-
Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Access to private conversations with other members.
- Fewer ads.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
NHL 2013: Off-Season Running Thread
- Thread starter Gehrig
- Start date
JC
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 22,166
Re: NHL 2012: Off-Season Running Thread
Beef,
There is a colossal difference in the PR hit the league would have taken if Gary's holy grail, the Stanley Cup Playoffs would have been dominated by questions of a 24% roll back to an industry that he states is producing record revenues. The league had every opportunity to give the PA a proposal; you don't need formal talks for this. It is not incumbent on the players to be reaching out to the owners, they are not asking for increases in the next CBA. Regardless, starting negations earlier would have 0 effect on these negotiations, none. There would be absolutely no incentive for either side to come off their positions without some sort of a deadline. The owners are heck bent on getting their concessions all at once just like they were last time.
The older I get the less I care about this stuff. If this was any other industry the owners or corporations would be raked over the coals for their handling of this. The industry has grown by over a billion dollars. I understand that it's about ten teams that are responsible for this but Gary should get the owners house in order before trying to recoup "losses" from the players. Move franchises, fold franchises, more revenue sharing or all of the above.
Beef,
There is a colossal difference in the PR hit the league would have taken if Gary's holy grail, the Stanley Cup Playoffs would have been dominated by questions of a 24% roll back to an industry that he states is producing record revenues. The league had every opportunity to give the PA a proposal; you don't need formal talks for this. It is not incumbent on the players to be reaching out to the owners, they are not asking for increases in the next CBA. Regardless, starting negations earlier would have 0 effect on these negotiations, none. There would be absolutely no incentive for either side to come off their positions without some sort of a deadline. The owners are heck bent on getting their concessions all at once just like they were last time.
The older I get the less I care about this stuff. If this was any other industry the owners or corporations would be raked over the coals for their handling of this. The industry has grown by over a billion dollars. I understand that it's about ten teams that are responsible for this but Gary should get the owners house in order before trying to recoup "losses" from the players. Move franchises, fold franchises, more revenue sharing or all of the above.
Beef03
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 8,267
Re: NHL 2012: Off-Season Running Thread
You're preaching to the choir on this end of things, but I also think the players share at 57% is too big, especially considering the owners are the ones with the financial risk and pay the bills. When the last CBA was signed it was I think either a shade under 55% or right at 55%. You look at the other major professional leagues and no one is even close to that 57-43 split. I don't think anyone anticipated the rapid financial growth of the game. Circumstances have changed and I don't think the current CBA properly addresses the current state of the league or the increasing expenses for everything from travel to insurance to operating costs. When the salary floor is more than $20 mil higher than what the ceiling was in 2006, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. The fact that the players didn't really respond to the owners' proposals but instead came in with their own I found frustrating. At the root of it they are talking about similar issues, but in a completely different context and language. Both sides are dug in. Owners once again are complete idiots and need to be saved from themselves and the system -- so screwed up seeing Leopold hand out mega deals to Suter and Parise one week and then be yelling about the broken system the next -- and the players are being stubborn as heck. On one end I don't really blame the players, after the shirt they went through last time I wouldn't be in a talking mood either. BUT the system does need some tweaking. They want to be equal partners in the league, then split the revenue 50-50. The owners also need to smarten up and abandon black hole markets like Phoenix and fix their revenue sharing system.
JC said:
You're preaching to the choir on this end of things, but I also think the players share at 57% is too big, especially considering the owners are the ones with the financial risk and pay the bills. When the last CBA was signed it was I think either a shade under 55% or right at 55%. You look at the other major professional leagues and no one is even close to that 57-43 split. I don't think anyone anticipated the rapid financial growth of the game. Circumstances have changed and I don't think the current CBA properly addresses the current state of the league or the increasing expenses for everything from travel to insurance to operating costs. When the salary floor is more than $20 mil higher than what the ceiling was in 2006, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. The fact that the players didn't really respond to the owners' proposals but instead came in with their own I found frustrating. At the root of it they are talking about similar issues, but in a completely different context and language. Both sides are dug in. Owners once again are complete idiots and need to be saved from themselves and the system -- so screwed up seeing Leopold hand out mega deals to Suter and Parise one week and then be yelling about the broken system the next -- and the players are being stubborn as heck. On one end I don't really blame the players, after the shirt they went through last time I wouldn't be in a talking mood either. BUT the system does need some tweaking. They want to be equal partners in the league, then split the revenue 50-50. The owners also need to smarten up and abandon black hole markets like Phoenix and fix their revenue sharing system.
qtlaw
Well-Known Member
Re: NHL 2012: Off-Season Running Thread
Boy does the issue get old. Owners cannot help themselves so they ask someone to do it for them; if that is not anti-capitalism, hard to see what is.
If the system is so bad, why are the Minnesota owners giving out 20 year contracts (or whatever the ridiculous number is) to Parise and his buddy? Why do the owners continue to give out free agent contracts even this week while the "lockout" is out there and the owners are asking for a rollback? Do we need the Daily Show to shame the owners?
Boy does the issue get old. Owners cannot help themselves so they ask someone to do it for them; if that is not anti-capitalism, hard to see what is.
If the system is so bad, why are the Minnesota owners giving out 20 year contracts (or whatever the ridiculous number is) to Parise and his buddy? Why do the owners continue to give out free agent contracts even this week while the "lockout" is out there and the owners are asking for a rollback? Do we need the Daily Show to shame the owners?
JosephC.Myers
Active Member
Re: NHL 2012: Off-Season Running Thread
I agree the owners do seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths.
qtlaw said:
I agree the owners do seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Beef03
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 8,267
Re: NHL 2012: Off-Season Running Thread
Also with the contracts handed out just before the lockout came into effect, they did so to retain control of their players through the lockout, assuming they lose a year. Most of those players were in the last year of a deal that would have expired next July 1. They didn't want to come out of the lockout and then have to worry about locking up their young stars and right now not knowing what that economic landscape will look like. It takes away the unknown, it covers their collective asses. Also I'm not exactly sure how it would all work if the lockout rolled past July 1 next year and the offer sheet deadline -- if the league is locked down no one can make contractual moves -- with those RFAs, would they then hit the open market? It was prudent that they got those guys locked up even if they had to spend a little extra to do it.
The contracts like Parise, Suter, and Weber (Thanks Philly) got this off-season though, yeah bullshirt.
Also with the contracts handed out just before the lockout came into effect, they did so to retain control of their players through the lockout, assuming they lose a year. Most of those players were in the last year of a deal that would have expired next July 1. They didn't want to come out of the lockout and then have to worry about locking up their young stars and right now not knowing what that economic landscape will look like. It takes away the unknown, it covers their collective asses. Also I'm not exactly sure how it would all work if the lockout rolled past July 1 next year and the offer sheet deadline -- if the league is locked down no one can make contractual moves -- with those RFAs, would they then hit the open market? It was prudent that they got those guys locked up even if they had to spend a little extra to do it.
The contracts like Parise, Suter, and Weber (Thanks Philly) got this off-season though, yeah bullshirt.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
President Trump 2.0: The NEW one and only politics thread- Latest: Jake from State Farm
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pat McAfee gets multi-year deal worth $30 million annually- Latest: Jesus_Muscatel
-
