job if he didn't do it).
They have been pretty good up to now about raising the ante on repeat offenders.
I do think that league liability is going to be a crucial point in the negotiation. The courts will not allow an excuse of rules allowing legally culpable behavior, hence the current emphasis on headshots. The potential liability is just too high.
We should ban all the unions and put labour relations entirely in the hands of the benevolent rich. I'm sure they'll look out for the little guy - just like they did before unions came about, right?
You are somehow suggesting either part of my statement is incorrect? Or are you a teacher making 90k with guaranteed 90% retirement salary and medical benefits for life that you maybe paid 2% into?
These players are making millions either way. They should be locked out until the end of time. Being able to shoot a puck with a stick does not make you someone who is able to start a business and supply everything necessary to keep it running. They are just employees.
They can go work in the KHL if our NHL is so unfair and underpaid.
You do realize there are labor laws to protect against everything that unions were initially formed in the early part of the 20th century for right? They've been an obsolete sieve on tax funds for over 50 years now.
DarthYenik
Registered User
Why didn't they just bar the doors on Fehr and Bettman? Now we have to wait another two weeks for another meeting.
Epsilon
#basta
You are somehow suggesting either part of my statement is incorrect? Or are you a teacher making 90k with guaranteed 90% retirement salary and medical benefits for life that you maybe paid 2% into?
These players are making millions either way. They should be locked out until the end of time. Being able to shoot a puck with a stick does not make you someone who is able to start a business and supply everything necessary to keep it running. They are just employees.
They can go work in the KHL if our NHL is so unfair and underpaid.
Oh, you are an NHL owner are you? Welcome to HFBoards!
Islanderfan17
Registered User
- Aug 24, 2010
- 5,858
- 13
Epsilon
#basta
You are somehow suggesting either part of my statement is incorrect? Or are you a teacher making 90k with guaranteed 90% retirement salary and medical benefits for life that you maybe paid 2% into?
These players are making millions either way. They should be locked out until the end of time. Being able to shoot a puck with a stick does not make you someone who is able to start a business and supply everything necessary to keep it running. They are just employees.
They can go work in the KHL if our NHL is so unfair and underpaid.
I take it you are against having a salary cap, restricted free agency, and the NHL draft.
Doesn't matter. All the job growth is in China.
Anyhoo...
My translation? Daly -- We're not budging but if I keep saying that we're waiting on the players, it will make it look like we did something new.
My way or the highway.
Oh, but it is simple...
The NHL cancelled the CBA. If the NHL wants the PA to accept a new CBA, the NHL better make sure it is palatable to the PA. Instead, the opening, insulting offer was something that Bettman and company could have issued in January instead of June. And although the money has been going up in the NHL's proposals, a reduction in salary through escrow is still a very bitter pill to swallow after having to take a 24 percent haircut seven years ago.
The fact is the PA doesn't have to make a counter-offer. Why should they? The NHL's offers amount to the PA's membership having to shave money off their salaries for no other reason than "the players make too much money". The NHL has yet to give a cogent argument for the reasoning exactly why the players should give up any money.
Is that not a good enough reason? players are making 300-400 million more than the owners right now and that number will only get larger.
How much do the players need before they are satisfied. Would they accept 2.5 billion instead of 2.8 billion(overtime of course) if it meant a much more stable league? I mean sure you could say the same for the owners, but right now, there are some not making any money and losing money. Players are making more than ever yet some owners are still losing money each year.
Am I saying the players should drop 20%+? Hell no, BUT a 5-7% drop GRADUALLY is very reasonable, would lose them no money(if not gain them a bit) and overtime they would gain even more than ever before.
Ultimately, if they drop to even 52% year 1, they'd be in the red BARELY year one, and then would go straight back up and be over 2 billion within a couple years.
That's the reason I don't feel bad, because no matter what, the players will make more than ever. But if they take a cut, the league(of course they have to use the money properly in RS) will be in much better shape.
trueblue9441
Registered User
oh but it is simple, you can't negotiate with yourself. the players didnt come to the table until late june. how could they table that proposal?
the league was ready to talk last november
Unlike 04 I actually feel the league wants to get a deal done and the players want to delay as much as possible
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
And what the **** are they doing now exactly? Why aren't talks happening every day? This is a travesty not a ****ing vacation. Does anyone care?
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Yep, and then we can all work 12 hours a day for pennies an hour like they did in the 1800's. Really looking forward to that
LadyStanley
Registered User
They talked Friday, and got some agreements.
Scheduled to talk on Saturday and Sunday.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/09/28/grange_cba_details_too_much/
Grange asks why they aren't tackling the hard issues ("The house is on fire and they're trying to finish the grocery list.").
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...omNhl-TopStories+(Sports+-+NHL+-+Top+Stories)
AP story on Friday's talks
LadyStanley
Registered User
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-p...-over-suspensions-nhl-cba-201858913--nhl.html
Puck Daddy looks at the push for fines over suspensions.
Puck Daddy looks at the push for fines over suspensions.
mossey3535
Registered User
- Feb 7, 2011
- 14,071
- 11,318
You know, in real life they wouldn't ask any of us if we wanted two 24% haircuts. They would just hand us our severances (if we were lucky enough to get a severance) and cut enough bodies to make up two 24% reductions.
I'm not sure what part of 'most of our league is not in healthy financial shape so we need to cut costs' fails to count as 'cogent'.
Even if a team is breaking even, how is the owner to cut costs? He can bear the losses himself - that's unlikely, which of us would do so in their situation, especially if no profit is being made in the first place? Costs like arena maintenance, transportation, marketing and licensing probably go up every year. So what you're left with is to fire trainers, scouts, management, marketing personnel, arena attendants, have less EMTs at games, etc. Again, to cut in these areas you are cutting the jobs of regular people.
What we're seeing here is a very nominal renegotiation of the salaries of the people who a) are practically guaranteed that they will not lose their jobs and b) can most afford (outside of players NY, TOR, etc) to bear the cost.
Even with vertical integration, shady bookkeeping and tax write-offs, why do you think a team like Philadelphia with deep pockets can decide to forego $100M in revenue by risking an entire season? If they are making so much money hand over fist with all their shadowy interconnected business practices, shouldn't it be in their best interest to just continue under the old CBA? If these teams are just toys to be used for tax deductibles, does it really matter that the business keeps losing money year after year?
Of course one answer would be greed, but if greed was really the issue, you would take your $100M in income and use that cash in your other investments. Because if you're greedy it's better to just keep taking in income rather than take out a significant chunk of your business. How many more concerts can an arena book to make up for 42 lost games? If you are an organization like MLSE whose parents count on the teams to provide content to other parts of their business, a lockout is going to exact a heavy toll.
The very fact that the whole league is willing to lockout the players and risk disrupting their revenue streams for an entire year strongly implies that team losses are so detrimental to the business as a whole that the long-term gains of tweaking the last CBA far outweigh the value of an entire season of revenue.
Really, the players are fighting for philosophical quibbles. If a large (~20% rollback) reduced the average player salary to less than $1M, there would be a valid economic reason for their stalling. But there isn't. That's why they will ultimately lose this battle, because the owners are fighting for economic reasons.
You are somehow suggesting either part of my statement is incorrect? Or are you a teacher making 90k with guaranteed 90% retirement salary and medical benefits for life that you maybe paid 2% into?
These players are making millions either way. They should be locked out until the end of time. Being able to shoot a puck with a stick does not make you someone who is able to start a business and supply everything necessary to keep it running. They are just employees.
They can go work in the KHL if our NHL is so unfair and underpaid.
What is wrong with a teacher making $90K and having a good retirement package? $90K is not a lot of money when you compare it to other professions with equivalent levels of education. Governments use the retirement benefits as a tool for recruiting people to become teachers. Teachers know they are never going to be millionaires while teaching, but know long-term there are great benefits. Now, economy is down and the "in" thing to do is to bash teachers and other public workers. Although, I do not know of any place where a teacher receives 90% of salary when retiring.
As for the hockey portion, if they players are JUST employees, and they stay locked out for the rest of time, then how are the owners going to make their millions on these teams? They are employees AND they are the product. Owners need to have something to sell in order to make money.
I agree with you. They caved the last two times and it still wasn't enough. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
- Status
