Fixed
-
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
Fixed
because you get stuck on the amount. They make a lot, but that doesn't instantly mean that they need to capitulate to the owners who (most) make orders of magnitudes more. Why have the last 2 labor negotiations started off with a rollback of salaries? What happened in 8 years, when the league had really good growth and owners have been signing these deals to all of a sudden need to roll back? Did it 8 years ago, did it again, so now every time there is a labor negotiation you are at a starting point of rolling back salaries.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Anyone here have their ref's certification? Thinking about getting mine. The only issue is no car so I'd be confined to one or two metro accessible rinks that I assume probably already have a pretty deep ref pool.
wsoxfan1214
Banned
They're not as bad as NHL 12's.
Get used to it.
Many teams are still apparently losing money. A team's biggest cost is the player's salaries, so it seems natural for them to want to have some of that back to get out of the red.
I don't have sympathy for either side, but don't go crying about worrying how you're going to feed your family while making 15 times more than the average person.
KernelPanic
Member
Should be an interesting team to watch, I think the games will be on Team 1200, I wonder if we'll get any TV coverage ? (Doubt it). I wonder how Richardson will do as coach.
Would be great if they use Sportsnet Sens picked up the games.
Should be a good year for Bingo, I am more interested in Petersson, one of our most underrated prospect.
Trying to work through the five stages of grief. I'm in between two and three. I'll eventually skip four and go right to five.
well yes, the last sentence is correct. I have no sympathy for anyone who wants to push a "how can i LIVE! as an excuse" its better to just leave it alone and that you're arguing for what you are arguing for.
"apparently" losing money also... Are there better options for these teams then to continue to lose money by spending the minimum? Is there a path out? After how many years of increased prosperity the NHL has seen should they still be there? Why would an owner continue to want to own a team that consistently loses money where a temporary 20% rollback in salaries is going to help them for what, 2 to 3 years then they lose money again?
I thought it was Bingo, the game, until I read your post...
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Don't forget revenue sharing. "But, but, but why should profitable teams have to support the losers!?!? They should be able to spend what they can afford on players!?!" the other side tends to say. You seem to forget that the NHL has a gov't endorsed monopoly where the "profitable" owners get to make money by bringing in ALL THE OTHER TEAMS to play against eachother. The teams don't exist in a vacuum and the prosperity should be spread around.... o and teams that lose money for 15 years should be moved. That's just fucking common sense.
Teams are losing money because the NHL is managed extremely poorly from a financial point of view. Not even talking about decisions made relating to the game or "branding." The NHL REGULARLY makes decisions that are the equivalent of throwing money into a fire. No other sport really has that sort of issues. All leagues have their "PR" issues regarding things like rules, suspensions, and the handling of players, but the NHL is the only one where you actually look at the numbers of how huge amounts of money are spent and go "What the fuck were they thinking?" The players are right to not just agree to have labor costs get cut every few years so the league can keep acting like jackasses with no competition.
The players are absolutely morons for bitching, but that doesn't mean the union management is acting economically irrationally. If anything they're the ones making the most economic sense pushing for expanded revenue sharing.
I really have no idea. I'm not speaking for the owners or anything. I'm just guessing what the rationalization is for salary rollbacks.
i agree with you, not sure if you are just making a generalized statement. I'm not SOLELY advocating for under performing teams to be cast off, i'm advocating for ways to fix the teams or systems, and its obvious by what happened since the last lockout that the NHL can't fix it by arbitrarily rolling back salaries every handful of years when they have issues.
The players live in a world where all their friends make as much as they do, they should just realize that by speaking publicly about their woes to people who make less in a year then they do per game isn't that wise.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Yeah I'm agreeing with you... I was expanding on what you said.
Players = Idiots. Not news. Union management = Acting responsibly. No other union would act differently. League Management = Consistent incompetence of the highest order.
Turnbuckles in the corners, run-ins from he crowd and casket shootouts.
DAMN YOU CHRIS SIMON, DAMN YOU TO HELL
rather than have line changes every few minutes a buzzer goes off to let another skater from each team join the ice until each team is on the ice, royal rumble style
ended up halfway inbetween komisarek and lebda, we saw.
Kuro Madoushi
Unconfirmed Member
More cap space for us? Though I'd rather have him than Comasarek
HadesGigas
Member
Do away with those boring faceoffs and replace it with a scramble! Both teams rushing the linesman dropping the puck from some 20-30 yards away.
Lupul wrote an article on the lockout for askmen.com:
http://ca.askmen.com/sports/fanatic/nhl-lockout-2012.html
http://ca.askmen.com/sports/fanatic/nhl-lockout-2012.html
brucewaynegretzky
Member
And.... it's surprisingly on point. He doesn't whine about his money. He flat out OFFERS concessions, and doesn't even criticize the NHL for keeping the failing teams.
KernelPanic
Member
That's interesting because the NHLPA flat out refuses to accept any reduction in salaries and here Mr. Lupul says they are, maybe he is talking about that fantasy reduction in increases if league revenues keep growing at 7% (which they won't if this stoppage drags on).
brucewaynegretzky
Member
THEY OFFERED 52%!
Where is everyone getting "the PA won't accept cuts?" They won't accept cuts to PAST salaries. Which makes sense considering they were ALREADY AGREED UPON!
52% with guaranteed raises, fyi
brucewaynegretzky
Member
It was still a cut from 57% Pretty big cut, fyi. They still OFFERED a concession. What has the league moved from? Have they moved on revenue sharing? No. They consistently ignore the elephant in the room and keep on pointing at player salaries and say "LOOK OVER THERE." No other league has the same disparity in revenue that the NHL has and they REFUSE to even talk about it.
KernelPanic
Member
How are you supposed to hit 52% HRR without cutting existing contracts ? (unless you magically assume league revenues continue to grow which they won't). And what if league revenues shrink ? Players still get their money + raises under their proposal unlike now.
And that's why we have no hockey.
Yes they offered to increase revenue sharing from the current $150M to $190M-ish. PA wants $250M (at least) I think so they're getting there.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Because their initial proposal favored them, but was still a cut from their last contract? Bullshit. The reason we don't have hockey is the league's complete refusal to talk revenue sharing. We've seen the PA be flexible on percentage of HRR as long as there are assurances that the league is being healthily maintained financially, aka revenue sharing. All the league needs to do is say "Yea, you're right, we probably should stop pouring money into shit franchises without supporting them at least a little bit." That's. It. But they won't do it. And the reason is entirely egotistical on Bettman's part. The owners are never going to be happy about revenue sharing, but they'll take their medicine as long as the program isn't too expansive. Then all you need to do is cut the chaffe and move the crappy teams. I'd be willing to be if Bettman would come to an agreement behind closed doors with Fehr that Phx and Col would be moved in the next three years this deal would get done in a heartbeat. Unfortunately the PA has no reason to believe the league won't stop hemorrhaging money. They can't in good faith agree to anything like that when they just know the same thing will happen at the end of this deal because Phx and Col (and by that time I'd bet Nash) are STILL losing money.
And on the ridiculous numbers I can only say so many times that TOTAL dollars is completely irrelevant. All that matters is percentage. If HRR goes down then player salaries will go down as well. Yes I know that wasn't the INITIAL proposal, but it is the likely outcome, particularly when looking how the old deal approached that issue.
wsoxfan1214
Banned
Would be great if I wasn't smack in the middle of the Wolves and the IceHogs. Both are roughly an hour drive, but in different directions.
"Leafs fans are more committed to their team than Whitney Houston was to Bobby Brown. Overall, they’ve probably taken about the same amount of abuse."
:lol
wsoxfan1214
Banned
Edit: posted twice
KernelPanic
Member
Again they've already offered to increase RS. The problem is the players want their existing $1.8B with no cutbacks or escrow so the money has to come from somewhere else. MLSE isn't going to fund half the NHL.
You can relocate or move existing money losing teams all you want, there will always be teams that can't keep up with league growth, that's why you need RS.
Coldnoodle
Member
I won't get to see Ribeiro play for the Capitals ;_;
Finally get a competent number 2 centre, lockout.
Finally get a competent number 2 centre, lockout.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
So wait... we're faulting the PA for being forward thinking now and planning the future success of the league rather than catering to the financial whims of cities like Glendale? Got it. Yea. The PA is the problem.
Ehhh:
No. The owners are locking them out because if the season starts without a new CBA in place, the players could strike at an important point in order to force the owners into giving them what they want.
Lupul is doing a lot better at appealing to our hearts and minds, but he's still peddling misinformation.
Also, gotta love how he bookends his commentary:
lolz
Lupul is the same as the rest. He's just a lot better at reading how the fans think.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
How many times have we discussed how freaking easily that could be avoided? The two sides could easily enter a side agreement preventing that outcome. Every team in the league planned their cap around functioning under the old deal for this year. They would be just fine.
This is just a justification the league wants to give for being unreasonably obstinate.
If the players took a lot less money, the Coyotes wouldn't lose money the way they do in Glendale.
