The owners in the NHL are multi millionaires and billionaires. They will rot the players out because they own NHL teams for fun and definetly not for profit. The owners enjoy the competition, atmosphere and the prestige of owning an NHL franchise. The PA missed the best deal they were ever going to get 42.5 with no linkage. Take this post and pin it on your bulletin board because after this is all over the players will have already thrown Goodenow under the bus and they'll be lucky if they have a deal in the 32-35 million range WITH linkage. Remember the players have a very small window to be millionaires while the owners ARE already millionaires and that is why the owners will be driving the bus Goodenow gets thrown under. As DeNiro would say ...YOU BLEW IT !!! excellent work Bob, If I was a veteran PA member who had lost 10 million this season because of your incompetence I'd have your F'n head on a stick last Wednesday night.
i cant say i understand the PA
- Thread starter Brent Burns Beard
- Start date
- Status
me2
Go ahead foot
Russian Fan said:
The fans are milked as much as possible, the TV revenues are weaker. Who do you think they are going to pass that problem on to? The zamboni driver or the players?
Russian Fan said:
How does the owners having less money to offer the PA help the PA?
If the business becomes a 1B dollar industry and the owners totally cave and give the PA $700M, they still are $500 M worse off, each and every year.
How does the league or even some of the owners losing their franchise help the PA?
Where else can they find an offer of $42.5 M per team?
If 10 franchises fold, that is 250 PA members who aren't employed by the highest paying league in the world.
Yes there are. Unfortunately for you, only one side makes any sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
russian fan.. you keep saying there is no difference between a cap of 42.5 and a cap at 45..
first of all, i disagree.. but thats not the point
the point is, the PA has yet to offer it! their $49 cap is ridiculous.. it doesn't address anything seriously... if they were serious, that $45 cap would have been negotiated on saturday
first of all, i disagree.. but thats not the point
the point is, the PA has yet to offer it! their $49 cap is ridiculous.. it doesn't address anything seriously... if they were serious, that $45 cap would have been negotiated on saturday
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
DR said:
Damn, we think alike again. It is getting pretty damn cold in hell these days.
I definately think that the owners will never declare an impass. Why take the chance, they can outwait the players. They can take losses against their other businesses while they wait (deductable losses btw, so it is only costing them what, 60 cents on the dollar?) in order to increase franchise values down the road. I am betting, as I am guessing the owners are betting, that the players will not last two full years and will break before the snow first falls. Likely long before. Forget an impass, if the players are banking on that option they have misjudged, yet again.
But even if we are wrong, they declare an impass and let us say the NLRB rules against them. $1.5 billion in salaries and the same onerous CBA reinstituted? The Mighty Ducks could not even get a $30 million offer for the team. Multiply that by 30 and the entire league is not worth much more than a billion as presently constituted. They would fold, at lwast losing franchises and at worst never make it back. This is called a pyric victory. I just see no way the players can win.
Mothra
The Groovy Guru
Russian Fan said:
well...you have part of it right.....its like a poker game, the problem is its like me going into the game with 10,000 and the guy across the table has 10 million....I cant win, eventually he will wear me down.
Its been said countless times....the player have been and are still fighting a battle they can not win....its really that simple. They may not like it...it may be bully tactics (something the union has done before)....but it is what it is. Their best deal has past
Bicycle Repairman said:
I might be wrong, but I don't think the NLRB has the authority to do that. They're going to tell the owners how to run their businesses and force them into a CBA, under a pro-business Republican government to boot? I don't think so.
All they can do is send them back to square one. No impasse = back to the negotiating table + severe penalities. That is, only if the owners are found guilty of having negotiated in bad faith.
I beleive the owners have the hammer in this.
Mothra
The Groovy Guru
Russian Fan said:
This lockout wont change the day to day lifestyle of any owner.....even if it lasts 3 years......the same can not be said about the players
There are only so many hockey jobs available worldwide that can even come close to paying what these players are used to. In almost every case players will have to live a more frugal lifestyle....and if a NA player, most likely overseas, away from family, different culture all together. Some may have no problem...others, especially with families will have more difficulty trying to explain to their wives why they live 7,000 miles from home so they can make a small fraction of what they used to.....yes the owners will lose money.....but it will all be on paper.....while the players that had 800K/year contract in the NHL and bought a 1.2 million dollar house will be hurting much more
Johnnybegood13
Registered User
- Jul 11, 2003
- 8,718
- 981
A very remote possibility at best,in order for that to happen it would have to be proved that the league didn't lose money during the current CBA.Bicycle Repairman said:
Good Luck.
me2
Go ahead foot
Mothra said:
The richest 20% of players never have to play again, though many are in Europe anyway.
Another 20% are pretty well off and have beer money jobs in Europe.
When do the bottom 60% start the mutiny...
Mothra
The Groovy Guru
me2 said:
I know what you are saying.....but I think its worse than that. The richest 20% may never have to work again...if they handled their money wisely.....if they arent spread so thin due to living at the level of their income.....if they dont have families. If any of those arent the case they could be in trouble.....I could see a single guy, even living a little over the edge being ok......but again, lets say they have kids...private schools, good college, money could be an issue......its way worse for the second group.....beer money gigs in europe wont pay the bills for your kids when they go to college.....or to put thier parents in a nice place when they get old.....the money these guys make takes care of lots of people in most cases.....and they have counted on it I am sure.
Russian Fan said:
750 players see their average income drop from $1.8M to under $100K
30 owners lose $20M each (I think for most it is considerably less that that...), but still are worth at least $100M to BILLIONS.
The players are a lot worse off that the owners. The owners will just claim the losses to decrease the taxes on the rest of their earnings. The players will permanently lose a year or two of a huge income that will never be made up.
djhn579 said:
I'm sorry but if I worth Billions like you said I lose 20M$ & I manage this franchise like it was a toy, it's because 20M$ out of BILLIONS doesn't mean anything , don't you think ? One day you use the argument that the OWNERS cannot afford to lose money & today you say ''HEY THEY ARE RICH AS HELL, LOSING 20,000,000$ IS NOTHING , THEY CAN DO THIS LOCKOUT FOREVER''
And maybe you didn't read anything except what comes from the NHLCBANews.com but the 1,800,000$ is an average not what 50% of the players are having.
Thunderstruck said:
Who said they have less money to offer than the last offer last week ? Because they said so ? It's part of the process. One side wish to go 1 way & the other side think the other way will lead them to something not so bad. That's why we have a lockout don't you think ?
Thunderstruck said:
It's all speculation but tell me something , the last 2 years of the actual CBA, no matter how many losses they had, they control salary on a free market. I'm not saying it should be the same CBA because I'M NOT THINKING THAT. But I just can't believe we say to the GM's & Owners ''So okay you did it wrong for 10 years, we forgive you, from now on we will fight in order it won't be possible for you to make mistakes''.
Thunderstruck said:
It won't help the PA & that's why I said on another thread that it should be written in the next CBA that the NHL guarantee to not contract any teams.
Right now the last offer, no matter what so many think, never ''GUARANTEE'' to still have 30 teams in 3-4 years even if the PA agree to the owners offer. So the PA should just sign because Bettman said on a conference without any details ''We will provide revenue sharing to make sure every team will pay the players''. It never say anything about make the franchise viable.
The CAP thing is only a structure to control salaries but it didn't gives stability to the weaker franchise & BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE PA IS CARING ABOUT HOW THE RICH TEAM SUDDENLY GOING FROM 20 to 60M$ OF PROFIT WITH A CAP NEED TO HELP THE SMALL.
Right now as of today, the owners side is all about word & NOTHING ABOUT SUBSTANCE when it's all about revenue sharing.
Thunderstruck said:
Are you smart enough to ask yourself what the NHL has done to make sure Carolina ? Nashville ? & some other teams will survive with a 42.5M$ cap when they couldn't go under 30M$ before ?
I don't want you to answer me about that but please take a look at it just for criticism & pure debate for yourself. I'm not pro-pa & everything I write on this thread seems so, why ? I'm just playing devil's advocate, I just want to make people just share both view. Not suddenly becoming a pro-something but just to get an idea that the owners are not what they are & the players even with a lot of blame too are not the SUPER EVIL you get on a marvel comic book.
Thunderstruck said:
I never said that. Everytime I speak for something to share a PA , all the pro-owners got to say are the same rhetoric over & over said by the CBANEWS.com
The PA got a blame in this also, I said it a LOT of times & still say it but that doesn't they need to be SQUASH, CRUSH because the owners & 80% of the fans who don't have a clue except ''PLEASE SAVE MY SMALL MARKET TEAM'' about this negociation.
Do I have a specific clue ? no, I'm not an insider but being on a union & on a negotiation table once makes me see both side of how it is possible we're still here on february 23rd talking about this.
I'm not pointing you but can't you see sometime that so many pro-owner argument are just bashing & trying to discredit the other poster ? like NO ONE from Philly, NewYork, Colorado, Detroit SHOULD SPEAK about this because they're gonna get crushed by any pro-owners poster even if there's some validity & interesting point in what he said. The only thing the other poster will say is ''You're a Rangers/Leafs/Fleyrs/Av's/Wings fan aren't you ?''
Hell even BOSTON now feels like a SMALL MARKET , can you believe it ? Yes this GREAT CITY where the OWNERS is so cheap that he prefers HUGE PROFIT over making his fans believe they can compete & right now it's all the players fault & not Mr.Jacobs.
Just ironic if you ask me.
Steve L*
Registered User
Then the NHL loses half a dozen teams and scores of players are out of work, how does that benefit the NHLPA?Bicycle Repairman said:
Steve L*
Registered User
So you think every company should run at a loss to fund their emplyees lavish lifestyle?Russian Fan said:
Steve L said:
Again will everyone come in here & answer me with a question ? I know it's easy because all you do is challenging the guy who got opposite view than most but still , you don't even answering your own question.
Steve L said:
So you think every owner should ask to their employee how to manage they business in order to get healthy in order to not be stress & feel that like they succesfull ?
This kind of questions can go either way.
Russian Fan said:
You do understand that in some cases you have to take short term pain for long term gain. Once the owners get a CBA in their favor, they will get back everything they lost and probably more within 5 years, even if the lockout goes into a second year. The players on the other hand have no way to get back the money they are going to lose this season and possibly next, no matter how good the CBA is for them...
Russian Fan said:
No S***? Really. Wow. I guess that makes the point I was making completely irrelevant... NOT!
And the players that are being hurt the most by this are the bottom 50%, all for the sake of the biggest money earners...
Oh boy
I think Russian fan is arguing the impossible to inflate his post count.
I am going to try and help him out with as simple an analogy I can use. Bear with me Russian Fan. You are a player ok? You get paid a dollar a day. You are locked out and you lose that dollar. Same with the 750 other players, so as a group you are losing 750 dollars every day. I am an owner. I make one hundred dollars a day. But ONE of my many businesses is having labour issues, and do to that I am losing 2 dollars a day. Same with my 29 other owner buddies, collectively we are losing 60 dollars a day.
So, the players lose 100% of their dollars, regardless of the total ($50.00$, 1.5 Billion). The owners are losing a VERY SMALL percentage of their yearly incomes. Some are losing less than they would if they were playing. How, with any kind of logic or rational thought can you sit there and say that the owners situation is as dire as the players? The could fold all 30 teams, write off the loses and go back to making money as a ship builder or Televsion or whatever they do to make the money that allowed them to buy a franchise in the first place. You really need to give you head a shake. Look at things objectively.
Dave
I think Russian fan is arguing the impossible to inflate his post count.
I am going to try and help him out with as simple an analogy I can use. Bear with me Russian Fan. You are a player ok? You get paid a dollar a day. You are locked out and you lose that dollar. Same with the 750 other players, so as a group you are losing 750 dollars every day. I am an owner. I make one hundred dollars a day. But ONE of my many businesses is having labour issues, and do to that I am losing 2 dollars a day. Same with my 29 other owner buddies, collectively we are losing 60 dollars a day.
So, the players lose 100% of their dollars, regardless of the total ($50.00$, 1.5 Billion). The owners are losing a VERY SMALL percentage of their yearly incomes. Some are losing less than they would if they were playing. How, with any kind of logic or rational thought can you sit there and say that the owners situation is as dire as the players? The could fold all 30 teams, write off the loses and go back to making money as a ship builder or Televsion or whatever they do to make the money that allowed them to buy a franchise in the first place. You really need to give you head a shake. Look at things objectively.
Dave
If you are going to "play devil's advocate" (a rather appropriate title for someone defending Goodenow's tactics) please at least attempt to do so with some realism.Russian Fan said:
If the owners bring in less money, they have less money to offer the PA. Are you willing to at least admit to this BASIC FACT?
The problem for you is once you accept this basic reality, the huge fault in the PA's position becomes apparent.
It is NOT speculation. If the PA scored a HUGE win and got 70% of the revenues, but have damaged the league to the point that revenues are cut in half, they will still be far worse off than had they accepted linkage at 55% of a 2+B industry.
When you face up to this reality you will see the PA's position for what it is.
To answer your attempt at misdirection, the only time the teams are able to "collude" to control spending and address the systemic problems in the previous CBA is during the setting of the new CBA. It is in the NHL's best interests to set up a system that pays their players a fair amount, but doesn't allow the PA to exploit the "mistakes" to raise their share.
The NHL has guaranteed that they will share enough revenue to allow all markets to meet the salary floor. I think the PA is well within its rights to negotiate a clause stipulating the penalties for teams failing to do so and the penalty ($100 M?) to be paid to the PA should any franchise fail.
In no way do I think the PA has the right to dictate the terms of revenue sharing between the owners, but I do think the PA is well within their rights to protect their interests by clearly spelling out the penalties involved should the owners fail to live up to their word.
The NHL has addressed this issue reapeatedly by guaranteeing sufficient revenue sharing to allow all teams to meet their financial commitments to the PA. You can continue to ignore this fact, as you do with all the others that point to the foolishness of the PA's position, but that does not change the reality.
Describing someone who consitently presents the PA side of the debate as pro-PA is accurate. Your motivation is irrelevant.
I have never accused the PA of being evil. They are following a seriously flawed strategy set by a leader with a faulty agenda.
- Status
