Does Anybody Here Remember Vera Lynn? (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XXVIII
- Thread starter mouser
- Start date
- Status
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2004
- 34,319
- 19,392
You are kidding right? NFL rosters carry 53 players, 30 more than the NHL. Despite having higher max salaries, an avg NFL roster has around 35-40 players making less than a million dollars.
Well, they are right about the league needing more revenue sharing.
Otherwise, ya. Theyre heading straight for the cliff, and it seems like they wont see it until theyre going over it. Oh well, the fact that I miss hockey a lot will be balanced out by me having a handful hours more a week to do other things. And the thought of millionaires losing almost all their income purely to a misplaced sense of entitlement will also give me a chuckle from time to time.
Bingo Sens
Behind Enemy Lines
I am firmly on the owners side. Its their league, they take all the risk, own all the facilities, fly the teams all around the continent etc. The players play hockey, and got 57% of the pie? in what world did they think that could continue? They expect sympathy because ovechkin may have to accept a paltry 7.5 mil instead of 8? Yes, we can really relate to horrible atrocities like that. #THEPLAYERS and Fehr can **** right off. The only consolation of a lost season will be that it will hurt the players far more than the owners (some of which will do better financially if no hockey is played)
Last edited by a moderator:
mranderson
Registered User
- Oct 17, 2012
- 69
- 0
One thing that I found interesting regarding the last NHL lockout:
As he watched sports broadcasts - which very likely included coverage of the 04-05 lockout, the NBA's marquee man Lebron James was currently making millions.
IOW, at the time, he had a reference point to imagine what it would be like to suddenly lose all those millions.
As he watched sports broadcasts - which very likely included coverage of the 04-05 lockout, the NHL's marquee man Sidney Crosby was currently making nothing.
IOW, at the time, he had no reference point to imagine what it would be like to suddenly lose all those millions.
As he watched sports broadcasts - which very likely included coverage of the 04-05 lockout, the NBA's marquee man Lebron James was currently making millions.
IOW, at the time, he had a reference point to imagine what it would be like to suddenly lose all those millions.
As he watched sports broadcasts - which very likely included coverage of the 04-05 lockout, the NHL's marquee man Sidney Crosby was currently making nothing.
IOW, at the time, he had no reference point to imagine what it would be like to suddenly lose all those millions.
habfan1968
Registered User
- Dec 19, 2006
- 2,167
- 0
I'll just drop this off here, do either of the definitions make you think of the players?
en·ti·tle·ment/enˈtītlmənt/
Noun:
The fact of having a right to something.
The amount to which a person has a right
en·ti·tle·ment/enˈtītlmənt/
Noun:
The fact of having a right to something.
The amount to which a person has a right
WayneSid9987
Registered User
- Nov 24, 2009
- 30,054
- 5,676
Which side are you referring to?
There has been one side who's offers come with "take it or leave it" attached to it.
The players will be missing their third paycheck tomorrow. I think the league is playing mind games. Offer no contact as they lose another paycheck. Let em stew and worry about losing a full season.
InjuredChoker
Registered User
Yeah. From Bergenheim.
Bolded emphasis was from me.
What an idiot.
Source: http://www.urheilulehti.fi/jaakiekk...ajien-ahneutta-vaikeaa-ymmartaa#ixzz2CF1gJs2g
I have an idea. Since the players are holding on to the delinked structure, I think the owners should play along. First, you tell them that in order to accept their delinked structure that they believe so strongly in, they want a minimum of 8 years CBA length.
Year 1: 1.8B + 1.75% raise = 1.91 B
Year 2: 1.91B +1.75% = 1.94B
Year 3. 1.94B + 1.75 = 1.97B
This is where the union says that that the league should reach a 50/50 split. Now have the union put up or shut up with their framework and projected numbers that they've stood behind for so long and claim to strongly believe in.
So those first three years are delinked. For every year that revenue growth doesn't equal 7.2% growth, the owners will recoup the difference in year 4 of the CBA where linkage comes back into play. By year 5, it goes straight to a 50/50 for the rest of the contract. So basically, year 4 is where the league potentially gets reimbursed for any shortcomings of the PA's projected numbers.
Ex.
Year 1: Growth is 2.2% that means that the owners will add 5% to their already 50% in Year 4.
Year 2: Growth is 4.2% that means the owners will recoup another 3% in year 4.
Year 3: Growth is 6.2% that means the owners will recoup an additional % year 4.
Year 4: The collective difference would be 9% so in this year, the owners end up getting 59% while the players get 41%.
Year 5: League is all squared up from the PA's delinked structure and 50/50 is implemented for the remainder of the CBA contract.
Owners should challenge the players that if they want to change the status quo of linked salaries, they should burden the responsibility for their proposal because it's them that have faith in it, not the owners.
Just for kicks, I'd love to see their reaction to this. I don't think they'd go for it though, lol. Even if the players do agree to it, the owners stand to gain far more because that 7.2% is fixed and they must meet that condition. And the chances are that any repercussions of a lockout will be felt immediately after the lockout so if the owners agree to take the risk up front and give the players the potential rope to hang themselves with their delinked framework, then the owners will be recouping the difference at a point where revenues should be expected to be back up on the rise.
Year 1: 1.8B + 1.75% raise = 1.91 B
Year 2: 1.91B +1.75% = 1.94B
Year 3. 1.94B + 1.75 = 1.97B
This is where the union says that that the league should reach a 50/50 split. Now have the union put up or shut up with their framework and projected numbers that they've stood behind for so long and claim to strongly believe in.
So those first three years are delinked. For every year that revenue growth doesn't equal 7.2% growth, the owners will recoup the difference in year 4 of the CBA where linkage comes back into play. By year 5, it goes straight to a 50/50 for the rest of the contract. So basically, year 4 is where the league potentially gets reimbursed for any shortcomings of the PA's projected numbers.
Ex.
Year 1: Growth is 2.2% that means that the owners will add 5% to their already 50% in Year 4.
Year 2: Growth is 4.2% that means the owners will recoup another 3% in year 4.
Year 3: Growth is 6.2% that means the owners will recoup an additional % year 4.
Year 4: The collective difference would be 9% so in this year, the owners end up getting 59% while the players get 41%.
Year 5: League is all squared up from the PA's delinked structure and 50/50 is implemented for the remainder of the CBA contract.
Owners should challenge the players that if they want to change the status quo of linked salaries, they should burden the responsibility for their proposal because it's them that have faith in it, not the owners.
Just for kicks, I'd love to see their reaction to this. I don't think they'd go for it though, lol. Even if the players do agree to it, the owners stand to gain far more because that 7.2% is fixed and they must meet that condition. And the chances are that any repercussions of a lockout will be felt immediately after the lockout so if the owners agree to take the risk up front and give the players the potential rope to hang themselves with their delinked framework, then the owners will be recouping the difference at a point where revenues should be expected to be back up on the rise.
I really think Bettman has said f it if they don't come to us then so be it.
Could be mind games or just incompetence.
So are you saying the NFL did not have those rosters pre-Bettman? Since Bettman was hired NHL salaries have increased a little over a factor of 6 while the NFL player salaries have tripled. Your response doesn't come even close to explaining this.
Yeah. From Bergenheim.
Bolded emphasis was from me.
What an idiot.
Source: http://www.urheilulehti.fi/jaakiekk...ajien-ahneutta-vaikeaa-ymmartaa#ixzz2CF1gJs2g
HA! Goes to show some players cannot tell the difference between revenues and profits. Oh boy.
onlyalad
The bounce
- Jan 13, 2008
- 7,163
- 993
True but i think the players will soon be willing to negotiate. The owners have moved on several items already so I think the players may soon move off their our way or the highway stance
The PA is playing their cards well. Obviously we have the next wave of players heading to Europa right now, after two weeks which have been relatively slow on that front.
Satoru Gojo
Registered User
- Jan 15, 2012
- 4,282
- 5,341
onlyalad
The bounce
- Jan 13, 2008
- 7,163
- 993
That is a sign of panic. It shows that while the players are saying they are close and a deal will be done soon, their actions say they dont believe it
Yeah. From Bergenheim.
Bolded emphasis was from me.
What an idiot.
Source: http://www.urheilulehti.fi/jaakiekk...ajien-ahneutta-vaikeaa-ymmartaa#ixzz2CF1gJs2g
To be fair, that could easily by a mis-translation, or a reporter who is not well versed in financial terms.
Butch 19
Go cart Mozart
Maybe some of the players should read a few HF threads to get up to speed on what's going on here.
WayneSid9987
Registered User
- Nov 24, 2009
- 30,054
- 5,676
Indeed.
I can't fathom this league losing an entire season again. But one thing i will not do is blame one side more than the other.
InjuredChoker
Registered User
Any Finn could confirm what I wrote and seems like those were Bergy's own words, the article was signed by him.
Phil Parent
Sorel, 'fant d'chienne!
Most of them have not finished high school, or did so with some generous grades given to them because they were star athletes and not to be messed with. Tell you a story...and this one isn't even about players who have a PRAYER to go pro. And not really about the lockout, more about the smarts of hockey players.
Harry, maybe you've heard of this, maybe some others from Quebec have...we now have a collegiate league based in many many CEGEPs here in Quebec (CEGEPs are something like prep schools for university, but you can also learn a craft there, for those who don't know.)
The players in this league mostly come from Junior A and Midget AAA, SOME of them were drafted in the Q, some are Q rejects, some are rec league guys. All aged 17 to 20....
And they have this rule that states that if you fail a certain number of courses in a same program two terms in a row, you're off the team and you can't play anymore. So some players...they come in in Social Studies because that has the lowest prerequisites needed to be admitted, and it has some gimme courses that anybody can pass, they do 2 terms, pick up some credit, and they fail enough to be kicked off the team, THEN, they change programs. That resets their failling quota. They go into Hygiene & Security On The Workplace, then again, low-prerequisites, only a basic Secondary 4 course in chemistry on top of their high school diploma which they probably have if they were allowed in Social Studies... and they do the same thing. Well, now the 17 year old is 19 years old. His academic profile is a mess of failures and DNFs, no university is going to want him AND his hockey career is shot to high hell EVEN MORE DEADER than it was, because in terms of getting exposure for semi-pro leagues, you are better off in Junior A.
So what does he do? If you say, "Do it again?" you are absolutely correct, a CEGEP I know real well has even made a program just for them: A crash course on becoming the perfect steel plant worker. Requires no thought whatsoever, you have ZERO written work to do, no plans to read or nothing, they all get SUPER GRADES and they can BRAG that their student athletes are the smartest in the province!
****. And those that have talents let an old guy who's never played the game or cared for it convince them to leave millions they'll never see again on the table, instead of TAKING THE MONEY.
- Status
