TemplaerDude
Member
I love lamp.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NHL Lockout With Your Cock Out |OT|
- Thread starter Marvie_3
- Start date
brucewaynegretzky
Member
What is so ridiculous about these proposals like you said? The PA agreed to a 50/50 split. They already agreed to that. The NHL hasn't "moved" at all. They've just reached a reasonable place. Imagine if the PA had stayed at wanting the status quo and decided to make the NHL actually show where the hell all this hardship is. The difference between the pro-owner and pro-PA crowds is quickly becoming about stupid shit like "professionalism" and not about the terms of the deal. If the PA accepted the deal as is it would be a MASSIVE loss of dollars for the players, but for some reason they should just be happy with that? Ha.
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
For me it's that the streaming services are so expensive and more nefarious ones do not work on iPad. The AHL would be an acceptable substitute to me if I could watch it. Right now my only option is maybe going once a week to the Central League.
SpectreFire
Member
As opposed to not playing hockey for a season, which would be a massive gain of dollars right?
Bingo.
This is what I don't get? How has the PA not compromised? They've said they recognize they're willing to go from 57% and end up at 50%...That seems like compromise to me?
...But then the NHL set out their guidelines on what they want in terms of player contracting rights and reportedly haven't been open to negotiating that AT ALL. It's fine to want to restrict the ridiculous deals your owners give permission to your GMs to sign the players to (hey, kind of fucked up, but whatever!), but to just lay out terms and say "fuck you, this is what we're getting" is ridiculous.
What happens the next time the CBA is up? Owners rolled them twice in a row, what reason on earth do they have to not do it again next time? The time after that? Where does it end?
Mike Works
Member
The fact is you guys are fucking brainwashed by hockey journalists, which I find hilarious. I'm not on either side of the matter, because I think both sides are fucking idiotic to have let this reach the point it's reached. The other hockey forum I post at (which has a much more elevated conversation in my opinion) is much, much more on the players' side, and frankly I trust their opinion more than yours and Dopeyfish's.
But when all is said and done, it doesn't matter. You guys can go mob mentality against the NHLPA with the slanted, keyhole information we're all being afforded. There are two sides to the argument, and unfortunately both sides are god damn morons when it comes to the health of the game.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
That's a loss of dollars to both sides and part of a labor disagreement.
People like to say "But the owners have other income." And that's an external source but it is a clear LOSS to the independent organizations that are their hockey teams. No business person is happy about losing potential revenue. Like I've said before it's about finding a deal that maximizes for both sides across the life of the deal with the losses accounted for. The owners are just trying to union bust at this point by taking excessive losses than are economically rational.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Where is this magical place you speak of? Shoot me a PM!
I'd also like to know. I probably won't even sign up, but I'm curious.
Mike Works
Member
SA's Sports Argument Stadium
You sure elevated conversation is your forte?
Edit: Good to know Something Awful is where this wonderful melding of minds is taking place.
SpectreFire
Member
Giroux for Lombardi and Reimer. Discuss.
Elevated conversation on SomethingAwful?
brucewaynegretzky
Member
I've tried numerous times to discuss labor economics and got "It's not a job." In response. I'll admit to being stubborn, vulgar, and belligerent, but I hardly think my arguments are at the same level of "Don Fehr is an asshole."
Their contracts are through the CBA, no CBA = contracts aren't worth a thing.
If you are losing money in your business, wouldn't you want to deal with the issue? 47% is still higher than all 3 leagues. Surprise!
Daly says the NHLPA brought up 17 contract issues and they have shifted or made deals on 14 of them. Sure sounds like not budging! Hint: I trust daly over fehr.
Contracts go through the CBA, new CBA means how the contracts are ported forward is changed. Hence why they bargain 1 on 1 and the CBA changes ultimately overrides the initial process as they bargain COLLECTIVELY. If there is no CBA, their contract has no standing under any law.
The NHLPA hasn't moved- have you seen their Econ proposals? Players started at 57% old HRR with increases every year- what is their proposal now? It's the same damn thing. 57% with increases every year. Their proposals never went down to 50/50, ever. NHLPA said they did because they expect 7% growth over 5 years where a 5% increase means that in year 5 under 7% growth, players would receive 50% (in their mind)
In year 5, under 5% compound, players would receive 2.4 billion
In year 5 if 7% is achieved league revenue would've $4.6 billion- not 50/50
Thing is... The contract would be guaranteed while the growth isn't. That's what you call a bad gamble. Salary cap was put in for cost certainty. 57% in year one + 5% every other year isn't cost certainty, it's stupid mathematics.
Yes. A huge chunk of the NHL disappeared in 2005-2006, did you notice? You think after 3 drafts the nhl wont be the same as it is now?
Some players will fuck off thinking there's money elsewhere (there isn't)- but the new league will then sign whatever player - it would be rough but will eventually get the best and hopefully brightest this time around
I'm a leafs fan - we already have scabs, as far as I'm concerned it just levels the playing field
SpectreFire
Member
Why the fuck are we arguing over which group of rich people is more right than the other?
I've been saying it the whole time...Fuck both sides!
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Where are these mythical losses? Everyone loves to say how much teams lost last year, but compare that to how much the other teams made. I may be COMPLETELY off on this, but didn't PHX (the biggest failure of all) lose approx. 30m last year? Good revenue sharing and a slightly above 50% deal EASILY fixes that. Just make the top 10 profit teams in any given year give up a % of profit to the bottom 10. They wouldn't make that money w/o their govt sponsored monopoly to play against solely the other NHL teams, so make them pay the teams contributing to their bottom line. Boom. Problem solved. Instead they slash costs by villainizing their golden gooses and taking ridiculous losses based on principle rather than economic good sense. On top of that MOVE TEAMS THAT DON'T MAKE MONEY. Most of the teams that are running at a loss will ALWAYS run at a loss. Give it up and don't blame the players.
AngmarsKing701
Member
can someone answer this? What happens to HRR right now? If I walk into a store and buy a hockey jersey, how does the revenue from that purchase get split?
By pr you mean use common sense and extrapolate truths from the bullshit antics of the NHLPA? When it comes to math, it's very fucking easy to see which proposal makes sense and which doesn't. It's not my fault people like you and brucewaynegretzky refuse to use reality as a basis- just like the NHLPA.
The PA proposal is like a business way of saying "can we have a penny on day one doubled for 60 days instead of each of us getting a dollar for every 2 dollars we get?"
One is simple... Based in reality and a simple economic structure, one is a trick.
NHLPA keeps hoping to trick the nhl with their bullshit proposals
NHL is trying to find a structure that is still fair to the players, but lowers the impact on teams and strengthens the league going forward.
You can trust fehr all you want and believe whatever lie he spews, but I ain't putting any weight to that dirt squirrels words.
At 57%, profit for all teams with 100% rev share would be $5 million (last year) - if the league gets 50%, that's $12 mil per team
That's not a lot, still. But it's a start. They should be down at about 40-45% like the other leagues.
Not sure you looked at the players proposals, but theirs is already north of 57% and haven't shown any willingness to go below 57%
Hopefully I'm not totally wrong, but revenues generated now, or during what would've been the 2012/2013 season, are used to calculate the salary cap (HRR) for next year, the 2013/2014 season.
You've been much more belligerent than me during these discussions over the past few months, so go fuck yourself.
Meh, people take pay cuts all the time.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
You're running under an assumption that every team should run at a profit every year and the rich teams have no responsibility to prop up the shitty ones to preserve the league.
Guess what, PHX shouldn't make money because its a shitty business. Same for CBJ.
Box Stretch
The Leafs, Habs, Rangers, Canucks, and Oilers combined for $212 million in profits last year. The other 25 teams combined for $86 million in losses, however, keep in mind that according to Forbes the Coyotes (24.4 million), and Blue Jackets (13.7 million) combined for $38.1 million of those losses. Cutting or moving the teams that just aren't financially viable (Phoenix and Columbus are a good place to start) would take a huge strain off the league. A league that doesn't make huge profits shouldn't be keeping dead or dying franchises on life support.
I find it extremely strange the league cut and ran from Atlanta so quickly but continues to battle so hard for Phoenix.
It was meant as a lighthearted comment. You obviously took it way differently than I intended it.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Sure, when business is bad. League PROFITS (see that Dopey? Rev-Cost!) have gone up every year since the last lockout. But somehow costs are preventing the league from making money.
Dopey made up a bullshit inflation argument about revenue a while back, but ignored that the exchange rate affects costs for those teams to. Moving the deadweight teams and having real revenue sharing fixes all these problems, but owners would rather cut player salaries because the rich owners can then take a windfall in huge increased profits w/o creating any value in their business.
That was me getting my point across while making a joke (you called me belligerent and I respond with more belligerence).
All teams in the NHL should be ABLE to profit- oh boy we should punish Phoenix and Columbus because New York, toronto and Montreal are raking in the money!
Teams should be ABLE to advertise in their markets, be ABLE to afford every player in the league and be ABLE to do all the things the big teams can do.
If that doesn't make sense to you, then you should stop posting in this thread and go back to school. Stop treating teams like Phoenix and Columbus like they are Africa and start treating them like teams that are unable to reach their potential due to circumstances out of their control!
No! All teams must be instant successes! In all honesty I'm still bitter the jets ended up in Phoenix and Columbus got an expansion over Hamilton- but the reason they are in the mess had less to do with them and more to do with completely unrelated circumstances
No! We should blame Phoenix and Columbus for the Canadian dollar growing 70% in value across 3 years! You suck Phoenix and Columbus!
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
Damn, I was hoping NHL 13 would be the greatest one yet. What happened with the most recent apart from the obvious shitty netcode and glitches?
Checkmate, sir. You win.
I love when jokes have to be explained.
If by I ignored you mean you ignored?
Because I talked specifically about the exchange rate, the compression and expansion of teams on a regional basis but you outright fucking ignored it.
Why? Because you have no clue how this works and what it alters.
And profits is not the same as revenue you moron
Yikes...Hockey has always been a fringe sport. Moving it to non-traditional markets like Phoenix, Ohio, Atlanta, etc was always going to be a risky proposition. There is no culture there. You can try and grow culture, but the reason those teams are failing lies (at least in part) in the fact that they're in markets where people just do not give a fuck about hockey. Phoenix has been a playoff team and they still can't draw.
There may be other circumstances (like the arena location in PHX), but in a league that runs on such slim margins already I don't see the point in propping up franchises in markets that may never ever work out anyway. A place like Phoenix is a money pit for the NHL right now in my eyes, and the NHL isn't big or profitable enough to keep tossing cash into that hole.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Ok, I'm starting to see your argument slightly better here, but I still don't buy it as "punishing" them.
They're not competitive businesses. We have reason to believe other markets WOULD be. They shouldn't be protected by artificial measures that create giant windfalls for the other teams that take no responsibility for building the league that make them money. Other markets are gonna grow and hurt other teams. We are talking about nearly two decades of unprofitability with no sign of improvement even with a new CBA. That's not punishment. Its business.
So long as Mike continues to drop by occasionally to shame us, I think we can thrive off the contact high.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Dopey, in order to reach a point where cost equals what you want it t, in order to make the shitty teams viable you're taking MILLIONS and giving it to teams other than those that are struggling. And you talk about the high 40's rates in other leagues, but that's how much money goes out which is noticeably less than their negotiated salary caps (which makes sense since that's a max amount). You can't keep conflating the two. A true 50/50 split would be a HIGHLY competitive rate, despite the league being profitable with a 57 rate already.
Not necessarily. By getting rid of some of those teams, you increase the rate at which league revenues grow. Depending on the rate of revenue growth, their may be other teams that get in trouble because they can't keep up with increases.
The market in Phoenix has been a complete failure in every sense of the word so I think moving them is the right idea. When you can't make a major sport work after 15 years in one of the biggest markets in the country and you can't even find someone willing to own the team without massive subsidies from local governments, it's time to cut your losses.
The problem with Columbus is that they've never been able to put everything together with any sort of consistency. It's hard to build on anything when you've only made the playoffs once in 12 years. If Columbus can put together some winning seasons, I think they'd turn it around.
They didn't have a choice in Atlanta. The ownership group(ASG) owned both the team and the arena. Once ASG made it clear they didn't want the team and weren't going to allow them to play in the arena going forward, there was nothing the league could do except move them.
This is why the NHL was trying to adjust HRR - to account for arena expenses 100% before player costs (they are 50% now) and to align arena generated revenue outside of gates (drinks, food and parking) as unrelated to hockey revenue generation. Some teams don't earn from that stuff, so the leafs who charge $9 for watered down beer to drink our sorrows away kinda detracts from a team like LA who doesn't earn money from arena revenue or a team like Phoenix who sells their beer cheap because of low demand. So in the end a team who doesnt have certain revenue outlets ends up getting punished just because they don't.
You get all expenses covered and the appropriate money calculated and then it's easier to do revenue sharing. The cap is artificially inflated due to Canadian dollar and lots of little issues like this.
NHL tried to partially fix this by making all merchandise revenue divide equally to every team, but the arena revenues fuck things up a bit.
The lower the cap is, the easier it is for teams like the leafs, habs and rangers to throw money at the smaller teams.
The next step after that would be every team pays 50% of their revenue and to control other things like the amount of GMs and scouts teams can have (toronto had 5 GMs last year)
You control that stuff, then money can spread around easily
NFL did their stuff by sharing gate, which is what I hope the nhl can do.
We can only hope we are worthy enough.
I don't really disagree with you, but how long do you give it? That team doesn't look poised to start winning anytime in the immediate future and just traded away the one marketable "star" player they had for role players.
How can they advertise said star player if they don't have the money to run ad campaigns?
A lot of these organizations are almost exclusively advertising by doing community work or buying paper ads
Instead of running full on barrage. Some areas don't know these teams exist because they can't effectively market themselves
It takes money to earn money
If you're operating a loss, you start running out of revenue generating scenarios.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
The problem with that is then its just another windfall when you change that definition. Leafs keep charging shittons. The players see none of it and it never gets factored in to how much the players are making their teams. Of course the league sponsors that. It doesn't "spread the money around." It just takes money out of the shared pool. The Coyotes had to be in Toronto on that night so they could have a game and the leafs could charge you $500 to get drunk and depressed.
