Jump to content

NHL lockout is OVER!


ForumGhost

Recommended Posts

Both sides knew they were going to 50-50. It's Bettman's initial offer that caused this thing to drag out as long as they did. They should have Von after a phase 50-50 approach over a 3 year period and here could have been a deal in October. Bettman loaded Fehr's gun himself by pissing off the players. The final deal isn't off that far from the players proposal in early December.

Frankly I'd say the hell with Phooenix, Florida and the NYI unless there is a other owner who comes forward in the future. The league would be better and more competitive as a 24 or 26 team league anyways.

There was no way to avoid this lockout, based on gaming theory. The 57 percent was too high, but was given to get the cap. You knew that had to come down and there was no way the players would agree to it without a lockout or strike. Fehr took the strategy of dragging it out as long as possible and he was fairly successful at this. If anyone caved to save the season, it was Bettman.People who rant about Phoenix or southern teams miss the point. The issue was teams like Philly are only making 10 to 20 million in a playoff year. Many teams in solid hockey markets have had financial problems if they missed the playoffs. It had to change and the players picked a prick like Fehr for the fight they knew was coming. It seems to me that Bettman thought this would be done by December and is sorry he underestimated the playes resolve. Frankly, any apology from him or the players is just marketing BS. I don't expect an apology, I expect a decent product on the ice and if I get it, I will watch.Some people here seem to think that moving three or four teams north would have solved everything. It wouldn't. Calgary and Edmonton struggle. We lost Quebec and Winnipeg. While moving a few teams help, it would not be enough. Worse, it would only move the cap bottom up and kill more teams. With a lower cap, it will be easier to move one or two more teams. Think about this... If Philly wants to buyout Bry, it will cost them more then three yeas of their profit. Ouch. When players suck, the owners eat the losses, there is no hit to the players. At some point, I would like to see a way of sharing the pain with the player... But that would be another lockout...:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that HRR is not GROSS REVENUE

Before they split things 50/50 the owners have already paid all arena staff, all concession and merch costs, all advertising costs, and several other things.

3.3 million of HRR is not a GROSS number, it is a net number. Which is why the definition of HRR became such an issue in these negotiatiosn.

So while the owners have some expenses out of their 1.5 billion, its not every expense as you claim.

Also remember there are 30 owners splitting that cash, and 700 players.

Hockey revenue is hockey revenue. The only expenses they can deduct is from arena revenue, if they get it at all.

Let's assume you are correct and the owners a making a ton of money, how is that bad for hockey? The players are millionaires. They also make money from endorsements, get a pension, etc. if they get more money, say, every cent of profit goes to the players, how does that help hockey? It might make it worse as players would get so rich by thirty many more would just retire early. Will it make players better? There is still no significant player migration to the KHL. The NHL is the best place to be for 95 percent of players.

Now if the owners make a fortune, how does that hurt? More teams can pay to the cap, ensuring more balance and better games. Maybe more goes to marketing, driving more revenue for everyone. I don't see the downside.

Now, given the fact that many teams are struggling, I think more money needed to go to the owners, which IMO, will make a,better, stronger league. When top players want to play some where else to the point many are going to the KHL, then we need more money for players. I don't see that happening any time soon. Even most Russians come to the NHL for most of their career to make the big money.

700 players are splitting 1.5 billion in salary. 30 owners are splitting 1.5 billion in revenue. Most of them get little to no profit. Every single player gets a guaranteed cheque, usually in the millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hockey revenue is hockey revenue. The only expenses they can deduct is from arena revenue, if they get it at all.

Not True.

Hockey Revenue is a NET NUMBER not a gross number.

Let's assume you are correct and the owners a making a ton of money, how is that bad for hockey? The players are millionaires. They also make money from endorsements, get a pension, etc. if they get more money, say, every cent of profit goes to the players, how does that help hockey? It might make it worse as players would get so rich by thirty many more would just retire early. Will it make players better? There is still no significant player migration to the KHL. The NHL is the best place to be for 95 percent of players. Now if the owners make a fortune, how does that hurt? More teams can pay to the cap, ensuring more balance and better games. Maybe more goes to marketing, driving more revenue for everyone. I don't see the downside. Now, given the fact that many teams are struggling, I think more money needed to go to the owners, which IMO, will make a,better, stronger league. When top players want to play some where else to the point many are going to the KHL, then we need more money for players. I don't see that happening any time soon. Even most Russians come to the NHL for most of their career to make the big money. 700 players are splitting 1.5 billion in salary. 30 owners are splitting 1.5 billion in revenue. Most of them get little to no profit. Every single player gets a guaranteed cheque, usually in the millions.

Its not bad for hockey. What is bad for hockey is shutting the game down while they are making significant money in order to make more.'

This lockout was about Greed, pure and simple. 50/50 was agreed all the way back in October... Bettman tried to break the union to get more concessions and failed, finally giving in last week. We easily could have had the same deal in November if Bettman put away his stupid demands to change free agency, change ELCs, change pensions, and all that other shit back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not bad for hockey. What is bad for hockey is shutting the game down while they are making significant money in order to make more.

Well, i do believe that the main goal of all this was to save their product, aka the NHL as it is with franchises in Phoenix, Nashville, Florida, etc, than to make more money.

But yes, they do have to make more money to save their product as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i do believe that the main goal of all this was to save their product, aka the NHL as it is with franchises in Phoenix, Nashville, Florida, etc, than to make more money.

But yes, they do have to make more money to save their product as is.

Or you could do better revenue sharing. (of course this would mean that guys like Jeremy Jacobs wouldn't be getting the 12% increase he just negotiated by moving from 57 to 50)

Once you had things at 50/50 in October, there was no need to continue to ask for more from the players......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you had things at 50/50 in October, there was no need to continue to ask for more from the players......

Probably not how a majority of owners think, or we wouldn't be where we are right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you could do better revenue sharing. (of course this would mean that guys like Jeremy Jacobs wouldn't be getting the 12% increase he just negotiated by moving from 57 to 50)

they increased by 33% the amount of money aimed at revenue sharing between poor and riches owners compared to the last CBA. This is big IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not True.

Hockey Revenue is a NET NUMBER not a gross number.

Its not bad for hockey. What is bad for hockey is shutting the game down while they are making significant money in order to make more.'

This lockout was about Greed, pure and simple. 50/50 was agreed all the way back in October... Bettman tried to break the union to get more concessions and failed, finally giving in last week. We easily could have had the same deal in November if Bettman put away his stupid demands to change free agency, change ELCs, change pensions, and all that other shit back then.

Ah, so you feel the owners didn't need anything beyond the 50/50 and should have accepted everything else fehr wanted. First, 5050 was not agreed to. Fehr had so many make whole and other add ins that it amounted to 57 percent. He also wanted a short deal so we can do all this again. He wouldn't address any of the contract issues that were killing smaller teams and allowing big teams to work around the cap.

Fehr dragged this out not bettman. I full understand why Fehr did it as it was his only ploy to minimize the give back from the last deal (which was apparently so one sided for the owners the players wanted to just keep it for another 5 yeas.

So if I understand, you feel all the owners are making lots of money and the entire lockout was just greed on the owners side. I can't argue that if you don't believe independent reports that many teams were in trouble under the old deal. I sure can't change your mind. It doesn't matter to me, the owners have a right to hold out if they feel they needed to, as did the players. Neither side owe us an apology. I am just glad we got some protection on contract terms, some fix to the cap avoiding deals, and a longer term cba. I think these are good for hockey and they were all pushed for by the owners, not Fehr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not how a majority of owners think, or we wouldn't be where we are right now.

Of course that wasn't how the majority of owners thought.... doesn't mean that they were thinking clearly though. Once they got 50/50, they basically got next to nothing out of all the things they held out for.

they increased by 33% the amount of money aimed at revenue sharing between poor and riches owners compared to the last CBA. This is big IMO.

even increasing it by 1/3 is not even close to making a dent in the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...