Another Lockout

[Sens]

Lookout right before a 5-6 billion dollar TV deal would be stupid... that’s to much money

 

[Machinehead]

f*** the escrow.

f***ing billionaires making sure they get their 43 percent.

Precisely zero customers who pay into that 43 percent come to see the owners.

 

[Saltcreek]

It was already before. I predict a lengthy lockout, at least half a season.

Over what? The current deal is not perfect but it is not bad either. There are a few points to work out but none of them are lockout worthy.

 

[cowboy82nd]

**** the escrow.

****ing billionaires making sure they get their 43 percent.

Precisely zero customers who pay into that 43 percent come to see the owners.

You are right, but without owners, there is no league. Without owners, how is McDavid going to fly all over the country to play a game? The league needs both (players and owners) to survive.

 

[Eisen]

The problem is the players think they're worth more than they are. The PA has caused every lockout with their idiotic voting.

They think they're worth as much as the NFL, MLB, and NBA. The simple fact is they aren't worth that much.

I think the owners caused it. It's a hobby for them that doesn't has to be profitable. If you are not willing to spend for the fun, don't buy. No owner made their living with hockey.

 

[Eisen]

Over what? The current deal is not perfect but it is not bad either. There are a few points to work out but none of them are lockout worthy.

The owners are going to put something on the table that breaks things. Perhaps stricter salary limitations after entry level.

 

[Machinehead]

You are right, but without owners, there is no league. Without owners, how is McDavid going to fly all over the country to play a game? The league needs both (players and owners) to survive.

Survive? They're wiping their asses with $100 bills.

Very, very few people with the financial muscle to buy a major sports franchise made their money in sports. They don't really need the revenue outside of what is required to keep the lights on.

The 57-43 split is to make sure they line their pockets on top of whatever obscene number they're gouging off of their main business.

 

[Eisen]

You are right, but without owners, there is no league. Without owners, how is McDavid going to fly all over the country to play a game? The league needs both (players and owners) to survive.

Make it like the Packers.

 

[Saltcreek]

Survive? They're wiping their asses with $100 bills.

Very, very few people with the financial muscle to buy a major sports franchise made their money in sports. They don't really need the revenue outside of what is required to keep the lights on.

The 57-43 split is to make sure they line their pockets on top of whatever obscene number they're gouging off of their main business.

How dare the owners try to make a profit. You are right, they are bastards! They should be losing money for our entertainment!

 

[Saltcreek]

I think the owners caused it. It's a hobby for them that doesn't has to be profitable. If you are not willing to spend for the fun, don't buy. No owner made their living with hockey.

I do not understand this post. If the owners cannot make money then who will pay the players? The owners are not going to continually funnel money into a losing business, no person would willingly do that. At the same time the players do not need to make millions upon millions of dollars playing a sport for our entertainment.

 

[Machinehead]

How dare the owners try to make a profit. You are right, they are bastards! They should be losing money for our entertainment!

Nobody said they couldn't make a profit.

The salaries are set in stone before the year and the escrow kicks in when calculations are made at the end of the year. It's essentially a safeguard that allows the owners to steal the difference from the players if they don't make a profit, or a big enough one.

If you wanna make a profit, don't sign your name on contracts you can't afford!

 

[Eisen]

I do not understand this post. If the owners cannot make money then who will pay the players? The owners are not going to continually funnel money into a losing business, no person would willingly do that. At the same time the players do not need to make millions upon millions of dollars playing a sport for our entertainment.

They make mo ey from their other businesses and the spend that money on hockey. In addition, the fans often pay for tickets and they get TV deals. What a say is that hockey doesn't need to be profitable for them. It's a toy for them and they somehow convinced everyone that it's a business like any other.

 

[Saltcreek]

Nobody said they couldn't make a profit.

The salaries are set in stone before the year and the escrow kicks in when calculations are made at the end of the year. It's essentially a safeguard that allows the owners to steal the difference from the players if they don't make a profit, or a big enough one.

If you wanna make a profit, don't sign your name on contracts you can't afford!

What does this have to do with the HRR, which is 50% and not 43% as you previously stated, have to do with escrow? Also, you do realise it has been the players that have been using the 5% escalator and not the owners right? The players are the main reason why the escrow is an issue and not the owners. I think this year was the first year the players did not use the 5% maximum.

 

[Eyeseeing]

They make mo ey from their other businesses and the spend that money on hockey. In addition, the fans often pay for tickets and they get TV deals. What a say is that hockey doesn't need to be profitable for them. It's a toy for them and they somehow convinced everyone that it's a business like any other.

News flash comrade it’s a legitimate business.
Do you dislike capitalism?
The owners are it in for the money as are the players.
You expect entrepreneurs to subsidize pro sports as a hobby?
Wow just wow

 

[Machinehead]

What does this have to do with the HRR, which is 50% and not 43% as you previously stated, have to do with escrow? Also, you do realise it has been the players that have been using the 5% escalator and not the owners right? The players are the main reason why the escrow is an issue and not the owners. I think this year was the first year the players did not use the 5% maximum.

50-50 has been proposed, but it's currently 57-43. And 50-50 would be worse, so that's a moot point.

The NHLPA uses the escalator because in addition to the players already bringing in millions, they're beholden to a lot of players who are not and are looking for very significant raises when they hit free agency. That requires cap space, which forces the NHLPA to balance between a higher cap and higher escrow, essentially sacrificing money on existing contracts so union members can get new contracts.

They shouldn't have to make that choice. The owners shouldn't be entitled to a minimum return on money that they freely chose to invest. Wages that are contractually agreed upon should be met. Period.

 

[Saltcreek]

They make mo ey from their other businesses and the spend that money on hockey. In addition, the fans often pay for tickets and they get TV deals. What a say is that hockey doesn't need to be profitable for them. It's a toy for them and they somehow convinced everyone that it's a business like any other.

I cannot even wrap my head around what you have just said as there is just so much wrong with what you have said. Hockey is not a business? What? News flash, billionaires become billionaires by making money, not losing it. Also, by your logic, why should the players make money too? If hockey is not a business then why should they be paid at all?

 

[Saltcreek]

50-50 has been proposed, but it's currently 57-43. And 50-50 would be worse, so that's a moot point.

The NHLPA uses the escalator because in addition to the players already bringing in millions, they're beholden to a lot of players who are not and are looking for very significant raises when they hit free agency. That requires cap space, which forces the NHLPA to balance between a higher cap and higher escrow, essentially sacrificing money on existing contracts so union members can get new contracts.

They shouldn't have to make that choice. The owners shouldn't be entitled to a minimum return on money that they freely chose to invest. Wages that are contractually agreed upon should be met. Period.

First off, it is 50%, as stated here: https://www.tsn.ca/fehr-eyes-evening-the-scales-in-next-cba-1.1182401

Second, players are not entitlement to automatic pay raises. If they choose to use the escalator to bump up the cap then that increases the cost uncertainty to the owners and the league. That is ENTIRELY on the players. A quick google search has shown me that the NHL has not always met the projected revenue targets so naturally the 5% escalator the players used would have to be paid by them.

 

[Machinehead]

First off, it is 50%, as stated here: https://www.tsn.ca/fehr-eyes-evening-the-scales-in-next-cba-1.1182401

Second, players are not entitlement to automatic pay raises. If they choose to use the escalator to bump up the cap then that increases the cost uncertainty to the owners and the league. That is ENTIRELY on the players. A quick google search has shown me that the NHL has not always met the projected revenue targets so naturally the 5% escalator the players used would have to be paid by them.

Ok, then that's worse. Thank you.

Who's getting a pay raise? The salaries are set. It's whatever the two parties agree to in the contract and that's what they earn for however many years they sign for. They're entitled to earn that amount which the owner agreed to, not a raise.

You've somehow turned this into a raise in your own mind.

 

[Saltcreek]

50-50 has been proposed, but it's currently 57-43. And 50-50 would be worse, so that's a moot point.

The NHLPA uses the escalator because in addition to the players already bringing in millions, they're beholden to a lot of players who are not and are looking for very significant raises when they hit free agency. That requires cap space, which forces the NHLPA to balance between a higher cap and higher escrow, essentially sacrificing money on existing contracts so union members can get new contracts.

They shouldn't have to make that choice. The owners shouldn't be entitled to a minimum return on money that they freely chose to invest. Wages that are contractually agreed upon should be met. Period.

Ok, then that's worse. Thank you.

Who's getting a pay raise? The salaries are set. It's whatever the two parties agree to in the contract and that's what they earn for however many years they sign for. They're entitled to earn that amount which the owner agreed to, not a raise.

You've somehow turned this into a raise in your own mind.

You made this about pay raises, (it is right there in bold), you are the one saying that the players use the escalator so they can get better contracts because (and I am inferring) that previous contracts signed take up too much cap. I honestly think you just have a blind hatred for the owners and just throw out a bunch of key words to try and make a point. It is quite clear that you do not understand how the escrow system works and why it is currently so high. Player salaries continually to go up because the players are artificially increasing it with the escalator.

If the players want to ensure that everyone gets a fair contract that fits under the cap then those big names will have to take less, but that is not going to happen is it?

 

[Machinehead]

You made this about pay raises, (it is right there in bold), you are the one saying that the players use the escalator so they can get better contracts because (and I am inferring) that previous contracts signed take up too much cap. I honestly think you just have a blind hatred for the owners and just throw out a bunch of key words to try and make a point. It is quite clear that you do not understand how the escrow system works and why it is currently so high. Player salaries continually to go up because the players are artificially increasing it with the escalator.

If the players want to ensure that everyone gets a fair contract that fits under the cap then those big names will have to take less, but that is not going to happen is it?

The players getting raises are those going from ELC to big boy contracts. That's a reality in every sport under the sun and the owners knew that when they got involved.

We're not talking about big names taking less and we're sure as hell not talking about existing contracts going up.

I understand exactly how it works and I understand exactly the role the players union plays. I simply refuse to blame the union for literally doing their job.

The players with existing contracts are entitled to the wage in that contract. End of story.

Don't wanna pay it, don't offer it, don't sign it.

 

[Machinehead]

What do we honestly expect the players association to do?

"Welp, there's an escrow system. I guess we should just tell rookies to go back home and sell used cars because we wouldn't want the escrow to go up."

Yeah, let's blame the players for boning themselves in a system that was designed, by nature, to bone them.

The players lose either way, the owners win either way, and everyone feels bad for the owners.

 

[Saltcreek]

The players getting raises are those going from ELC to big boy contracts. That's a reality in every sport under the sun and the owners knew that when they got involved.

We're not talking about big names taking less and we're sure as hell not talking about existing contracts going up.

I understand exactly how it works and I understand exactly the role the players union plays. I simply refuse to blame the union for literally doing their job.

The players with existing contracts are entitled to the wage in that contract. End of story.

Don't wanna pay it, don't offer it, don't sign it.

So it is the unions job to increase the escrow payments that the players are complaining about? If the union bumps up the cap and the revenue target is not met then it is the owners that should pay? That makes a lot of sense...

I am still not sure on how any of this is related to current active contracts unless you are hinting at removing guaranteed contracts like the NFL?

 

[Machinehead]

So it is the unions job to increase the escrow payments that the players are complaining about? If the union bumps up the cap and the revenue target is not met then it is the owners that should pay? That makes a lot of sense...

I am still not sure on how any of this is related to current active contracts unless you are hinting at removing guaranteed contracts like the NFL?

"If the players don't want to lose money in escrow, they should just lose money before the season starts!"

 

[Eisen]

I cannot even wrap my head around what you have just said as there is just so much wrong with what you have said. Hockey is not a business? What? News flash, billionaires become billionaires by making money, not losing it. Also, by your logic, why should the players make money too? If hockey is not a business then why should they be paid at all?

Indeed that is what I said. Hockey is a sport. The business part is cheapening it. And if the owners make millions, why shouldn't the players get paid? After all, it's them the people come to see. Not the owners, they just fronted some cash. I can't wrap my head around that people are so readily accepting this. If the owners wouldn't press every cent out of it to the point that the sport becomes unwatchable due to commercial breaks, the players wouldn't get as much, unless some owners can't control themselves (which they usually can't). It's not the players trying to squeeze more money out of a failing business, it's the league making money and the players want their share. It is them who people come to see. They are the product (I hate using this commercialised language for people).

 

[Saltcreek]

"If the players don't want to lose money in escrow, they should just lose money before the season starts!"

How are they losing money before the season starts? Everyone works under the cap system and the cap is based of league revenue. Unless you can tell me how to accurately determine what the league revenue will be at the end of the year then the escrow system will not go away. If the players want to pay less in escrow then they have to be actively helping in controlling costs. Two such methods is to cut back their salary demands and, shockingly, stop using the escalator every year!