-
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
Yeah, actually I think I misinterpreted McKenzie's tweet about punishing the teams with front-loaded contracts. My bad.
apocalidiot
Banned
Damn... I just got excited for real right now. I am excited but god forbid if this doesn't happen I might commit seppuku.
:lol
KernelPanic
Member
I think the Flyers might be on the hook for Weber's contract as well since they're the team that actually offered it.
Why would they be?
KernelPanic
Member
Well I'm not sure, they created the contract that Nashville matched ? Dunno how that would work.
The contract is signed between Nashville and Weber though, Philly has nothing at all to do with that contract anymore. I don't know why they'd have to carry anything from that? Or am I misunderstanding you?
SpectreFire
Member
Guys.
The Hobbit is a trilogy.
Discuss.
The Hobbit is a trilogy.
Discuss.
TemplaerDude
Member
Whaaaaaat.
I'm not sure I like this or not.
I'm not sure I like this or not.
I'll add it to the list of things I don't care about.
SpectreFire
Member
Officerrob
Banned
Would the Flyers be on the hook if Carter or Richards retired early because they signed them to those contracts?
That seems to be the case.
Officerrob
Banned
Yikes!! Hartnell has a contract until he's 37, Bryz until he is 40, and Carter until he is 37. If these guys retire early the Flyers could be fucked
So then the likelihood of Luongo being traded would remain exactly the same.
Hard to believe that if he were to retire at the age of, let's say, 39... when he's making just $1.6 for that season... the Canucks would suddenly eat a $5.6m cap hit for three seasons just because Luongo decided he doesn't want to continue playing. Fucking ouch.
Hard to believe that if he were to retire at the age of, let's say, 39... when he's making just $1.6 for that season... the Canucks would suddenly eat a $5.6m cap hit for three seasons just because Luongo decided he doesn't want to continue playing. Fucking ouch.
That's kinda confusing though. Hypothetical situation, a team has salary committed to the cap, season starts. Then one of their ex-players (or multiple ex-players) decide to retire halfway through the season, suddenly the team has 10 MIO more salary and is over the cap. Will they be forced to suddenly trade away 10 mio worth of players halfway through the season to get back under the cap or what oO
It doesn't have to be confusing just because you make up a hypothetical situation that would never happen.
Mid-season 'superstar' retirements are very rare, there aren't that many relevant players, and the cap hit would be halved if half the season had already passed.
But yes, if Luongo were to suddenly retire mid-season (instead of just waiting until the summer to announce his retirement as normally happens) then the Canucks would be on the books for a $2.5M cap hit and, if they were at or near the ceiling, would have to make an immediate trade or roster adjustment in order to be compliant.
You're right actually. I was thinking the PA wouldn't mind it since only the teams would suffer... but of course that just means that there's less cap space to pay for players generally if they're having to cover retired ones. And they needs their monies.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Detroit will be screwed for a decade. Thanks, Holland!
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
I like this. It's going to be FANTASTIC.
Same here.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Fair. I was WAY more optimistic then and the owners hadn't gone full retard yet. Not many employers can claim "We're losing money!" while simultaneously bringing in record profits. Fucking Phoenix.
EDIT: I'm still saying my point of "They're making to high a profit to cut into the actual season" prediction was right. We're gonna get 82 games.
PROFITS != REVENUE
Holy shit business isn't your strong suit
To help you understand
Revenue is the money incoming before expenses
Profit is the money incoming after expenses
Players money is the primary expense
Revenue goes up, expenses go up
The primary increase for the NHL revenue was the Canadian dollar. Why? Because they are Canadian businesses that pay in USD, while all their revenue is in CDN
So when the Canadian dollar goes from 65 cents per every US Dollar to price parity they are technically bringing in more USD wise but... It rocketed the cap even though revs weren't technically increasing... It was the exchange rate. It was always the exchange rate. So what happened was American markets, which had fairly minimal revenue change ended up having huge caps and the Canadian teams are the only ones really profiting.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Hypothetical:
If a player retires with a BDC can the issuing team buyout the remainder? Or would it be forced to term?
If a player retires with a BDC can the issuing team buyout the remainder? Or would it be forced to term?
brucewaynegretzky
Member
What the fuck are you talking about? How do expenses go up solely from revenue going up? If you hold expenses steady and revenue goes up then profits go up! The bottom line here is that AS A LEAGUE profits went up. A lot. But the league won't acknowledge that because a segment of the league (Coyotes, etc.) are losing money. HOWEVER, the profits of the other teams still outstrip the losses of the losing teams. THIS IS WHY REVENUE SHARING IS IMPORTANT!
I've regularly said that if the PA was negotiating with each team individually you would have a point. Unfortunately they don't because the NHL has a protected monopoly. The thing is that if the NHL had kept the 57% THEY STILL WOULD HAVE MADE A PROFIT. Phoenix wouldn't have. Columbus wouldn't have. Those are shitty management decisions. Read the Deadspin article on Bain's attempted acquisition. Those teams would have been the first to go because they are just money sinks. The NHL is doing the equivalent of throwing money into a fire by keeping those teams around, and yet still manages to produce a league wide profit. Somehow that's the players' fault?
EDIT: You're right that the exchange rate had an effect, but that's rather irrelevant if you implement rev sharing to create more parity. Bottom line here is that the league should not be allowed to bargain as one labor unit but not one economic unit because the rich owners gouge the players for gains without really helping out the poorer teams.
I'm just reading through this article on the Edmonton arena situation. I had no idea about any of this - your owner sounds like a huge douche who is bending over the city. Living in Buffalo, I can completely relate (not referring to Pegula <3, but the Bills owner is all about exploitation as well). Fuck this guy.
Rodeo Clown
All aboard! The Love train!
Revenue goes up, the cap goes up, so the floor goes up, so teams have to spend more money.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Still same percentage though. And if you're not spending to the floor then you can keep it perfectly level. It's all the same percentage of revenue. So your rev/cost ratio is the same. Again this wouldn't be a problem if they just had revenue sharing.
But it's an average across the entire league where Canadian teams were the only one to gain via exchange rate
So expenses went up (for all american teams) while the revenue of teams didn't really go up- all that happens with the exchange rate is the Canadian teams expenses went down
As I have shown before
Canadian teams are paying a ton less than in 2004 (leafs spent like 2012 equiv of $120 million)
But US teams revenue is seeing minor increase, but not enough to offset the explosion in player costs
Does it make sense to you, yet?
The Canadian dollar is the primary reason for the revenue increase, not some magical newfound interest in the game as much as I wish.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
I still fail to see how a robust revenue sharing program DOESN'T fix this. Canadian teams are gaining from the exchange rate, but they'd also be contributing more because they'd be contributing in American dollars to the rev sharing pool.
So now... The cap was put in to save the canadian teams- and now that the 7 teams are profiting wildly for the first time in 20 years, you want to take away that profit?
Say that you do- then what? everyone breaks even or earns what? $5-10 mil a year? Who is going to pay for new arenas? Cities? Look outside, the economy is so screwed up- who would invest in places like Dallas, Colorado, Anaheim, San Jose when they need new arenas? Anaheim and San Jose currently have the oldest arenas in the league.
You have to think logically here instead of blindly pampering towards the players deluded point of view.
These are businesses, and right now outside of the top 10... They aren't very profitable
Oh lookie here:
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=407542
NHLPA ain't impressed? You don't say!
Greedy fucks
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=407542
NHLPA ain't impressed? You don't say!
Greedy fucks
brucewaynegretzky
Member
I'm not being deluded. I think that when the LEAGUE is profitable all teams should be profitable and when it ISN'T then all teams should feel the pain. If the league wants to reap the financial benefits of being able to act as a cohesive unit then the teams should be more financially linked. They are not traditional independent businesses. They function in a monopoly market where they artificially set prices and have a market that is interdependent on eachother. Costs and profits should be shared to a certain degree because they're allowed to play outside traditional rules of a market economy.
Hey guys! Every teams star player should make more than the team that pays them!
(This is exactly what you're suggesting)
Yeah its called negotiations, of course they won't accept the first deal, they will take the next 7 days to get more out of the deal.
The most important thing if they use this offer as the base to a final contract and negotiate off it.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Ok buddy.
This is the NHLs 4th offer, not the first
i'd hardly call the first 3 "offers"
KingHenrik30
Member
Wow. A lot of big words being thrown around this thread right now. Too much for my tiny brain to handle.
How about some levity?
http://m.nypost.com/p/pagesix/house_murray_calls_kelly_lynch_husband_xSwp3gxt9exE7mKVE4ICnI
How about some levity?
http://m.nypost.com/p/pagesix/house_murray_calls_kelly_lynch_husband_xSwp3gxt9exE7mKVE4ICnI
CrazedArabMan
Member
But I like my mini flag pin
I can see that if you walked into where I work now, that you would probably jump out a window with such distaste (going by this post and the one about David Booth hunting).
Also, NHL news, I was looking at the full proposal and I noticed they had a section on re-entry waivers for players playing overseas (meaning they don't have to go through re-entry waivers), would have been nice to have that when we signed Nabokov. :/