Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

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

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    I am praying that they start on time. On a side note, wasn't it great there was no NBA last fall. I wish basketball would be locked out forever! 
    Posted by lereve77


    It was heaven.  B's defending Stanley Cup Champs. No basketball.  If only there was a way to ban soccer and any reference to it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?


    Yes, there is a deal with NBC.
    And a lockout would be stupid.

    Never underestimate stupidity.

    GMs take their orders from ownership.  Owners - for those of you who don't understand the concept - owners call all the shots.  The owners collectively made the CBA offer we all saw with 5 year max and no weighted salaries.

    Yet some GMs have made offers that contradict the CBA they opposed.

    That is stupid.

    And as far as the NBC conspiracy goes, that's just plain idiotic.  They had the agreement with them this year and the owners lost money.  So what's supposed to happen?  The owners say to NBC, 'yah ok, we lost still money with your billion, but ok, since it was a billion, we'll lose money again.'

    It doesn't matter if it's a billion or a trillion dollars, if you are losing money, and thats means your cost and return isn't exceeding what you're making, you are losing money.  Sorry for the redundancy, but it seems a few people don't get it.

    Maybe the owners are bluffing and they are seeing a return on their investment, but for whatever reason they want to bargain hard.

    Maybe the owners really are losing money and the CBA they offered is the best that they can do.

    Maybe NBC will cough up another billion and save the day.

    I don't know.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    Saying you can't believe the owners because of teams giving out big contracts is like saying the league doesn't need to battle concussions because it's the players who are injuring themselves. Totally silly. The teams are not on the same team. They all want desperately to win. Some teams have extra financial resources and will try to bend the rules to win. A team like the Flyers is like Sean Avery, picking on Nashville (Savard), and Colin Campbell has to say "hands are tied, it's within the rules". In order to ensure a competitive, fair league, there needs to be safeguards for weaker teams. Teams need to be protected from being forced into offering foolish, multi-decade contracts because some rogue members of their association are willing to do it. As far as the money split, that's up to the players and owners, but just because one team offers a stupid contract and sets the bar for what it takes to sign a player, doesn't mean all the team want or should have to operate under that system.
    Posted by OatesCam

    Sure, I can buy that, but not getting everyone on the same team when they proposed their CBA was totally stupid.

    How did they come to agree and propose that CBA if everyone wasn't on board?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October? : I keep reading this, and, while I understand the pull of optics, that's all this is. The current deal commits owners to spending at least $54M in player salaries every year.  How they get there is for their GMs to decide.  Once you hit $54M, you have $16M to allocate before you hit the ceiling.  That variance is currently 33% of what they MUST pay or 3/4 of the most you can pay under the cap.  In poker terms, it's a small raise when you've already paid twice that much into the pot, and in this case the payoff is a chance to make gate during the playoffs.  If a team makes $3M per home game, and pays 0 player salary, they only need to win one round to have a shot at covering the difference between the floor and the ceiling.  That means a commitment to winning is investing to make money rather than pay a few grinders to sit on their hands and lose in front of a half-full arena. We've also seen how the growth in revenues has made the annual cost of long term deals look smaller and smaller as time goes by - so a long term deal fixes the cost of a valuable asset against a growing base of revenue, which means the burder of that cost effectively declines over the course of the deal.  Take the first of these deals as an example.  Rick DiPietro's 15 year monster deal pays $4.5M per year.  When he signed it in 2006-07, that was more than 10% of the team salary cap ($44M/year).  Six years later, it's 6.4%.  If revenues had continued to grow at the same rate under the same CBA, by the end of the deal, DiPietro would have been 4% of the Cap ($110M).  Overall, long term deals look huge, but they're a way of minimizing annual costs for your key players - especially vs. competing for them on the open market. Look at who gives these monster deals - the Devils are always looking for a way to save a buck; the Isles are perpetually broke; Washington has deep pockets, but they're tying up one of the top players in the game and handcuffing Backstrom to him; Minny is a smaller market that has never been a big salary player; the Wirtzes are as bad as Jacobs in Chicago. These are teams that need to find an edge because they will lose UFAs to the next group - the only teams really tossing the cash around like drunks.  Rangers are responsible for Gomez, adding Nash, signing Richards as a UFA; the Wings locked up Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Franzen, and, worst of all, the Fillies locked up their own guys in Richards and Carter before dealing them, signed Briere and Bryzgalov, and now Weber, and both Pronger and Timmonen got long terms for guys their age (7 and 6 years).  7 players, 68 years.
    Posted by Bookboy007

     How they get there is for their GMs to decide. 

    If I own a business I sure as hell am not going to let one of my employees work entirely autonomously.

    I just finished Phil Esposito's book and he said that ownership drove him completely nuts by interfering with trades and insisting he limit team salary - even tho the Lightning were had the lowest salary in the NHL at the time.

    He complained of similar interference when with the Rangers.

    He was trying to get Gretzky when he was going to get traded from Edmonton, but the powers that be from the Rangers said their sales were good enough without Wayne and wouldn't approve the deal.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from LoveTheBruins. Show LoveTheBruins's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    If they have a prolonged lock out or cancel the season all together, 15 clubs might as well shut the doors forever.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    Yes, there is a deal with NBC. And a lockout would be stupid. Never underestimate stupidity. GMs take their orders from ownership.  Owners - for those of you who don't understand the concept - owners call all the shots.  The owners collectively made the CBA offer we all saw with 5 year max and no weighted salaries. Yet some GMs have made offers that contradict the CBA they opposed. That is stupid. And as far as the NBC conspiracy goes, that's just plain idiotic.  They had the agreement with them this year and the owners lost money.  So what's supposed to happen?  The owners say to NBC, 'yah ok, we lost still money with your billion, but ok, since it was a billion, we'll lose money again.' It doesn't matter if it's a billion or a trillion dollars, if you are losing money, and thats means your cost and return isn't exceeding what you're making, you are losing money.  Sorry for the redundancy, but it seems a few people don't get it. Maybe the owners are bluffing and they are seeing a return on their investment, but for whatever reason they want to bargain hard. Maybe the owners really are losing money and the CBA they offered is the best that they can do. Maybe NBC will cough up another billion and save the day. I don't know.
    Posted by BadHabitude


    what happenns to the NBC deal, if there is a work stoppage?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    Yup, if you are in negotiations for a large group of people, you must not have a those same people contradicting your stance at the negotiations table.  If you do, you will lose your argument.  I agree with Badhab.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October? : what happenns to the NBC deal, if there is a work stoppage?
    Posted by stevegm

    Good question, I guess they will go to court.  Another guess is that it would be just like the Thomas situation and the whole thing would be put on hold for as long as the strike lasts.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    You can't force everyone to do the same thing by an honour system.  You can get a concensous or a majority of support and reach an agreement, but it doesn't mean everyone wants  it. As soon as the agreement is signed, there will be those that try to exploit it to win. The only way to deal with that is in the next agreement you make the rules tighter and close loopholes to keep the rogues in check. The NHL doesn't reward being a team player when it comes to being part of the 30 team league. It rewards winners. If you are the about-to-be-fired Scott Howson, and you could do something within the rules to make the Jackets better and keep your job, you will do it regardless of whether it's against the spirit of the game or the CBA or anything else.

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October? : Sure, I can buy that, but not getting everyone on the same team when they proposed their CBA was totally stupid. How did they come to agree and propose that CBA if everyone wasn't on board?
    Posted by BadHabitude

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    I hope that both sides learn from last lock out, that a full season lockout will cripple a few NHL franchises. At least Bettman will be hitting a 1000 batting avg. if another shut down occurs.Undecided

    In conclusion shorten season or no season will be revenue that both sides will lose out on and never gain back. The beer companies keg  along with the hotdog production lines will be on hold. LOLMoney mouth

    Those poor ice girls will lose a PT job, I guess they can do appearances on American Idol, ball girls for professional tennis matches or if one them knows golf can be Tiger Woods personal caddy.Kiss
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    I hope that both sides learn from last lock out, that a full season lockout will cripple a few NHL franchises. At least Bettman will be hitting a 1000 batting avg. if another shut down occurs. In conclusion shorten season or no season will be revenue that both sides will lose out on and never gain back. The beer companies keg  along with the hotdog production lines will be on hold. LOL Those poor ice girls will lose a PT job, I guess they can do appearances on American Idol, ball girls for professional tennis matches or if one them knows golf can be Tiger Woods personal caddy.
    Posted by boborielly224

    There will never be answer to this.  If there is a 4 week lockout those that said there would be a lockout will say they were right and those that said there wouldn't be a lockout will say that 4 weeks doesn't count as a lockout.

    And the truth is, anyone who has an opinion about this outside of the bargaining table is just plain guessing.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    If the season is delayed, will that give TT enough time to rest and be with his family? Possible return for TT if the season is shortened?????
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October? : what happenns to the NBC deal, if there is a work stoppage? Posted by stevegm


    It upsets Dick Ebersol that the NHL would go through all that time to attract a major network then get selfish again and that is just plain dumb. I think the money just sits on the table which of course would be even more confusing if the negotiations get to the Thanksgiving weekend which is when NBC starts their coverage.

    Now NBC has to and scramble for programming to fil the void, not a good way to start a new relationship.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October? : It upsets Dick Ebersol that the NHL would go through all that time to attract a major network then get selfish again and that is just plain dumb. I think the money just sits on the table which of course would be even more confusing if the negotiations get to the Thanksgiving weekend which is when NBC starts their coverage. Now NBC has to and scramble for programming to fil the void, not a good way to start a new relationship.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin


    True, however, I'm sure that NBC knew the "new" CBA could be a bump in the road when they signed their initial agreeement.  Nonetheless, to your point, this is by far the best television arrangement the NHL has ever had in terms of money and exposure, and it would be foolish to have this negotiation drag out.   Got me thinking.... I wonder if  NBC has an out clause in their contract with the NHL in the event of prolonged lock out. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

                    http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=638580

    "I'm focused on making a deal, not on what might happen if we don't," Commissioner Bettman said."

    Luc I am super confident this time around because of the TV contract.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
                    http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=638580 "I'm focused on making a deal, not on what might happen if we don't," Commissioner Bettman said." Luc I am super confident this time around because of the TV contract.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin


    I don't think Bettmans comment is any more than posturing, he'd be nuts to say anything else.
    If the TV deal is as big as most think, then the players have the hammer.  They really had nothing last time, and a cap system was already the best arrangement in pro sport.  It was time for a correction of sorts.  This time the presure could be on the owners to settle.
    I can see the players going to a 50-50 split.  Public opinion will push them in that direction...it just seems seems more fair, and they'll pretty much have to be in that vicinity.  After that...it's pure warfare  I don't think the players will budge on the free agency thing, and the leagues initial proposals will neccesitate the players coming back with a request for less time to reach UFA.  The players would be idiots to go along with no arbitration, they'd be nuts to go along with longer entry level deals, and they'll probably start with a 78 or so million cap, and allow themselves to be negotiated down to about 68.  They'll also want a new, tighter definition of the term, "revenue". You can bet the union will argue there's multiple income streams not included in the current strcture, and they won't let that go as long as money is an issue.
    That's a lot to be negotiated by training camp. or shortly thereafter.  If the league allows the current CBA to apply until they settle, they've dropped their drawers, and thrown their only trump card out the window.
    So, it appears to me, the only way the schedule starts on time, is if the league takes back virtually everything they're asking for, and I just have a hard time imagining them being so stupid as to start the process with a kick in the teeth, and absolutely wilt only a few short weeks later.
    Hope I'm wrong.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    "As negotiations with the NHL resumed Tuesday, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr indicated that the union was getting close to responding to the league's initial proposal, which included a decreased share of hockey-related revenue, term limits on contracts and a 22 per cent salary rollback."

    "We think that if everybody works hard, we can get the job done in the appropriate time frame," said Bettman."

    I disagree about posturing I'm still confident...


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    " As negotiations with the NHL resumed Tuesday, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr indicated that the union was getting close to responding to the league's initial proposal, which included a decreased share of hockey-related revenue, term limits on contracts and a 22 per cent salary rollback." "We think that if everybody works hard, we can get the job done in the appropriate time frame," said Bettman." I disagree about posturing I'm still confident...
    Posted by SanDogBrewin


    Hope you're right.  Just remember, it'll be more than 2 weeks before the PA formally responds to the leagues first offer, and at that time, everyone will be further behind the 8 ball than they were before this process even started.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    The analogy of players with concussions is confusing at best, I think it is an imperfect relation when speaking of dollars and sense.  Players in the NHLPA are mindful of the negotiations as a whole even the ones like Ovechkin who makes a gazillion bucks.  The owners are acting in a self serving way by allowing GMs to pursue the Weber like deals or the Nash cash deal.  If those same rich market owners then go to the table and plead with the others of an imbalance in revenue sharing, well, the message gets lost in translation as they wrangle with the NHLPA.  So, teams like individuals must be mindful of their actions, if not the stance of financial depravity is not credible.  Thus, the owners are in fact doing themselves an injustice by signing, trading with these high priced contracts.  To believe otherwise is naive.  Fehr is laughing his azz off right now for sure.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Eric66. Show Eric66's posts

    Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?

    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October?:
    In Response to Re: Who Believes There Will Be NO NHL Come October? : I keep reading this, and, while I understand the pull of optics, that's all this is. The current deal commits owners to spending at least $54M in player salaries every year.  How they get there is for their GMs to decide.  Once you hit $54M, you have $16M to allocate before you hit the ceiling.  That variance is currently 33% of what they MUST pay or 3/4 of the most you can pay under the cap.  In poker terms, it's a small raise when you've already paid twice that much into the pot, and in this case the payoff is a chance to make gate during the playoffs.  If a team makes $3M per home game, and pays 0 player salary, they only need to win one round to have a shot at covering the difference between the floor and the ceiling.  That means a commitment to winning is investing to make money rather than pay a few grinders to sit on their hands and lose in front of a half-full arena. We've also seen how the growth in revenues has made the annual cost of long term deals look smaller and smaller as time goes by - so a long term deal fixes the cost of a valuable asset against a growing base of revenue, which means the burder of that cost effectively declines over the course of the deal.  Take the first of these deals as an example.  Rick DiPietro's 15 year monster deal pays $4.5M per year.  When he signed it in 2006-07, that was more than 10% of the team salary cap ($44M/year).  Six years later, it's 6.4%.  If revenues had continued to grow at the same rate under the same CBA, by the end of the deal, DiPietro would have been 4% of the Cap ($110M).  Overall, long term deals look huge, but they're a way of minimizing annual costs for your key players - especially vs. competing for them on the open market. Look at who gives these monster deals - the Devils are always looking for a way to save a buck; the Isles are perpetually broke; Washington has deep pockets, but they're tying up one of the top players in the game and handcuffing Backstrom to him; Minny is a smaller market that has never been a big salary player; the Wirtzes are as bad as Jacobs in Chicago. These are teams that need to find an edge because they will lose UFAs to the next group - the only teams really tossing the cash around like drunks.  Rangers are responsible for Gomez, adding Nash, signing Richards as a UFA; the Wings locked up Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Franzen, and, worst of all, the Fillies locked up their own guys in Richards and Carter before dealing them, signed Briere and Bryzgalov, and now Weber, and both Pronger and Timmonen got long terms for guys their age (7 and 6 years).  7 players, 68 years.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    Great post
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share