- Status
golfmade
Go Preds Go
he is right though. With the league being shut down the "pie" will not be as big and owners will fight harder to have money they could make saved.
This labour war has now come to be very messy. NHL hockey will no longer be the same. I am just getting feed up with the union (and over paid player) and the owners. the sport in NA is heading for ruin.
I wish that most of the players didn't have to go through this. I know that many of them wish that the league and union would just get a hard Tax system going that is based on the income the league earns each year.
A cap will just not help the players, and weaker teams.
A weak tax only helps players and teams in a good market.
A strong tax will help everyone. Players and the owners. Just as long as it has a cap like the union first asked that gets more painful after each year of going over the threshold but it must be very hard on the owners to do so.
Personly I would have a tax system that runs like a cap.
first year
35 million after that $1 per $1 going over.
40 million $2 per $1
second year
35 million $1.5 per $1
40 million $2.5 per $1
Third year
35 million $2 per $1
40 million $3 oer $1
four year and counting.
can not sign UFA
can not increase RFA wage (i.e. the amount the team spent in total they can not spend over that amount.)
continue to pay tax.
This labour war has now come to be very messy. NHL hockey will no longer be the same. I am just getting feed up with the union (and over paid player) and the owners. the sport in NA is heading for ruin.
I wish that most of the players didn't have to go through this. I know that many of them wish that the league and union would just get a hard Tax system going that is based on the income the league earns each year.
A cap will just not help the players, and weaker teams.
A weak tax only helps players and teams in a good market.
A strong tax will help everyone. Players and the owners. Just as long as it has a cap like the union first asked that gets more painful after each year of going over the threshold but it must be very hard on the owners to do so.
Personly I would have a tax system that runs like a cap.
first year
35 million after that $1 per $1 going over.
40 million $2 per $1
second year
35 million $1.5 per $1
40 million $2.5 per $1
Third year
35 million $2 per $1
40 million $3 oer $1
four year and counting.
can not sign UFA
can not increase RFA wage (i.e. the amount the team spent in total they can not spend over that amount.)
continue to pay tax.
Just wondering....after how long can the NHL start to implement replacement players?
Because the NHL might lose money while the NHLPA is locked out but when they throw in the replacement players...won't they start to make money? paying the guys echl money pretty much to play in the NHL, these guys would play hard. All these guys would play hard to earn the chance to stay on when the NHLPA finally caves in.
Replacement players are the way to go, just want to know how long it would take to implement it.
Because the NHL might lose money while the NHLPA is locked out but when they throw in the replacement players...won't they start to make money? paying the guys echl money pretty much to play in the NHL, these guys would play hard. All these guys would play hard to earn the chance to stay on when the NHLPA finally caves in.
Replacement players are the way to go, just want to know how long it would take to implement it.
mattihp
Registered User
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
I don't agree with Bob on this. I think the effect of a prolonged lockout will not be that detrimental.
I really like the chance of the owners the longer time goes. A cancelled season is the best thing that can happen to the owners and to this game.
With they lose a little attendance and interest? Yeah. Will they make up for it and breathe a lot easier? Damn right.
If there's no sane deal to be made, no deal should be made.
I can wait as long as it takes.
I really like the chance of the owners the longer time goes. A cancelled season is the best thing that can happen to the owners and to this game.
With they lose a little attendance and interest? Yeah. Will they make up for it and breathe a lot easier? Damn right.
If there's no sane deal to be made, no deal should be made.
I can wait as long as it takes.
Its not like the owners are going to have a total loss, they do own the rinks and can use them for events such as concerts and what not which will generate some revenue for the owners away from hockey.
Go Owners Go!
Go Owners Go!
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
I.am.ca said:
Indeed. And if the conflicts last for too long, replacement players might be fun too.
They can wait a lot more than the players long term. That's what every ownership in sports has failed to realize until now. All the North American sports leagues have acted like 6 years old little girls and given in to players.
Players will always win short term. You need to lose at least a full season. If the sports ownership had been running their business like men, we wouldn't be in this mess. We wouldn't even be talking about players getting more than 50% of the revenues of the league as something "acceptable".
I am still not sure Bettman and the owners are serious enough to do this. But if they lose a season, this will be the best news in sports in a long time and I would expect other leagues to follow this model from now on because I garantee it WILL work and ownership will make shocking gains.
It's time for owners to stop playing nice.
Vlad The Impaler said:
Ok hopefully you can answer this for me, HOW LONG do the owners have to wait till they can get replacement players???
I am hoping for sooner not later.
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
I.am.ca said:
Yeah because we all each team will have over 41 concerts a year. To my knowledge Joe Louis Arena hasn't held an unscheduled event this year. And nothing new has been planned. Then again JLA has never been the hot spot to hold a concert or other events that dont involve ice.
Here's the JLA schedule.
http://www.ticketmaster.com/venue/65554/
I.am.ca said:
You make a good point. Moreover, there are 9 NHL owners who are also NBA owners. Next season, they may very well lock out the NBAPA to get back a concession or two. There will be cost certainty in the NHL. There has to be and this is not about Bettman. Every team ownership wants it including the wealthy clubs to drive up their net revenues.
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
I.am.ca said:
They have to declare an impasse, then have to go in front of the NLRB and hope they ruling is in their favor. Then have to figure out if they can use replacement players in Vancouver and Montreal. Best case scenario is next year.
Why have to figure out for Vancouver and Montreal? is there something special about their situation and why the hell hasn't the league declared an impasse?
Ok so i was watching sportsnet just now and i heard this from John Davidson. That if they go through the impasse and the NHL wins, the NHLPA then has to go to the labour relations or whatever in the states and face a 5 panel of whatever to appeal. Out of the 5 are 3 republicans who apparenly hate unions so the NHLPA could be screwed with the appeals.
I say do it, the impasse, fans have suffered enough, put something out on the ice, i don't care if we have to see mascots take over in their uniform, i'll go to the damn game and watch.
I say do it, the impasse, fans have suffered enough, put something out on the ice, i don't care if we have to see mascots take over in their uniform, i'll go to the damn game and watch.
I.am.ca said:
I think the reason behind this is due to the fact that labour laws are different in BC and Quebec essentially saying scab labour is illegal. Also, declaring an impasse isn't the easiest thing in the world, you need to be able to prove certain things that at this point I don't think the league is able to establish. Sorry to be vague, but I'm not an export on labour laws.
I know there was a thread on this, but can someone please remind me of the legal ramifications that the fact that NHLPA is not a union but simply an association has on this situation?
I.am.ca said:
The problem is that instead of cutting up the billion dollar pie, they are both too busy stabbing each other with the knife.
No, its the NHLPA rejecting anything that the NHL offers, they won't give any reasonable offer. The NHLPA wants to dupe the NHL into taking an offer that sees the players losing money this year (which is already happening) and then going back to normal next season and making sure the players make even more money with the luxury tax.
The NHL wants to cut the pie in pieces to make sure its all good, the NHLPA wants the biggest piece and won't take anything less and thats just plain selfish.
The NHL wants to cut the pie in pieces to make sure its all good, the NHLPA wants the biggest piece and won't take anything less and thats just plain selfish.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 187,185
- 39,214
Vlad The Impaler said:
The owners won't use replacement players because they know that they would be spending more money to have them play then they make from it. If the owners resort to replacement players they lose the labor war, so it won't happen.
The thing Bob is right on the most is that the longer this thing goes the more everyone loses and I would bet my whole life earnings that they wouldn't get another TV deal if they lose a whole season.
go kim johnsson said:
How do you know the owners would lose money if they ice a replacement team? they will make some money, but more than they would sitting around doing nothing. If you get some of the guys from the NCAA teams that are overage and are done and want to play to join teams and some AHL guys that are not tied to an nhl contract and maybe guys like Crosby and what not to come in as replacement players...would people not show up?
If the Canucks were to ice a replacement player team, i'd go and watch. I love hockey and i would watch it regardless, it would be raw hockey and the talent level would be pretty equal.
Donnie D said:
Reminds me a lot of kids at that certain age that are more concerned with how big everyone else's piece is compared to their own. Tough to get through to those kids that the important thing is that they have a nice piece of pie in front of them..
Vlad The Impaler said:
I bet scoring would be up. Goalie's wouldn't be as good, more mistakes would be made. Mistake-free hockey, while impressive, isn't necessarily the most exciting thing to watch all the time.
MarkZackKarl
Registered User
FLYLine27*
BUCH
I.am.ca said:
You think if they throw replacements in they will MAKE MONEY?! They would loose so much MORE! Im sure the LINES would be out the door on people wanted SEASON TICKETS for a bunch of scrubs.
Maybe they will buy tickets to a game or 2 but thats when they realize the garbage they are watching. Ratings will not be the same and they will make less money on TV Deals. Sure ticket prices will be cut but still not slashed enough to make up for the talent on ice. NHL ---> Replacments = Toilet Bowl(XFL Part II)
But once again Bettman will never be stupid enough to bring them in...even HE isnt that stupid..its a big bluff that the players know is garbage.
Pardon me for my ignorance, but where has Gary Bettman (or Bill Daly or any member of ownership for that matter) ever said that the NHL was intent on using replacement players?FLYLine4LIFE said:You think if they throw replacements in they will MAKE MONEY?! They would loose so much MORE! Im sure the LINES would be out the door on people wanted SEASON TICKETS for a bunch of scrubs.
<snip>
NHL ---> Replacments = Toilet Bowl(XFL Part II)
But once again Bettman will never be stupid enough to bring them in...even HE isnt that stupid..its a big bluff that the players know is garbage.
Someone please enlighten me on this.
-----
Bulin Wall
- Status
