Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]There are two ways the lockout could hurt owners, and neither of them are significant for most of the teams in the league. The first would be a loss of fans in emerging markets. The stoppages in 1994 and 2004 showed that stronger and more traditional markets would not suffer a long term loss in fan support. However, weaker and less traditional markets had troubles re-engaging their fan base following the stoppages. So those teams, like CBJ and Phoenix, could suffer long-term from a decrease in attendance (not that Phoenix has much room to go down). However, even these teams would receive short term benefit as most of them are suffering annual losses in revenue. This would stop the bleeding for one season, and potentially bring them out the otherside in a better financial position. Also, with the Coyotes looking like they may not be sold for this season, each owner in the league would see an uptick as they would not have to cover the Coyotes operating losses. The other way it could hurt the owners is if the owner of a particular team recieves most of their revenues from the team itself. Meaning those owners who are not heavily divested in their investments stand the most to lose. That's admittdly a small group. The Flames ownership group, Peter Karamanos of the Hurricanes, Sunrise Sports and Entertainment in Florida, Craig Leipold with the Wild (though he is more diversified than the others in this list) Eugene Melnyk with the Sens (that's mainly due to  bans on him from various Securities Commissions), San Jose Sports and Entertainment Enterprises, and SLB Acquisition Holdings LLC with the Blues.  These are the owners who stand to lose the largest portion of their personal annual incomes, and for some of them it's a massive chunk (also I never included Lemieux because of his partner Ron Burkie's personal worth of $3.2 billion). Everyone else, well their NHL revenues are a tiny portion of their annual incomes, and they can easily weather a year without hockey with the revenue losses barely registering as blips on their balance sheets. (For example, the Jets only account for about 0.35 per cent of David Thomson's net worth - for us working stiffs that's about equivalent to 6 hours and 40 minutes of work a year. It would take a lockout of about 460 years before the loss in revenue equalled his net worth). If the richer owners have a system in place to carry these 7 a bit, then there's no reason they wouldn't look at a lockout favourably.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    The thing is , under Gary Bettman's watch the league has already suffered a 2 lockouts, with one season being lost completely. Can he really afford another situation where the league loses any games due to a labour war ? I know he talks a tough talk but what about the new massive deal with NBC ? He just might stand to lose a little more this time around.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    I don't think NHL owners are worried about their fans turning away from the game.  Most teams have been around long enough that there are very few "emerging markets" anymore.

    Last year, 21 of the 30 teams had attendance figures of 95% of capacity or better.  Of the 9 who were below that line, two still had average attendance exceeding 15,000/game.  Only the Islanders and Coyotes averaged below 14,000.

    I think the owners are fixated on the "% share of hockey-related revenues" figure.  They see the NFL's CBA and are saying to themselves: "We're getting hosed by the PA".  Big egos don't like to see themselves as being taken advantage of. 

    I think the solution is for the PA to let the owners have their "win" on the % of hockey-related revenues, and to negotiate better player movement triggers for UFA.  This gives players what they want (bidding wars for their services), and the owners get the "share" number they want.  Since the gross amount of HRR has been increasing significantly over time, even a fixed % share will yield increasing gross cap dollar amounts over time, and the relaxed UFA rules will allow players to see increases due to the stupid owners who are willing to sign players to inflationary deals.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : The thing is , under Gary Bettman's watch the league has already suffered a 2 lockouts, with one season being lost completely.  I know he talks a tough talk but what about the new massive deal with NBC ? He just might stand to lose a little more this time around.
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan[/QUOTE]

    Check the leagues success since the lockout. Does the NHL get the NBC deal without Bettman ?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : The thing is , under Gary Bettman's watch the league has already suffered a 2 lockouts, with one season being lost completely. Can he really afford another situation where the league loses any games due to a labour war ? I know he talks a tough talk but what about the new massive deal with NBC ? He just might stand to lose a little more this time around.
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan[/QUOTE]

    With the exception of the two work stoppage years, every year that Bettman has been in charge, the increase in league revenue has outstripped the increase via inflation. When he started league revenues were $400 million, they're around $3.3 billion now. His job is safe. I'm actually curious if there's another CEO of a major corporation in the last 20 years that could make the same claim. If there are, they're few and far between.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : With the exception of the two work stoppage years, every year that Bettman has been in charge, the increase in league revenue has outstripped the increase via inflation. When he started league revenues were $400 million, they're around $3.3 billion now. His job is safe. I'm actually curious if there's another CEO of a major corporation in the last 20 years that could make the same claim. If there are, they're few and far between.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]
    I realize Bettman's job is safe but there is no excuse to have yet another work stoppage. They just went through this 6 short years ago. Shouldn't somebody be accountable if the league is shut down again due to another labour war ?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : I realize Bettman's job is safe but there is no excuse to have yet another work stoppage. They just went through this 6 short years ago. Shouldn't somebody be accountable if the league is shut down again due to another labour war ?
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan[/QUOTE]

    It is contract negotiation.  When one ends, a new one must be hammered out.  The owners have the keys to the kingdom.  The players need to realize that getting paid millions of dollars to play hockey is a wonderful thing, not a right in this world.  With the world in economic peril, Skating Clowns are making a million dollars a year. 

    The owners are businessmen and can do what they want with their businesses.  The players are workers.  If they don't like the terms, they can quit their jobs.

    I'll never feel bad for anyone who makes that much money, regardless of the job description.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : It is contract negotiation.  When one ends, a new one must be hammered out.  The owners have the keys to the kingdom.  The players need to realize that getting paid millions of dollars to play hockey is a wonderful thing, not a right in this world.  With the world in economic peril, Skating Clowns are making a million dollars a year.  The owners are businessmen and can do what they want with their businesses.  The players are workers.  If they don't like the terms, they can quit their jobs. I'll never feel bad for anyone who makes that much money, regardless of the job description.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    I agree, the owners can do what they want, but didn't they get themselves into this mess by handing out these ridiculous contracts. Also, weren't the owners the winners of the last CBA that was reached ? This was the deal they wanted & 6 short years later they are crying foul ? To me it is a case of billionare owners vs millionare players, you can't feel sorry for either.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : I agree, the owners can do what they want, but didn't they get themselves into this mess by handing out these ridiculous contracts. Also, weren't the owners the winners of the last CBA that was reached ? This was the deal they wanted & 6 short years later they are crying foul ? To me it is a case of billionare owners vs millionare players, you can't feel sorry for either.
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan[/QUOTE]

    The owners got the deal they wanted at the time they got it.  Six years later, they have to change it.  The salary cap calculator is obviously in need of adjustment.  No way should it go from $39M to $70M in six years.  They need to scale that back.  They also need to move RFA to UFA closer to 32.  Seven years or 27 years old is ridiculous.

    The salaries are so out of control right now.  These guys are hockey players.  They should be fighting for an extra $100,000 in their deal, not an extra $1,000,000 each year.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout :  Bettman has been in charge, the increase in league revenue has outstripped the increase via inflation. When he started league revenues were $400 million, they're around $3.3 billion now. His job is safe. I'm actually curious if there's another CEO of a major corporation in the last 20 years that could make the same claim. Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    Safest job security in sports no doubt, the little man who can.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : The owners got the deal they wanted at the time they got it.  Six years later, they have to change it.  The salary cap calculator is obviously in need of adjustment.  No way should it go from $39M to $70M in six years.  They need to scale that back.  They also need to move RFA to UFA closer to 32.  Seven years or 27 years old is ridiculous. The salaries are so out of control right now.  These guys are hockey players.  They should be fighting for an extra $100,000 in their deal, not an extra $1,000,000 each year.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    NAS...you have made very good points in terms of the owners side of things.  My main argument is this.  Weber, Parise, Kovy, Suter, Richards etc etc etc.   These were "workers" who were offered massive deals to trick the CBA that they hammered out 6 yrs ago.  Its a complete joke!  Now after they see that it may be ruining the Cap and players ultimately are still going to the highest bidder(ie NYR) other owners are up in arms about this. 
    - I'm in complete agreement of making RFA/UFA later down the road.
    - I'm in agreement that the CAP should be reduced
    - The Cap has to be restructed so that the "Owners" can't break their own rules.  (ie no more front end loaded armchair contracts)
    - There should be a max contract set for players.  There probably isnt a bigger Weber fan on here then me and payng him north of 24M in a calendar year is a joke.  But its a joke bc of the owners breaking the rules they set. 

    But in doing this what do the players get? They are giving up the most.  What are the owners giving up?  You think ticket prices will be reduced?  No chance.  So why should the owners be making all the profit?  The owners may "own" the company but the "workers" make the company.  Any good business person knows this and they try to maintain a balance.   Sure the owners could form a hard stance and lose the league and probably not bat an eye.  But there are other billion dollar companies that would fall in line to take over. 

    The owners"system" is to blame for most of what is going wrong with the "system" they won 6 yrs ago.  Its a joke.  Restructure similar to the current deal in place and get it done quickly.  The closer it gets to the deadline the less likely there will be hockey. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : NAS...you have made very good points in terms of the owners side of things.  My main argument is this.  Weber, Parise, Kovy, Suter, Richards etc etc etc.   These were "workers" who were offered massive deals to trick the CBA that they hammered out 6 yrs ago.  Its a complete joke!  Now after they see that it may be ruining the Cap and players ultimately are still going to the highest bidder(ie NYR) other owners are up in arms about this.  - I'm in complete agreement of making RFA/UFA later down the road. - I'm in agreement that the CAP should be reduced - The Cap has to be restructed so that the "Owners" can't break their own rules.  (ie no more front end loaded armchair contracts) - There should be a max contract set for players.  There probably isnt a bigger Weber fan on here then me and payng him north of 24M in a calendar year is a joke.  But its a joke bc of the owners breaking the rules they set.  But in doing this what do the players get? They are giving up the most.  What are the owners giving up?  You think ticket prices will be reduced?  No chance.  So why should the owners be making all the profit?  The owners may "own" the company but the "workers" make the company.  Any good business person knows this and they try to maintain a balance.   Sure the owners could form a hard stance and lose the league and probably not bat an eye.  But there are other billion dollar companies that would fall in line to take over.  The owners"system" is to blame for most of what is going wrong with the "system" they won 6 yrs ago.  Its a joke.  Restructure similar to the current deal in place and get it done quickly.  The closer it gets to the deadline the less likely there will be hockey. 
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    I'm making a comment on my own post bc I sounded like Lindey Ruff with all the its a joke comments. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    Probably not all of the owners are in favour of a lock out.

    http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/11/lockout-or-not-parise-and-suter-will-get-their-cash-call/
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]Probably not all of the owners are in favour of a lock out. http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/11/lockout-or-not-parise-and-suter-will-get-their-cash-call/
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    Great find and a great example.  Greedy owners...breaking the rules they put in place. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : Great find and a great example.  Greedy owners...breaking the rules they put in place. 
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]
    Some of these owners have put themselves in a position where they can't afford a long work stoppage. I've heard it said in a number of places that this is "owner vs owner" when it comes to the core issues/problems.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : Some of these owners have put themselves in a position where they can't afford a long work stoppage. I've heard it said in a number of places that this is "owner vs owner" when it comes to the core issues/problems.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    Priceless...a bunch of nerdy rich owners having their lawyers pound their chest to scare the other nerdy rich owners. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : Some of these owners have put themselves in a position where they can't afford a long work stoppage. I've heard it said in a number of places that this is "owner vs owner" when it comes to the core issues/problems.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]


    Like I said on the previous page, Leipold is one of 7 owners that can't afford a stoppage, but there's 22 of them who will barely be impacted by one. They're outnumbered.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : NAS...you have made very good points in terms of the owners side of things.  My main argument is this.  Weber, Parise, Kovy, Suter, Richards etc etc etc.   These were "workers" who were offered massive deals to trick the CBA that they hammered out 6 yrs ago.  Its a complete joke!  Now after they see that it may be ruining the Cap and players ultimately are still going to the highest bidder(ie NYR) other owners are up in arms about this.  - I'm in complete agreement of making RFA/UFA later down the road. - I'm in agreement that the CAP should be reduced - The Cap has to be restructed so that the "Owners" can't break their own rules.  (ie no more front end loaded armchair contracts) - There should be a max contract set for players.  There probably isnt a bigger Weber fan on here then me and payng him north of 24M in a calendar year is a joke.  But its a joke bc of the owners breaking the rules they set.  But in doing this what do the players get? They are giving up the most.  What are the owners giving up?  You think ticket prices will be reduced?  No chance.  So why should the owners be making all the profit?  The owners may "own" the company but the "workers" make the company.  Any good business person knows this and they try to maintain a balance.   Sure the owners could form a hard stance and lose the league and probably not bat an eye.  But there are other billion dollar companies that would fall in line to take over.  The owners"system" is to blame for most of what is going wrong with the "system" they won 6 yrs ago.  Its a joke.  Restructure similar to the current deal in place and get it done quickly.  The closer it gets to the deadline the less likely there will be hockey. 
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    It's hard to say that a million dollar goon is being left in the dust while the owners make all of the profit. 

    The CBA comes up for renewal so it can be revisited and revised.  Obviously they have to close the loopholes on the career contracts and the signing bonuses and they have to bring the player's payout down from 57% (or a lot closer to 75% if you ask some owners). 

    And yes, the owners should be keeping the majority of the profit.  If Player A is upset that the owner of the company is making so much more than he is, he can save his pennies and buy his own NHL team like Mario did.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : Like I said on the previous page, Leipold is one of 7 owners that can't afford a stoppage, but there's 22 of them who will barely be impacted by one. They're outnumbered.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    There is no fear of any NHL team going bankrupt in the even of a lockout.  The NHL front office would step in with assistance before they let a team die on the vine.


     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : It's hard to say that a million dollar goon is being left in the dust while the owners make all of the profit.  The CBA comes up for renewal so it can be revisited and revised.  Obviously they have to close the loopholes on the career contracts and the signing bonuses and they have to bring the player's payout down from 57% (or a lot closer to 75% if you ask some owners).  And yes, the owners should be keeping the majority of the profit.  If Player A is upset that the owner of the company is making so much more than he is, he can save his pennies and buy his own NHL team like Mario did.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    If everything profit wise has improved over 6 yrs why does it need to go in reverse?  Why? So owners make more money.  As an owner I would love this.  For a player it wouldnt sit well. 
    If its for the simple purpose of controlling the players better I am all for it.  But at the same time shouldnt ticket prices come down as well?   Zero chance. Never ever will that happen.  Owners had their way the first go round and it worked.  But they also screwed their own system and found ways around the rules...how can a player be at fault bc of this. 
    I love that the NFL only gurantees a certain amount of the contract.  The NHL needs to take a look at this.  No way the NHLPA would go for that though.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : There is no fear of any NHL team going bankrupt in the even of a lockout.  The NHL front office would step in with assistance before they let a team die on the vine.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I'm not talking about bankruptcy, I was reffering to owners who stand to lose the most of their personal annual incomes/revenues/net worth. I agree that they won't let anyone go bankrupt, but not all owners are created equal and some stand to lose a lot more from a lockout than others. The economic realities for Harley Hotchkiss are a lot different than those of Jeremy Jacobs or David Thomson.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : I'm not talking about bankruptcy, I was reffering to owners who stand to lose the most of their personal annual incomes/revenues/net worth. I agree that they won't let anyone go bankrupt, but not all owners are created equal and some stand to lose a lot more from a lockout than others. The economic realities for Harley Hotchkiss are a lot different than those of Jeremy Jacobs or David Thomson.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    What does "can't afford a stoppage" mean?  Can afford it?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    Totally disagree on the players waiting to 32 for UFA or RFA status.  I will take umbridge with the teams developing players, that is done in most part in juniors.  The players who are in the AHL do not have long careers per se, so letting them wait till 32 or even 27 is not reasonable.  I am all for the revenue share system as close to 50% for both, I do believe in maintaining the Cap for a few years, but I find it not capitalism when a player is locked up till the bones start to harden!  The owners control the finances is a given but they do not control the players.  
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : What does "can't afford a stoppage" mean?  Can afford it?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Where did I mention the team going into bankruptcy though? I was talking about the owners own personal fortunes and incomes - they can't afford the loss to personal revenues for a long time, and maintain the lifestyles they are accustomed too. They'll get hit in the pocket books the most. With a few minority owners in the groups I mentioned, it's their single source of significant income. Stop over extrapolating.
     

Share