I'm pretty sure it is in March
- uf1910

The new super brief tells us nothing trailer is out. They are premiering on the 3s. 3/13/13 or 13/3/13 depending where you are from.

That or MJL knows what he's talking about unlike most posters on the forum
- Flyers_1488

You should smack your head twice after that comment

The owners are trying to fix their mistakes by imposing less revenues and contractual limitations on the PA.
- MnGump

The first part, they have a shot at accomplishing. The second part, as things stand right now, is going to backfire on them - and it will be apparent before the first max-year contract has ended.

The new super brief tells us nothing trailer is out. They are premiering on the 3s. 3/13/13 or 13/3/13 depending where you are from.
- Senators2112

March 31st actually

The article itself says it is flawed. Stop being an idiot.
- prock

The article itself doesn't have to be perfect (which it is not) but it does point out flaws in the NHL numbers as reported in the Forbes article that everyone likes to refer to as fact. There are certain aspects of HRR that are not reported completely. Basically each city with their different arena leases show revenues in different ways. Concessions, suites, and things of that sort are NOT uniform from city to city. So based on that premise the article does point out some interesting dynamics to the NHL economic issues.

You should smack your head twice after that comment
- HuileHab

Why are there so many conspiracy theorists in America?

Wy are there so many people afraid of the dark in America?

- Flyers_1488

More then twice and it's called masturbating

Why are there so many conspiracy theorists in America?

Wy are there so many people afraid of the dark in America?
- HuileHab

so with no hockey to watch, I've caught up on old TV shows i enjoy. One of my favorites is Deadwood. I've come to the decision that Al Swearengen should be present at the CBA negotiations. Some examples that would make the talks at least more interesting:


1)
Seth Bullock (Fehr): You and I know how it is, Mr. Swearingen(Bettman).
Al Swearengen (Bettman): How what is?
Seth Bullock(Fehr): [stands] She gets a square shake... or I come for you.
Al Swearengen(Bettman): [stands] What if I come for you? You ready for that?
Seth Bullock(Fehr): I guess I'd better be.
Al Swearengen(Bettman): Then close your (frank)in' store, 'cause being ready for me'll take care of your wakin' hours, and you'd better have someone to hand the task off to when you close your (frank)in' eyes.
[they silently take each other's measure]
Seth Bullock(Fehr): We understand each other.

2)
E.B. Farnum(Media): And if she pries and pokes and prods me to elicit your intentions?
Al Swearengen(Bettman): Tell her I wouldn't say.
E.B. Farnum(Media): And if she asks me why you wouldn't?
Al Swearengen(Bettman): Say you're a pain in my balls that can't desist from inquiry till told to shut his (frank)ing mouth and act on the task he was asked to (frank)ing do!
E.B. Farnum(Media): Yes sir. Fine, thank you.

3)
E.B. Farnum(Daly): Hearst(Fehr)... is he Caesar? To have fights to the death for diversion, murder his workers at whim, smash passages in the (frank)ing wall? A man of less wealth would be in (frank)ing restraints!
Al Swearengen(Bettman): We are in the presence of the new.
E.B. Farnum(Daly): (frank) the (frank)ing new! Jesus Christ, Al... is it over for us here?
Al Swearengen(Bettman): Go back to the hotel, E.B(Daly).
E.B. Farnum(Daly): Save us. Think of something!
Al Swearengen(Bettman): Have I ever not?

Almost,
1) honor current contract obligations - but scaled back by some percentage - not as much as 20% however
2) no new contracts longer than CBA itself... if it is six years - max contract length is six years
3) make reparations to players who have their contracts impacted based on profit of team... in other words, you play for a money losing club, too bad - which will indirectly over time stop clubs from signing stupidly large contracts they can't afford
4) give teams ONE TIME option to buy out 2 or 3 contracts each without buyout CAP hit to get under new CAP... player still gets paid, team doesn't take CAP hit for this buyout
5) bought out players may sign anywhere - including back with same team
6) increase # of professional player contracts that clubs may hold to 60 from 50 (more players in union... likely more at lower salary levels)
7) free agency outright at age 25 or 5 years of NHL playing time... which ever comes first
8) move current July 1st Free Agency day to the day before or the day of the draft - this will increase trade and movement of both young players and FAs
9) any luxury tax / cap overage / penalities that are transfered MUST go to player signings (not to finance the purchase of European soccer teams or to golf club or real estate development)
10) announce the expansion to two locations in two years (locations to be determined)
11) annouce the Coyotes are moving somewhere/anywhere (Quebec), give Bettman ownership of the team so he can manage his own mess and no longer be the commissioner...
12) teams may go over the CAP until the first game of the season... a which time they begin to pay a pro-rated daily fine
- BorjeFan4Ever

1 - no reason for any kind of salary rollback at all. None.
2 - no reason for fixed-year contract limits. In fact, there's a good chance it would cause more problems than it solves.
3 - ignores the fact that it's not the low-revenue teams that have been driving up the cap floor and salaries. (aka "blame the victim")
4 - the only point that makes any kind of sense at all is 4 ... and even then, there shouldn't be any limit on the number of contracts bought out for one-time cap compliance.
5 - is a green flag to commit cap circumvention (and if not worded correctly, will end up screwing the owners over in a massive way).
6 - unnecessary, and is a total win for the players at the expense of the owners.
7 - unrealistic (though there do need to be changes for FA before UFA).
8 - won't change much, since the cap system is the primary limiting factor in trades. Additionally, since the draft isn't on a fixed date, causes other problems which are small individually but numerous and substantial in aggregate.
9 - red herring, since there's no proof the items alleged are taking place. Determining compliance would also be a potential nightmare.
10 - fix the franchises that exist, or put 2 more into the league and put even more pressure on already struggling teams? Apparently, you're choosing the latter.
11 - straw man statement.
12 - teams can already go over the cap before the start of the season; some teams may not care at all about paying a fine unless it's outlandishly punitive.

The article itself doesn't have to be perfect (which it is not) but it does point out flaws in the NHL numbers as reported in the Forbes article that everyone likes to refer to as fact. There are certain aspects of HRR that are not reported completely. Basically each city with their different arena leases show revenues in different ways. Concessions, suites, and things of that sort are NOT uniform from city to city. So based on that premise the article does point out some interesting dynamics to the NHL economic issues.
- uf1910

Sorry, but that's completely incorrect.

There are not aspects of HRR that are not reported completely. HRR was clearly set out in the last CBA (seriously, look it up) and for teams to not report them would be fraud. The NHL has disclosed all financial information to the NHLPA. If they were cooking the books, this thing would be in court (don't bother arguing this point - do you really think that Donald Fehr wouldn't be fighting on that front if it were true?).

Concessions, suites, and things of that sort ARE uniform from city to city. They have to be, as per the CBA.

4 - the only point that makes any kind of sense at all is 4 ... and even then, there shouldn't be any limit on the number of contracts bought out for one-time cap compliance.

- Irish Blues

Buyouts are about the only thing that the NHL and the NHLPA would agree on; owners like it because it's an option for correcting mistakes, and players like it because they get 2/3rds of their remaining salaries, and then can turn around and sign a new contract the same day.

Why set a limit? If a team wants to buy out 23 guys, go for it.

Yes. I side with the owners.

As the weeks have gone by, more and more evidence has piled up that Fehr has no interest in negotiating (maybe he will today?). His antics are described by just about every media outlet. It is well-documented that he will not make an offer. (to date). It is easy to see what his game is.


- Aetherial

I don't agree that more and more evidence has piled up that Fher has no interest in negotiating. And all the evidence you need is that his tactics, whether you like them or not, got the people he works for a better deal on Make Whole then the previous one. Which was the result of negotiating. Fehr is a proven and successful negotiator.

Then look at the "profit" split from that 3.3 billion... seems ridiculous to me.

Then consider that I do not buy into the players being entitled to 57% any more (not about to argue this with you again )


- Aetherial

I'm on record multiple times agreeing that the player can no longer have 57% of revenue and that 50/50 is fair. So why would we argue about that? Maybe your far more focused on the poster instead of the content to realize that I've stated that umpteen times.

Then, throw in the player's public quotes.

That sums up my reason for siding with the owners. It does not mean I don't recognize the owners faults also... just that I choose not to list them all the time. Other people can do that well enough.

As near as I can tell, anyone on this board who has engaged in any conversation on this issue besides "they all suck"... has chosen a side to support.
- Aetherial

Honestly, far too much wieght is place on the players comments. Those really couldn't be more irrelvant in my opinion.
I think if you truly see both sides, the content of a posters posts would be more towards the middle then consistently on the Owners side. But most of your posts are more geared towards who the poster is then the actual content, imo.

Sorry, but that's completely incorrect.

There are not aspects of HRR that are not reported completely. HRR was clearly set out in the last CBA (seriously, look it up) and for teams to not report them would be fraud. The NHL has disclosed all financial information to the NHLPA. If they were cooking the books, this thing would be in court (don't bother arguing this point - do you really think that Donald Fehr wouldn't be fighting on that front if it were true?).

Concessions, suites, and things of that sort ARE uniform from city to city. They have to be, as per the CBA.
- Atomic Wedgie

Not reporting numbers to the government would be fraud. As for HRR being clearly defined, yes you are correct. But again there are certain aspects of revenues that are NOT recognized as HRR but the NHLPA wants more clearly defined and/or recognized as HRR. That is not incorrect

Sorry, but that's completely incorrect.

There are not aspects of HRR that are not reported completely. HRR was clearly set out in the last CBA (seriously, look it up) and for teams to not report them would be fraud. The NHL has disclosed all financial information to the NHLPA. If they were cooking the books, this thing would be in court (don't bother arguing this point - do you really think that Donald Fehr wouldn't be fighting on that front if it were true?).

Concessions, suites, and things of that sort ARE uniform from city to city. They have to be, as per the CBA.
- Atomic Wedgie

Agreed. The better statement is that "there are revenues that teams have which have not been counted in HRR" and that's exactly correct (and was explicitly allowed).

No. I doubt you find any sports teams that have it set up as one. None. That's an absolutely normal way of doing things.

Honestly, you've got your tin hat on too tight, and are talking out of your a$$.

There is no company on earth that would take sports teams, arenas, etc, and combine them under one corporate entity. None. Zero. I've done work for several fairly large companies, and there are literally 15 or 20 companies under thm, dividing lines of business. That's par for the course. Suggesting that the reason they're doing this is to mask profits is downright asinine. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
- prock

What's set up to mask it is how the assign revenue and profit. If you don't think that happens, then you are naive imo.

1 - no reason for any kind of salary rollback at all. None.
- Irish Blues

Actually there is, and if things continue to go south this month I would expect the owners will make this clear.

Salaries are tied to the cap, cap to revenue. If we lose another season this will be a huge kick to the balls for the league, revenues will plummet at least for the first two years. Guys signed to 12M/year deals were done so under a ~70M cap structure. If the owners want to rejig HRR sharing to tweak that a bit then it is one thing and yes I agree that they should make good on signed contracts.

We hit fiscal Armageddon though, and that would fall as much on the players if not more than the owners... it may very well come down to "clawbacks" again. Sign a new CBA this week maybe the cap stays north of 60M and things can be worked out. Lost a season and the cap get smashed down to 40M and then there is a *real* problem with current player contracts.

Either way it is evident that players currently not under contract will be the ones to get screwed over in all this. Appealing to the highest paid nancies and making it very clear their bottom line is in jeopardy might just be the impetus we need to get a deal done.

Actually, that's precisely what you said, right here:
- prock

That's not what I said at all. That's just what you think I said. And not understanding the point.

Here's the bottom line. And I'll state it again. I don't believe that your statement that the NHL is making a lot of revenue but little profit, is accurate, imo

The article itself doesn't have to be perfect (which it is not) but it does point out flaws in the NHL numbers as reported in the Forbes article that everyone likes to refer to as fact. There are certain aspects of HRR that are not reported completely. Basically each city with their different arena leases show revenues in different ways. Concessions, suites, and things of that sort are NOT uniform from city to city. So based on that premise the article does point out some interesting dynamics to the NHL economic issues.
- uf1910

No. It doesn't. Don't you get, that it's not even dealing with the numbers of an NHL team?

Even the original author admits his conclusions aren't sound.

And yes, you need a financial background to understand what is going on.

Obviously, you don't have one, which is why yhou are struggling to grasp these simple concepts.

A non-disclosure agreement would not protect teams that were cooking books.

Once again, quit throwing around terms for which you do not have the necessary background.

You aren't qualified to make these statements.
- Atomic Wedgie

No he did not. He specifically states that his mistake in not including the distinction, does not change the poiints made that he outlines in bullet points and lists as point 1 and point 2.

No you don't need a financial background to know what's going on. It was a simple article. Your just simply trying to complicate it.

I didn't state that a non disclosure agreement would protect teams that are cooking the books. Nor did I state that teams wer cooking the books period. Or that there was any fraud involved period. A non disclosure agreement would prevent the PA from stating anything about the financials of the teams publicly.

Once again, your reading things that aren't there.

Not looking to call you a liar or anything, but I'll believe that when I see it. The players are just another bunch of pathetic fiercely ambitious money men fighting for the right to be the first to chase a dollar off a cliff.
- thefullnelson

Damn straight screw the players! When you get paid that kinda money to play hockey and still want more, that is pure BS. Sick of this crap, just went from a rabid fan to a passive one !! Unbelievable !!! I am so done !!

It sounds to me like the chances of an NHL season this year are pretty much nil. The bottom line is the Players do not feel they should be forced to absorb the costs or be financially burdened for the Leagues inability to effectively run a $3.3 billion a year business. The owners are trying to fix their mistakes by imposing less revenues and contractual limitations on the PA.

That being said, it's the owners business and whether they are at fault or not for the mishandlings of League finances, they have the right to impose their will upon the PA in order to continue to grow the league and allow all NHL franchises to become more viable entities for the betterment of the league as a whole.
- MnGump

The League does not have the right to impose their will onto the PA. Not only that, but they simply don't have the power to do so. This is a Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiation.

What's set up to mask it is how the assign revenue and profit. If you don't think that happens, then you are naive imo.
- MJL

I'm not naive at all. I see things like this set up on a daily basis, and not to mask profit, revenue, or anything of the sort. It's you that clearly has absolutely no knowledge in the area, if you're assuming that's why it's set up that way. Completely. I'm telling you, thyat if there was no cap, no reporting to the NHLPA at all, nothing based off of profit or revenue, it would almost surely still be set up this way.

The article itself doesn't have to be perfect (which it is not) but it does point out flaws in the NHL numbers as reported in the Forbes article that everyone likes to refer to as fact. There are certain aspects of HRR that are not reported completely. Basically each city with their different arena leases show revenues in different ways. Concessions, suites, and things of that sort are NOT uniform from city to city. So based on that premise the article does point out some interesting dynamics to the NHL economic issues.
- uf1910

And that is the whole point being made. Which you explained better then I have.