Discussion in 'Montreal Canadiens' started by Account Terminated, Dec 8, 2012.
Last one was well over 1,000 posts. Continue here.
I'm not the type to take sides here. I've been reading the posts on this thread and some show a lot of anger and emotions, which is understandable.
But there's one fact, one simple fact that should be remembered, specially by the players, like Brandon Prust, for example:
- the ones that are losing the most money right now are NOT the owners. In 5 years from now, the same owners will still be BILLIONNAIRES. They were, they still are and still will be. They've learned how to manage money, they are astute people in their respective fields and did NOT become billionnaires because of hockey. So, for the VAST majority of them, hockey is not their main revenue source.
- players, on the other hand...well, in 5 years from now (and Fehr said it himself), at least 50 p. cent of the actual players will have retired. Meaning: they are missing out on a hefty paycheck, that would, for some, secure their future. Heck, some of the players won't have have a 5-year career, meaning they are losing probably 25% of their hockey lifetime revenues. That's a lot.
- We all know that 90% of hockey players don't have a great educational background. When hockey is finished, they will have to find a job like you and us. They will live on their earnings for a while. Let's wish that they take good care of their money. Because history has shown that pro athletes have a lot of problems dealing with retirement and having the well dry up. Can't remember the numbers put forth by the excellent ESPN piece 'Broke', but I recall seeing a number far exceeding 50% of athletes facing financial difficulties. Or something to that effect. Why? Because most of them can't handle the millions. They were not brought up to manage money. They were brought up as hockey players, as athletes. To perform on a stage. Not to juggle investments.
That brings me to this conflict. Although I understand why the players are so irrate at the NHL and their owners, I'm baffled by the fact that they are missing out on MILLIONS in salaries. MILLIONS. Millions they will never catch up on. That's a fact.
I would sign the last offer. Because I would be missing out on some pretty crucial cash for my retirement years. Let's not forget that hockey players retire at around 32-33 years old for the vast majority of them (don't know if there's an average age, but it should be close to that). 32-33 years old is freakishly young. I mean, in the real world, this is when you start to establish yourself.
Hockey players, if you read this thread, please consider this: your career is short and by missing out on some pretty solid revenues this season, you are jeopardizing your financial future.
Looking forward to seeing all those Korean and Mexican players in the NHL.
You know, we're not talking about t-shirts here.
on the other hand, profitable teams are losing money NOW. and some of them like the leafs who are making 100M and NYR making 60M a year may have not recovered those 100 and 60 M.
But their owners are not the ones losing money. The Rags are owned by a huge conglomerate, just like the Leafs. And the conglomerates are owned by people that will still be billionaires, because it is just one asset in their portfolios.
So the money they lose is just an accounting figure for one of their assets. Players have all but one source of revenues. And it's pretty dry right now.
Listen, I think the owners played all of this all wrong from the get go. They wanted to break the players from the get go. Didn't happen. At least, not yet. But if I was one of the Campolis of the world, I would sign. Because it has been proven over the last 30 years that the Campolis of this world finish with less money in their pockets over their working lifetime than you and me.
they are not making any profits with their team right now wich is the equivalent of losing money. The conglomerate may make money in other ventures, but when it comes to hockey every game cancelled = lost revenue.
I agree with you. But at the end of the day, the owners will still be rich. The players, less.
Those who say that the owners have the most to lose don't really understand how the business world works. Owners will always have the last word. In any work stoppage, those who suffer are the employees. Not the owners. Go ask PKP if he lost sleep over the lockout he imposed on the Journal de MontrÃ©al. Now, go ask the reporters the same question. I know some of the personally who lost EVERYTHING: house, wife, mental health...
I don't think that's envy at all. People are fed up and just want to watch some hockey. They look at the situation thinking ''What's really gonna happen to the players?'', they'll still make millions and keep doing what they love, something so many other people in the world wish they could do as well.
That's all it is.
Panthers aren't going anywhere folks. The owner owns the arena and makes money from it.
Agreed, but in a market where there's multiple owners, more or less half of them not making any profits, a work stoppage isnt really beneficial to anyone involved.
Individually, some of them may even benefit from that lockout, but as a group, they probably wont.
and owners will still make billions, and I dont see many complaining about them being Billionnaires.
I need to take a break, thus, I'll take a break. I'll end up on a positive note by writing out what I think would be a fair CBA.
1) Owners want the players to take 50% rather than 57%, over an 8+2 year term.
As this is still a financial concession worth ~1 billion dollars from the players; the NHLPA would be compensated with temporary exclusive renewal power over the CBA once it is over. It would be an 8+2+2 term, with the NHLPA having the power to renew the CBA up to four years. This would also allay's Fehr's concern that kids now 13 years old should not be ruled by the current CBA.
Further, the NHL would increase revenue sharing. It should, at a minimum, scale with total league revenue.
2) Owners want to rollback existing contracts
If the owners do not agree to a 100% make-whole, then players on rolled-back contracts should be entitled to walk away from their contracts and declare themselves UFAs.
3) The NHL wants 5-year contract limits and salary variation limits.
In return, the players need to get something else. A good idea might be a trade limit, that a team can average no more than 1 outgoing and 1 incoming player per year, with some reasonable limits in case of injuries. Alternatively, the no-trade clause can be made universal for contracts of duration 2 years or shorter.
Alternatively, every player who is traded would be given a $500,000 compensation for relocation, at the owners expense and not counting towards the cap.
Contracts longer than 5 years would be allowed with the caveat that it would be 5 UFA years; so an RFA could sign a 9 year contract if it is his second contract, as in 5 UFA years and 4 RFA years. This would allow team-building. The fact is, for example, that the 6-year contracts the Habs have with Gorges, Price, Pacioretty are a two-way street. They benefit both sides... Habs management benefits from long-term security.
On salary variation limits. If it becomes impossible to front-load contracts, then the age 35 retirement rule should be dropped as it would no longer be necessary and all it does is encourage discrimination against 35+ players.
4) Owners want the UFA age to be 28 rather than 27.
OK, but players no longer on entry-level contracts are grandfathered to the age 27 rule. For players who end up on the age 28 rule, they will now receive better salaries as RFAs -- the NHL should agree to reduce the outrageous compensation packages for offer sheets.
Overall, I think such a package would be a generous balance of give and take by both sides. It would be good the growth of the game, induce more stability, good team-building, and be good for parity. However, I think the owners would reject because it is constructed on the logic of give and take.
Then he doesn't need revenue sharing now does he? And the value of his team is perfectly fine right? Lets call this lockout over then all is fine eh.
Alright, so here is my take on the argument about top notch doctors, air travel paid for, top end equipment and the rest of what the owners are paying for.
Here is what I would envision happening if these expenses were left to the players own devises, some players would end up not paying for the top of the line things or get the absolute best medical treatment and essentially be "cheap" about it.
All it would take is for one owner to say ok we will provide you with the best travel, the best equipment and the best medical staff to gain an edge over other teams. Then that team would be at an advantage over the rest, eventually other players from other teams could point to the team that offers every advantage to win and say well I'm going to be cheap about it unless you pay for it. My job is to play hockey, I'll play hockey.
What my point is in all this is that the owners are voluntarily paying the cost of good travel, and top end equipment and the rest to give their team the best advantage possible to try and win.
If an engineering firm wants their engineers to be the most proficient possible to gain an advantage over their competitors the company will invest money into software and hardware to make the engineers work better. I mean a company has no obligation to provide engineers software tools like solidworks or MATLAB or whatever to do their job. I mean really the engineers should be able to figure it out without those tools, but if the company wants to be competitive and beat competition to the punch the company is going to provide those tools. No way are you going to get engineers to front the $10 000 cost for those software packages.
And I've worked at places were they want to nickel and dime on software, well the work can get done, but it can be done more efficiently and faster if provided with the right tools. So my point is, to have a competitive franchise you need to provide to your employees the same tools as your competitor if you want to be directly competing with them. This isn't to say you can't be competitive without it, but those that try to will be at a disadvantage.
So sure you can leave it to the players to pay for their travel and all accommodations and the rest, but I think that from a team efficiency point of view, leaving those kinds of logistics to the players would create far more problems than solve.
Player have, IMO, the wrong negociating mindset. They are in a give and take mindset.
They think the more they push, the more they get. But actually, the more the push the more they lose. The only way the have a chance to catch up what they are losing is to have a quick and long deal. But they are actualy trying to get a shorter deal then what the owners have offered!!! Completly rediculous.
unless the deal is the right opne for them, not at all, a long deal wouldnt do them any good.
Personally, I don't like the idea of term limits on contracts. I side with the players on this one. As a compromise, how about something like this:
The cap hit for each player would equal the average of the current year on his contract and the subsequent two years. If there were only two years left on the contract, it would represent the current year and the following year and if it was the last year of the contract, only that year would be taken into consideration. Signing bonuses would represent part of the contract for the first year.
There would be no variance limits and no upper limit on a contract other than no single player could earn more than 20% of the salary cap.
That should eliminate front loaded contract and those ridiculous long contracts that were designed to do nothing more than circumvent the cap.
I have probably overlooked a flaw in this idea so fire away.
Apologies if this was already posted. Turns out Bergevin was working behind the scenes last week with Lemieux, Brisson et all.
i hope hockey starts up again soon, montreal is taking a big hit espically the hotels, i went from doing 40 hours a week down to 10-20 we would do 100+ covers a night on hockey games for the resto. Now we are only doing 5-10 a night no need to be two cooks is what my boss says....
While for the most part I agree with you, gotta hand it to Fehr, last week he got an even better offer from the NHL than what they offered to save the 82 game season, which I did not expect. The problem is he kept poking the bear, and now it bit him in the ass.
Whether the deal is fair for the players or not, they are going to have to realize sooner rather than later, that the best offer they can get has already been offered (and taken off the table). Hopefully they'll suck it up and take the deal, and hopefully the owners won't be dicks about it and put it back on the table.
Totally out of context.
Wow, that's great to read. Glad we no longer have a zombie running our team.
At the end of the day, the owners will always "win" these negotiations. If the players want to play in the NHL, they have to play by the NHLs rules. If they don't like them, they're free to play in the numerous other leagues over the world. Even at 50/50 the average NHL player will make way more money than any other league. The KHL cap is at $36.5 million for comparison.
The players are fighting for things that only really affect the top 10%. I don't really think it's fair to put the contract cap at 5 years though, but I like the idea that signing with your previous team gives the option of a longer contract.
It isn't fair that players signed contracts, and now the owners don't want to pay the full amount, but at the end of the day, these guys will still be multi-millionaires. The ones making league minimum, or close to it, won't be affected.
December is going to be hell, TV is going to be filled with Christmas specials, please sign a new CBA.
Separate names with a comma.