Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

  1. 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 : 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.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    If someone cannot afford something, they cannot pay for it.  If the guy who owns the company cannot afford it, payroll will be missed and bills will be unpaid.  He'll have to file for Chapter 7 or 13 (more likey) to get out of it.

    I did a bit of research (the internet is amazing!) and found this:

    "Leipold is also the son in law of Samuel Johnson, scion of Racine's S.C. Johnson & Company."

    I'm going to guess that he will be able to take the family to Sunday dinner if the lockout lasts 10 years.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm'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 : 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.
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    Your NFL point is a good one, and what's happenning in other pro sports has to be taken into consideration.  Many people say these players are making too much, but that's the end of their argument.  NHL players should be somewhat in the ballpark monetarily with other pro athletes, in comparison to league revenues.
    Last time I was solidly behind the owners, because I thought their demands were reasonable.  This time, they're not.  Every economic blunder in the league is created by the owners.  It's not the players fault the league is constantly circumventing their own policies.  It's not the players fault that someone is stubbornly insisting that a money losing team be located in Phoenix. The players don't make the offers, the owners do.
    The only reason we're seeing what we are here....is because of success.  If league revenues were the same as they were 5 years ago, this process would probably go pretty quickly.  Most of these owners rail on and on about the virtues of capitalism, and the strengths of our western economic ideology.....until they see something easier.  Now they want a system that could have been drawn up by Stalin.
    Like failure, success is only temporary too.  League revenues will not always go up.  They most certainly will top out then trend down for a few years at some point.
    There are some things that need negotiated. A 50-50 split is reasonable. Something like guaranteed contracts should be at the top of the owners list, but oddly, I don't think it's ever been brought up. I don't have a problem with the RFA/UFA thing as is.  The only reason it's on the table is so owners can wait longer to pay these guys market value.  Same with entry level contracts.
    These guys have a cap to work within, they really don't need any more protection.  They got where they are on the merits of free enterprise, and now they're trying to take it right out of the equation.
    These players are the 700 and something best on the planet at what they do.  Those in that category always make sickening amounts of money, and I don't begrudge them.  Especially knowing I'd probably pay the same amount for a ticket, if they were playing for free.  
     
  3. 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 : 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.
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    The CBA is for six years.  Those six years are up.  The owners miscalculated the increases that were coming.  They had no idea the league would be where it is today.  They didn't reneg on their deal.  The players enjoyed quite a boom over the past six years.

    Now they are looking at it again and deciding that they will pay their workers less.  I back the owners because they are the businessmen who create the opportunity.  They had the finances, the opportunity and the ability to swallow the risk in order to purchase the team.

    The B's Skating Clown is going to make $2.2M over the course of two years.  In the USA, a guy can live pretty comfortably on $50K/yr.  It will take that guy 44 years to make what Thornton is going to make in two.  If he got the job on his 21st birthday and never made a penny more, he'd be 65 when he got to that $2.2M.  I'll never back the players.  If they don't like the new terms, they can go work somewhere else.
     
  4. 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 CBA is for six years.  Those six years are up.  The owners miscalculated the increases that were coming.  They had no idea the league would be where it is today.  They didn't reneg on their deal.  The players enjoyed quite a boom over the past six years. Now they are looking at it again and deciding that they will pay their workers less.  I back the owners because they are the businessmen who create the opportunity.  They had the finances, the opportunity and the ability to swallow the risk in order to purchase the team. The B's Skating Clown is going to make $2.2M over the course of two years.  In the USA, a guy can live pretty comfortably on $50K/yr.  It will take that guy 44 years to make what Thornton is going to make in two.  If he got the job on his 21st birthday and never made a penny more, he'd be 65 when he got to that $2.2M.  I'll never back the players.  If they don't like the new terms, they can go work somewhere else.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I backed the owners the first time through.  Now that the league has made leaps and bounds I am more in favor of the players.  Again, my beef is that the owners cried and wanted the Cap.  The players finally said ok.  Now with a cap in place the rich fat cat teams have found a way around it and are signing guys to deals that are basically fraud.  Ive beaten this point to death.  Owners greed and corruption of the system cant be blamed on the players.  ST makes too much.  He should make league minimum...He actually should be replaced.  But we agree on this to a fault.  I have no issue bringing things back in of someone other then the owners profit.  Reduce ticket prices. 
    We dont see eye to eye on this.  I;m sure it will happen again tomorrow.
     
  5. 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 backed the owners the first time through.  Now that the league has made leaps and bounds I am more in favor of the players.  Again, my beef is that the owners cried and wanted the Cap.  The players finally said ok.  Now with a cap in place the rich fat cat teams have found a way around it and are signing guys to deals that are basically fraud.  Ive beaten this point to death.  Owners greed and corruption of the system cant be blamed on the players.  ST makes too much.  He should make league minimum...He actually should be replaced.  But we agree on this to a fault.  I have no issue bringing things back in of someone other then the owners profit.  Reduce ticket prices.  We dont see eye to eye on this.  I;m sure it will happen again tomorrow.
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    The owners got the cap, which has skyrocketed in six years, and the players got the UFA age dropped, which has backfired on the owners.

    Neither has worked for the owners.  Yes, some GMs are playing dirty in order to win.  The rest need to stop them.  The players, at the end of everything, will be making millions of dollars a year.  To play hockey.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    I'd say most if not all the owners have other business ventures. They can also use their arenas for other ways to make money should their be a work stoppage.Home many home games do they have a week? Those nights can be sold out, while raking in just about all profit since they are not paying the people to perform like they would if it were an NHL game.  Some players can go elsewhere an play, others wont be able to. And don't forget, players can go play in a league overseas but if they do play one game in certain league, they are not eligible to play in the NHL for that year. So even for the real good ones, the choices are limited.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share