Just like an abused spouse, I'll be back when hockey comes back because deep down inside I know hockey still loves me.
I laugh because I'm guilty, too. :(
drivingrl: "Will I ever get to meet Gwen Stefani?"
kevinbeetle: "Yes. When her career washes up and her and Gavin move to Galveston, you will meet her at Hot Topic shopping for a Japanese cheerleader outfit.
Personally I'm not sure why players feel entitled to revenue sharing.
Personally, I'm not sure why owners feel they're entitled to all of the revenue when, without the players, there would be none.
A new elite league could be formed without these owners. Can't say the same about the players.
Personally I'm not sure why players feel entitled to revenue sharing.
Personally, I'm not sure why owners feel they're entitled to all of the revenue when, without the players, there would be none.
A new elite league could be formed without these owners. Can't say the same about the players.
Owners dont feel like they are entitled to all the revenue. They are asking for 50%. They also have to pay all costs such as employees, rent, travel expenses, cooling, heating, marketing, etc.
The players cant start a new league. They lack the $, the infrastructure, and frankly, brains. Maybe they can get something together, but it would be a miracle if they made $1.65 Billion in profits they would be missing out on with the NHL.
I dont think you can have one without the other.... but Id be willing to venture that people are more loyal to the crest than the player.
Just like an abused spouse, I'll be back when hockey comes back because deep down inside I know hockey still loves me.
I laugh because I'm guilty, too. :(
I'll be back. Hopefully soon.
It's my favourite sport...as long as there is an honest competitive drive in the players, there is a purity to sports that none of this bullshit can't touch. Once the puck drops, none of this really matters.
Personally I'm not sure why players feel entitled to revenue sharing.
Personally, I'm not sure why owners feel they're entitled to all of the revenue when, without the players, there would be none.
A new elite league could be formed without these owners. Can't say the same about the players.
Owners dont feel like they are entitled to all the revenue. They are asking for 50%. They also have to pay all costs such as employees, rent, travel expenses, cooling, heating, marketing, etc.
The players cant start a new league. They lack the $, the infrastructure, and frankly, brains. Maybe they can get something together, but it would be a miracle if they made $1.65 Billion in profits they would be missing out on with the NHL.
I dont think you can have one without the other.... but Id be willing to venture that people are more loyal to the crest than the player.
You can't have the NHL without both parties agreeing to terms. You can most definitely have another league. No, it wouldn't make 1.65B the first year....but eventually, it would. And you would have a lot of owners lining up for teams if the buy in was reasonable. But in the end, that's all just posturing anyway.
Yes, people are more loyal to their team than the players (in most instances at least - depends how the player is being treated, and how that treatment affects the team).....but....I don't necessarily see that as a statement of support for ownership.
I dont see the players signing up for that. There would likely be a lot of jobs out the window, and salaries would be a fraction of what they are now.
nor do I see a glut of businessmen who would be willing to invest that much to start from scratch. At least not in the next few years. They have trouble finding investors for the NHL.
Not to mention the complexities/cost of encroaching on NHL lease agreements with nearly every arena.
Would Sidney Crosby be better off taking $9,500,000 instead of $10,000,000 and not have to worry about shit?
Im not on one side or the other, but the players need to buckle down a bit, take the owner's 50/50 offer and get all they can out of it.
Over 1/4th of the season is now cancelled. So, players have lost 25% of their pay because they're unwilling to lose 7% of their pay.
This is what happens when you tell a group of high school educated millionaires to make a financial decisions.
The owners are crap too, but they hold all/most of the cards.
i'd rather watch the good players play in a breakaway league then watching scrubs play in the current ... i am personally tired of owners sticking it (pun intended) to whoever they feel like ...
Personally I'm not sure why players feel entitled to revenue sharing.
Personally, I'm not sure why owners feel they're entitled to all of the revenue when, without the players, there would be none.
A new elite league could be formed without these owners. Can't say the same about the players.
Because the owner/owners takes on ALL of the financial responsibility. The player only has to perform. He's paid based on his contract regardless of how the team does financially. The profit sharing with players in my eyes was always a bad idea.
There's my problem with the players right there...they want a split of the revenue, but none of the responsibility that the owners take. If the players would offer to do away with guaranteed contracts then I might have more sympathy...guys like that Gomez in Montreal...really 7.5 million or whatever it is...ridiculous.
It's not like these players are making minimum wage :fp:...
Millionaires fighting Billionaires...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The players could never start their own league ... it would also be next to impossible for a bunch of other rich guys to step in and start a league ... most of these teams will have it written into their lease agreement preventing competing leagues from using their facilities ... some cities that have 2 arenas might, but I doubt many cities have 2 NHL capable arena's ... plus no competing league would be up and running for at least a 1-11/2 years by then the NHL will have settled.
The players only other options are Europe or the KHL ... those aren't glamorous choices ... the KHL has a 30 million cap, most of those teams play in old Soviet era arenas that seat 6000-7000.
The players have only 1 real alternative ...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Players wanting more than 50% of revenue is ridiculous. I get that they say "Owner make money off of us" i get that. But do owners get a percentage of what players make on the side? Do players give 50% of the appearance fees that get? Or the money charge at events to sign autographs. It's not like these guys are making 10 bucks a game.
In the end I'm with 81 NHL is dead to me. I would rather drive to Wheeling WV or down to Cincinnati and see some ECHL hockey. Cheaper tickets, entertaining and players who are playing for fun. Also I would rather drive up to Columbus and watch Ohio State hockey. I'm not a Buckeyes fan but it's better than this bullshit.
Crying over money these players, owners and league could give a rat's ass about the fans. Because they know that most of us are going to be dumb enough to fill the seats up again. Maybe one day i can get over this but for now and in the future kiss my ass NHL.
players will settle for 50/50 ... all they want is that the existing contracts be honoured and that the terms by which HRR are defined stay the same ...
players will settle for 50/50 ... all they want is that the existing contracts be honoured and that the terms by which HRR are defined stay the same ...
Actually DURP has a good point...why don't the players give the owners 50/50 of all outside endorsements? If the player were really serious as well they would propose doing away with guaranteed contracts...even if they allowed teams to rid themselves of 2 guaranteed contracts a year I think they might get a deal done. Too many overpaid players in the NHL.
The players want too make millions...but don't want too share in the risk.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Actually DURP has a good point...why don't the players give the owners 50/50 of all outside endorsements? If the player were really serious as well they would propose doing away with guaranteed contracts...even if they allowed teams to rid themselves of 2 guaranteed contracts a year I think they might get a deal done. Too many overpaid players in the NHL.
The players want too make millions...but don't want too share in the risk.
a contract is a contract ... why won't the nhl honour their contracts? ... and at the end of the day - the owners/nhl is making a killing now ... so, a few ill advised teams in poor markets aren't ... so, you want to screw the players so that those teams make tons of money and the owners make even more ...
look at the owner of the oilers ... he epitomizes what's wrong with the owners ... the guy is making a killing yet he wants the taxpayers to fund everything ... these owners just want more and more ... if you give them something ... they just take and take without giving anything back ...
give me 1 item in their proposal that is good for the players ... just 1 ... it's all about the players giving and giving ... with nothing in return ...
Actually DURP has a good point...why don't the players give the owners 50/50 of all outside endorsements? If the player were really serious as well they would propose doing away with guaranteed contracts...even if they allowed teams to rid themselves of 2 guaranteed contracts a year I think they might get a deal done. Too many overpaid players in the NHL.
The players want too make millions...but don't want too share in the risk.
a contract is a contract ... why won't the nhl honour their contracts? ... and at the end of the day - the owners/nhl is making a killing now ... so, a few ill advised teams in poor markets aren't ... so, you want to screw the players so that those teams make tons of money and the owners make even more ...
look at the owner of the oilers ... he epitomizes what's wrong with the owners ... the guy is making a killing yet he wants the taxpayers to fund everything ... these owners just want more and more ... if you give them something ... they just take and take without giving anything back ...
give me 1 item in their proposal that is good for the players ... just 1 ... it's all about the players giving and giving ... with nothing in return ...
Poor babies...must be tough working in sweat shop environment...how do they do it? just how do they cope? how do they get by? I don't support either side...its millionaires fighting billionaires...at the end of the day its the owners league...most if not all have other business interest...these hockey teams are more or less a hobby to them, a billionaires hobby . Most of these players this is their skill...their free too leave and play elsewhere if they can find other leagues willing to overpay them.
Yes a contract a contract...the NFL survives without guaranteed contracts, so can these NHL players.
It'll be cold day in hell before I ever throw my support behind athletes making millions...because if it wasn't for hockey they'd be making a fraction of what they do today.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Heat and Celtics last night made me kind of forget about the NHL.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
players will settle for 50/50 ... all they want is that the existing contracts be honoured and that the terms by which HRR are defined stay the same ...
I suspect that a lot of the players signed long term deals over the past few years because they knew this was coming and were planning on drawing the line there and hope to win public support (those were the contracts they signed!) and not be affected by any CBA changes. Just look at all the 6-year deals signed this past Summer.
I would be very surprised that a typical NHL contract doesnt include language that subjects it to the terms and conditions of the current and future labor agreements, so in a sense, a rollback is part of the contract.
I could see the argument that the owners will take and take, so next time they will reduce it to 45% and so on... But thats not the case right now. 50/50 is on par with other (much more successful) leagues and the NHLPA enjoys those great guaranteed contracts. I dont think this is unreasonable at all.
WTS, I do think the NHL can move toward common ground with the existing contracts.
players will settle for 50/50 ... all they want is that the existing contracts be honoured and that the terms by which HRR are defined stay the same ...
I suspect that a lot of the players signed long term deals over the past few years because they knew this was coming and were planning on drawing the line there and hope to win public support (those were the contracts they signed!) and not be affected by any CBA changes. Just look at all the 6-year deals signed this past Summer.
I would be very surprised that a typical NHL contract doesnt include language that subjects it to the terms and conditions of the current and future labor agreements, so in a sense, a rollback is part of the contract.
I could see the argument that the owners will take and take, so next time they will reduce it to 45% and so on... But thats not the case right now. 50/50 is on par with other (much more successful) leagues and the NHLPA enjoys those great guaranteed contracts. I dont think this is unreasonable at all.
WTS, I do think the NHL can move toward common ground with the existing contracts.
I think if the owners signed the contract, they should pay it. Grandfather them into the new CBA if you will.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
players will settle for 50/50 ... all they want is that the existing contracts be honoured and that the terms by which HRR are defined stay the same ...
I suspect that a lot of the players signed long term deals over the past few years because they knew this was coming and were planning on drawing the line there and hope to win public support (those were the contracts they signed!) and not be affected by any CBA changes. Just look at all the 6-year deals signed this past Summer.
I would be very surprised that a typical NHL contract doesnt include language that subjects it to the terms and conditions of the current and future labor agreements, so in a sense, a rollback is part of the contract.
I could see the argument that the owners will take and take, so next time they will reduce it to 45% and so on... But thats not the case right now. 50/50 is on par with other (much more successful) leagues and the NHLPA enjoys those great guaranteed contracts. I dont think this is unreasonable at all.
WTS, I do think the NHL can move toward common ground with the existing contracts.
I think your probably right that the owners have an out in many of those contracts. I wonder if these players know how lucky they are...so many of them are just pampered babies.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
and at the end of the day - the owners/nhl is making a killing now ... so, a few ill advised teams in poor markets aren't ... so, you want to screw the players so that those teams make tons of money and the owners make even more
This is not true.
2/3 of the league lost money. Only 6 teams made anything you could consider a "killing"... and 4 of those are Canadian cities helped by their surging dollar since 2004.
Places that lost money in 'ill-conceived' markets include:
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Winnipeg, St Louis, Minnesota, LA, Washington, and San Jose.
and at the end of the day - the owners/nhl is making a killing now ... so, a few ill advised teams in poor markets aren't ... so, you want to screw the players so that those teams make tons of money and the owners make even more
This is not true.
2/3 of the league lost money. Only 6 teams made anything you could consider a "killing"... and 4 of those are Canadian cities helped by their surging dollar since 2004.
Places that lost money in 'ill-conceived' markets include:
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Winnipeg, St Louis, Minnesota, LA, Washington, and San Jose.
Its bad for business when they have trouble getting owners to invest in the league.
I don't how true this is...I read the 7 Canadian teams account for 1 billion of the 3.3 billion (or whatever the revenue is).
And another point that should be made...why should Montreal (example) revenue share with Tampa...so the dedicated fan in Montreal has to pay 120 a ticket so some casual fan in Tampa can pay 20 a ticket...thats ridiculous.
Why doesn't Gomez share his salary with a union brother in Tampa instead .
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
in the past CBA they had criteria that receiving teams had to meet such as market size (no NYI), they had to sell a certain amount of tickets, increase pricing a %, etc. I think they are doing away with that.
I do believe that revenue sharing is necessary (as is player salary % reduction). The Montreals didnt complain when they were getting relocation and expansion fees.
I also do like the criteria too to prevent teams going through the motions and collecting $$$
Comments
I laugh because I'm guilty, too. :(
kevinbeetle: "Yes. When her career washes up and her and Gavin move to Galveston, you will meet her at Hot Topic shopping for a Japanese cheerleader outfit.
Next!"
A new elite league could be formed without these owners. Can't say the same about the players.
Owners dont feel like they are entitled to all the revenue. They are asking for 50%. They also have to pay all costs such as employees, rent, travel expenses, cooling, heating, marketing, etc.
The players cant start a new league. They lack the $, the infrastructure, and frankly, brains. Maybe they can get something together, but it would be a miracle if they made $1.65 Billion in profits they would be missing out on with the NHL.
I dont think you can have one without the other.... but Id be willing to venture that people are more loyal to the crest than the player.
It's my favourite sport...as long as there is an honest competitive drive in the players, there is a purity to sports that none of this bullshit can't touch. Once the puck drops, none of this really matters.
Yes, people are more loyal to their team than the players (in most instances at least - depends how the player is being treated, and how that treatment affects the team).....but....I don't necessarily see that as a statement of support for ownership.
nor do I see a glut of businessmen who would be willing to invest that much to start from scratch. At least not in the next few years. They have trouble finding investors for the NHL.
Not to mention the complexities/cost of encroaching on NHL lease agreements with nearly every arena.
Would Sidney Crosby be better off taking $9,500,000 instead of $10,000,000 and not have to worry about shit?
Im not on one side or the other, but the players need to buckle down a bit, take the owner's 50/50 offer and get all they can out of it.
Over 1/4th of the season is now cancelled. So, players have lost 25% of their pay because they're unwilling to lose 7% of their pay.
This is what happens when you tell a group of high school educated millionaires to make a financial decisions.
The owners are crap too, but they hold all/most of the cards.
Because the owner/owners takes on ALL of the financial responsibility. The player only has to perform. He's paid based on his contract regardless of how the team does financially. The profit sharing with players in my eyes was always a bad idea.
It's not like these players are making minimum wage :fp:...
Millionaires fighting Billionaires...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The players only other options are Europe or the KHL ... those aren't glamorous choices ... the KHL has a 30 million cap, most of those teams play in old Soviet era arenas that seat 6000-7000.
The players have only 1 real alternative ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
In the end I'm with 81 NHL is dead to me. I would rather drive to Wheeling WV or down to Cincinnati and see some ECHL hockey. Cheaper tickets, entertaining and players who are playing for fun. Also I would rather drive up to Columbus and watch Ohio State hockey. I'm not a Buckeyes fan but it's better than this bullshit.
Crying over money these players, owners and league could give a rat's ass about the fans. Because they know that most of us are going to be dumb enough to fill the seats up again. Maybe one day i can get over this but for now and in the future kiss my ass NHL.
i believe its part of our local history curriculum ... so, it isn't forgotten ... :fp:
Actually DURP has a good point...why don't the players give the owners 50/50 of all outside endorsements? If the player were really serious as well they would propose doing away with guaranteed contracts...even if they allowed teams to rid themselves of 2 guaranteed contracts a year I think they might get a deal done. Too many overpaid players in the NHL.
The players want too make millions...but don't want too share in the risk.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
a contract is a contract ... why won't the nhl honour their contracts? ... and at the end of the day - the owners/nhl is making a killing now ... so, a few ill advised teams in poor markets aren't ... so, you want to screw the players so that those teams make tons of money and the owners make even more ...
look at the owner of the oilers ... he epitomizes what's wrong with the owners ... the guy is making a killing yet he wants the taxpayers to fund everything ... these owners just want more and more ... if you give them something ... they just take and take without giving anything back ...
give me 1 item in their proposal that is good for the players ... just 1 ... it's all about the players giving and giving ... with nothing in return ...
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8567798/2012-2013-nhl-season-week-4-simulation
Poor babies...must be tough working in sweat shop environment...how do they do it? just how do they cope? how do they get by? I don't support either side...its millionaires fighting billionaires...at the end of the day its the owners league...most if not all have other business interest...these hockey teams are more or less a hobby to them, a billionaires hobby
Yes a contract a contract...the NFL survives without guaranteed contracts, so can these NHL players.
It'll be cold day in hell before I ever throw my support behind athletes making millions...because if it wasn't for hockey they'd be making a fraction of what they do today.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Those standings are a farce Montreal at 9-2, Toronto at 6-2
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I suspect that a lot of the players signed long term deals over the past few years because they knew this was coming and were planning on drawing the line there and hope to win public support (those were the contracts they signed!) and not be affected by any CBA changes. Just look at all the 6-year deals signed this past Summer.
I would be very surprised that a typical NHL contract doesnt include language that subjects it to the terms and conditions of the current and future labor agreements, so in a sense, a rollback is part of the contract.
I could see the argument that the owners will take and take, so next time they will reduce it to 45% and so on... But thats not the case right now. 50/50 is on par with other (much more successful) leagues and the NHLPA enjoys those great guaranteed contracts. I dont think this is unreasonable at all.
WTS, I do think the NHL can move toward common ground with the existing contracts.
I think your probably right that the owners have an out in many of those contracts. I wonder if these players know how lucky they are...so many of them are just pampered babies.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
This is not true.
2/3 of the league lost money. Only 6 teams made anything you could consider a "killing"... and 4 of those are Canadian cities helped by their surging dollar since 2004.
Places that lost money in 'ill-conceived' markets include:
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Winnipeg, St Louis, Minnesota, LA, Washington, and San Jose.
http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/
Its bad for business when they have trouble getting owners to invest in the league.
I don't how true this is...I read the 7 Canadian teams account for 1 billion of the 3.3 billion (or whatever the revenue is).
And another point that should be made...why should Montreal (example) revenue share with Tampa...so the dedicated fan in Montreal has to pay 120 a ticket so some casual fan in Tampa can pay 20 a ticket...thats ridiculous.
Why doesn't Gomez share his salary with a union brother in Tampa instead
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I do believe that revenue sharing is necessary (as is player salary % reduction). The Montreals didnt complain when they were getting relocation and expansion fees.
I also do like the criteria too to prevent teams going through the motions and collecting $$$