I agree 100%. The only way of doing this farely is limit the amount/length of contract EVERY GM in the league can offer. Without rules in the CBA that address this, any efforts the GM do to 'rein in' would be considered collusion. - bloatedmosquito
So if you think the Flyers would of offered Wayne Simmonds, who is a nice player, but not a star. A 4 year deal worth 13.2M, which would be a 3.3M Cap hit. Versus what they gave him which was a 6 year deal worth 23.85M, and a Cap hit of 3.975M. That would be considered collusion? He also got a Modified NTC when he hits his UFA years. Which is crazy. And then the next player who comes along that is comparable to Wayne Simmonds, uses his deal as a comparable, and salaries for players go up and up!
I absolutely understand the whole projected revenue growth part. It is you who doesn't understand based on two completely false statements you made.
"If you truly believe they lost out in the last CBA, I think we're done talking here. Someone call the nurse!
And with low-end revenue growth projections, the players will not lose money."
The players lost Billions in the last CBA and they will lose millions if not Billions in this CBA.
When someone winds up making less money then they could've of if they didn't take a reduced share, that is absolutely losing money. And you don't have to google the basics of business to know that. But this is just the mantra of some of the Owners supporters to try and discredit that the players are giving anything to the Owners. It doesn't fly.
Now if you want to state that the players won't have to take a pay cut. That might be accurate. But they will be losing money from this CBA. A lot of it. And not just what they've lost from the lockout. - MJL
As someone who has a business degree, I can't believe I'm even arguing this.
Your definition of losing is laughable. They did not "lose" millions. They lost a percentage, but GAINED money... Money is king. If someone offered you a job where you make 80% of revenues and revenues were $10,000, would you be losing if you took a job where you only got 50% of revenues, but revenues were $1,000,000... You have to separate the two. Revenues were expected to go up, and reach a level, in just year 2 of the new CBA, that would see players actually earn more than they were last season... Losing a percentage of future earnings? Sure... Losing actual money in the future? (frank) no.
As far as losers are concerned, there were 13 losers in the NHL last season, and all 13 were owners. Anyone with any common sense understands that this is not healthy and that the NHL will not remain healthy if this continues.
As someone who has a business degree, I can't believe I'm even arguing this.
Your definition of losing is laughable. They did not "lose" millions. They lost a percentage, but GAINED money... Money is king. If someone offered you a job where you make 80% of revenues and revenues were $10,000, would you be losing if you took a job where you only got 50% of revenues, but revenues were $1,000,000... You have to separate the two. Revenues were expected to go up, and reach a level, in just year 2 of the new CBA, that would see players actually earn more than they were last season... Losing a percentage of future earnings? Sure... Losing actual money in the future? (frank) no.
As far as losers are concerned, there were 13 losers in the NHL last season, and all 13 were owners. Anyone with any common sense understands that this is not healthy and that the NHL will not remain healthy if this continues. - laughs2907
I agree with some of this. However where your being foolish is it is the NHL fault mainly Bettmans fault that teams like phx and the Panthers are averaging so few fans(there are more teams but these are the 2 most noticable imo)Players should not be held responsable because the man the owners chose to run the league, clearly has no idea how to do that part of his job
No.
U can only say that their percentage or share of revenue in the next cba will be less than the share they had in the expired cba. Which they are no longer entitled to as of sept.15
They are not losing money. According to their own numbers they will make more in this cba, than they did in the expired cba. Which they are no longer entitled to - hugefemale dog77
Another one of the ridiculous spins that some of the Owners supporters throw out. As if the last CBA being expired means that they aren't giving a concession to the Owners. Laughable.
It is absolutely comical that you are either unable to grasp, or unwilling to admit, that the players taking a lesser percentage share going forward, is going to cost them money. And that they will lose money in doing so. And that you have the gall to tell someone they need to google basic business
As someone who has a business degree, I can't believe I'm even arguing this.
Your definition of losing is laughable. They did not "lose" millions. They lost a percentage, but GAINED money... Money is king. If someone offered you a job where you make 80% of revenues and revenues were $10,000, would you be losing if you took a job where you only got 50% of revenues, but revenues were $1,000,000... You have to separate the two. Revenues were expected to go up, and reach a level, in just year 2 of the new CBA, that would see players actually earn more than they were last season... Losing a percentage of future earnings? Sure... Losing actual money in the future? (frank) no.
As far as losers are concerned, there were 13 losers in the NHL last season, and all 13 were owners. Anyone with any common sense understands that this is not healthy and that the NHL will not remain healthy if this continues. - laughs2907
Revenue for a future year just for discussion purposes is 5M
Players have a 50% share of that revenue. That equals 2.5M
Players have a 57% share of revenue. That would equal 2.85M
Nah, taking a lesser share going forward isn't losing money. And you say you have a business degree?
I haven't read one supporter of the NHLPA state that the players taking a lesser share going forward is unfair.
Location: Has anyone discussed the standings today? Joined: 06.30.2006
Dec 9 @ 6:26 PM ET
100% fault of owners. No doubt about it. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron.
Feel better?
Now, how do we fix it?
Because if we don't that's 23 NHLPA jobs gone.
Simple fact: when 50% or more of your costs go to one item, that's the first place you need to address if you have any hope of profitability. - Atomic Wedgie
No no no Wedgie,
They don't need to address player salaries. They need to fix their business model.
Everyone knows that players salaries are not an expense and therefore not a component of the business model.
We'll see at the end of the day how well Fehr did.
We'll see how the players feel about it down the road. - Aetherial
Without Fehr , The Owners would have bent them over the table without lubrication . AT least with Fehr he is at least getting them lubrication . Why do you you think the owners did not want him in there for final negotiation . The NHL method in every lockout has been to try and break the Union and alienate the players from their union chief.
Would you make a plea bargain with the police without having your Lawyer present ? If some of these hard line owners had their way , we would be back to these days of a player having to take a full time off season job just to put food on the table for their families .
Back to the old ways how they screwed with Ted Lindsay when he first tried to form a players union . They alienated players from Each other . I have seen interviews where Gordie Howe says he regrets turning his back on Lindsay back then.
Both sides are to blame but this blind loyalty to the owners that have no respect for the fans is comical in here . The owners won't even open the books all the way and let a forensic accounting be done to ascertain the real revenue.
They wouldnt be spouting numbers. Theyd say we dont agree with said claims. Why do u even bother wasting both our time?
If the pa knew that the bottom feeders werent in fact losing money. Fehr would be in front of a podium. - hugefemale dog77
Nothing to do with semantics. They would be prohibited from disclosing anything from those reports. And they likely would also need to provide proof that was the case to state that publicly.
Location: A dose of reality in this cesspool of glee Joined: 10.22.2011
Dec 9 @ 6:30 PM ET
So if you think the Flyers would of offered Wayne Simmonds, who is a nice player, but not a star. A 4 year deal worth 13.2M, which would be a 3.3M Cap hit. Versus what they gave him which was a 6 year deal worth 23.85M, and a Cap hit of 3.975M. That would be considered collusion? He also got a Modified NTC when he hits his UFA years. Which is crazy. And then the next player who comes along that is comparable to Wayne Simmonds, uses his deal as a comparable, and salaries for players go up and up! - MJL
What are you talking about? I think you've argued yourself numb.
What I said was the CBA needs to include a Cap and a stipulation on contract length to even the playing field amongst franchise GMs. Simple concept to grasp.
All I got from your post is that Wayne Simmonds gets paid too much money.
Location: Has anyone discussed the standings today? Joined: 06.30.2006
Dec 9 @ 6:31 PM ET
Revenue for a future year just for discussion purposes is 5M
Players have a 50% share of that revenue. That equals 2.5M
Players have a 57% share of revenue. That would equal 2.85M
Nah, taking a lesser share going forward isn't losing money. And you say you have a business degree?
I haven't read one supporter of the NHLPA state that the players taking a lesser share going forward is unfair. - MJL
The players no longer have 57%.
The players no longer have an entitlement to 57%.
Argue that. Don't tell me about "basis" or "reference" points because those words are totally meaningless when dealing with the brutal reality of numbers and EXPIRED contracts.
What are you talking about? I think you've argued yourself numb.
What I said was the CBA needs to include a Cap and a stipulation on contract length to even the playing field amongst franchise GMs. Simple concept to grasp.
All I got from your post is that Wayne Simmonds gets paid too much money.
Boy, did the players lose last CBA. - bloatedmosquito
What are you talking about? I think you've argued yourself numb.
What I said was the CBA needs to include a Cap and a stipulation on contract length to even the playing field amongst franchise GMs. Simple concept to grasp.
All I got from your post is that Wayne Simmonds gets paid too much money.
Boy, did the players lose last CBA. - bloatedmosquito
Here is exactly what you said.
"I agree 100%. The only way of doing this farely is limit the amount/length of contract EVERY GM in the league can offer. Without rules in the CBA that address this, any efforts the GM do to 'rein in' would be considered collusion."
I gave you a simple example of how a GM can lower player salary costs without a risk of being accused of collusion. The GM in the example I gave doesn't need any rules in the CBA to do that.
Location: Has anyone discussed the standings today? Joined: 06.30.2006
Dec 9 @ 6:33 PM ET
Without Fehr , The Owners would have bent them over the table without lubrication . AT least with Fehr he is at least getting them lubrication . Why do you you think the owners did not want him in there for final negotiation . The NHL method in every lockout has been to try and break the Union and alienate the players from their union chief.
Would you make a plea bargain with the police without having your Lawyer present ? If some of these hard line owners had their way , we would be back to these days of a player having to take a full time off season job just to put food on the table for their families .
Back to the old ways how they screwed with Ted Lindsay when he first tried to form a players union . They alienated players from Each other . I have seen interviews where Gordie Howe says he regrets turning his back on Lindsay back then.
Both sides are to blame but this blind loyalty to the owners that have no respect for the fans is comical in here . The owners won't even open the books all the way and let a forensic accounting be done to ascertain the real revenue. - Maximum Signal
It is not blind loyalty to the owners nearly so much as it is hate for Fehr, and dislike for a bunch of spoiled, whiny, STUPID PA members.
I agree with some of this. However where your being foolish is it is the NHL fault mainly Bettmans fault that teams like phx and the Panthers are averaging so few fans(there are more teams but these are the 2 most noticable imo)Players should not be held responsable because the man the owners chose to run the league, clearly has no idea how to do that part of his job - Bieksa#3
I'm not being foolish in those areas, because I acknowledge that the owners and Bettman make mistakes from time to time... Were some of the location choices poor? Certainly... But this is factored into the industry's strategic analysis... This is what makes up the market... This is what makes up the industry. Are the players paying for those mistakes? Sure, in some ways... Are they benefiting from the league's successes? You better believe it. This brings me back to my original point. You can't fault the league for the things they do wrong, and discredit them for the things they do right. The players pay for mistakes, and benefit from successes... Just like every other employee in the world.
I'm not being foolish in those areas, because I acknowledge that the owners and Bettman make mistakes from time to time... Were some of the location choices poor? Certainly... But this is factored into the industry's strategic analysis... This is what makes up the market... This is what makes up the industry. Are the players paying for those mistakes? Sure, in some ways... Are they benefiting from the league's successes? You better believe it. This brings me back to my original point. You can't fault the league for the things they do wrong, and discredit them for the things they do right. The players pay for mistakes, and benefit from successes... Just like every other employee in the world. - laughs2907
Yes but your jumping the point. Fixing the CBA is part of the problem. Firing the guy who continues to advise them poorly and try to paint a rose picture rather then fix his own mistakes is the other half. Bettman is just as big of problem right now as Fehr and the CBA. Maybe they should address that one and the other will follow a lot smoother
What really gets me is that the 'owners' 50% must also cover player costs like travel, meals, per diems, equipment, clothing, lodging, and generally player fines.
Players are given per diem of US$83 per day. What does a guy like Crosby need an extra $83 per day? It's just so crazy. - bloatedmosquito
Don't even ask what the per diem is for MLB players. You'd really flip out.
Re-read what I wrote a couple of hundred times, and maybe something will sink in. - laughs2907
I read exactly what you wrote. You wrote they aren't losing money a couple of times. I could link it if necessary. You're simply full of it. You're just trying to spin it to look like the players aren't losing money to try and make your point. You don't need a business degree to figure this one out.
It is not blind loyalty to the owners nearly so much as it is hate for Fehr, and dislike for a bunch of spoiled, whiny, STUPID PA members.
When was the last CBA Fehr negotiated? - Aetherial
Your hate for Fehr is because he is trying to make the players lose as little as possible . That is his job . The owners went so far as telling the players that if they brought him back in to close the deal it was a deal breaker . Nice - . Sorry you cannot have someone in here to make sure we do not screw you over big time . As for your opinion of whiny players . That is because they are allowed to speak their mind . They do not have a gag order on them like the owners do . If some of these owners were allowed to open there mouths it would set the game back 50 years.
The players know they are losing this deal , workers always do . They are just trying to lose as little as possible . The examples to normal industry all the player haters make do not apply here . The players are the product . They are not assembly line workers that can be easily replaced as all the haters would like to infer.
