I can tell you one thing....the PA looks considerably well put-together this time around, as opposed to the dog and pony show in 04. This should be interesting.
I don't see many fans taking the owners' side when revenue has increased like it has....oh, and when ticket prices have increased an average of 39% after we were promised the opposite.
But then WTH can I do to hurt only the owners? Nothing. If I keep my money, the players get hurt to.
The only thing I can think of is to email your ticket rep to say exactly that. I don't know if they have meetings where they share feedback, but I made my thoughts clear today (though we didn't discuss who was "wrong") when he called. I admitted that the potential work stoppage was not the reason I hadn't renewed, but it sure as hell was the reason he was wasting time calling me until it was resolved. And I encouraged him to pass that along to whomever might care.
Originally Posted by SouthernHockeyChick
I agree that the NHLPA approach is a good one -- coming in from another angle rather than just flipping numbers around. It will be interesting to see if the Owners will even embrace an approach that is different.
Yup, when I got my ticket rep call, I asked about the CBA issue. He kind of waved it away, but it's definitely part (but not all) of my equation this year.
(It's also a big ugly wrench in the works of travel plans. Got Phoenix and Detroit trips, darn it, and I wanna watch some hockey when I'm there.)
Well, from the early returns, articles, and tweets, it sounds like the players have put together a quality and reasonable proposal. I must admit to my misgivings when I heard Fehr was negotiating the NHLPA side, but I'm impressed.
Will the NHL now respond with something reasonable now and get things moving or will Bettman be responsible for his 3rd lockout? I was somewhat sympathetic in 04-05, but after yesterday, I will now place the blame for any failure to close this thing squarely on the owners.
Yeah sounds like the players are trying to make a reasonable CBA that works for both sides. If there is a lock out, I will place the blame solely on the owners/Bettman.
I haven't done a ton of research/reading on their proposal, but I get the impression that there is still a gap dealing with the players stake in the % of revenue.
Originally Posted by KaniacFever
I agree that the onus is on the owners this time (Bettman is really just their mouthpiece/fallguy, he's going to do what they say, and he surely can't operate w/o their approval). To "win" 7 years ago and then say that the deal they wanted was no good put syou at a disadvantage in the court of public opinion from the get go I'd say.
But let's be clear -- no one at that table is going broke. Even players making league min have gotten the type of raises (talking % here, dollars is obvious though) that most of us will never see.
I have zero sympathy for any of them to be honest.
Thank goodness college football starts in a few weeks. We love it and it will hopefully carry us over until the NHL stops ****ting the bed.
Not so much here.
Originally Posted by nccanes
I agree it's hard to have sympathy for anyone making the money they all make....but I pay what I pay for tickets so, hard to blame anyone but myself. People aren't willing to pay high taxes therefore teachers make squat, but we are willing to pay what we pay for professional sports. It's the culture we live in.
I can't fix that (in any way other than voting for those who understand the purpose of taxes and support the idea of a community working together rather than individuals grabbing everything they can for themselves). But it's my philosophy that the guys risking their health (not their fortune) and doing all the work should get a hefty chunk of the revenue.
Players all the way. I was on the players side in 04 too, though. But certainly, if a labor dispute erupts between my bosses and me....I'll be on my side as well, lol.
One of the things that's always fascinated me is that the NFL does NOT have guaranteed contracts, the NHL has them (with an 85% buyout option for the team) and MLB has 100% guaranteed contracts. How crazy is that?
These kind of photos are SO STUPID.
Last edited by nccanes; 08-15-2012 at 11:21 AM.
Compared to other sports, I think pro hockey players are poorly paid (compared to the general public is a different story though), especially when you look at the number of games they play in a season. Look at the NFL. They play 16 games. MLB players play a lot more games but they don't have the wear and tear on their bodies that hockey players have. And there is not one NHL owner who is hurting for money. So I guess I'm solidly on the side of the players but the bottom line is I just want to watch hockey this season.
I'm not seeing this fabulous proposal....
1) the players are hanging their hats on increased revenue sharing among the teams... great.... everyone has known all along that better revenue sharing model was needed. The NHL wasn't going to broach that until they had to.
2) This fabulous salary give back is a bit of an illusion....
a) this is a 3 year limited thing with a cap on how much the players will be willing to offset. At the end of the 3 years, it goes back to the existing model with them getting 57%... shocking... they want what they've got now so they can continue to get crazy jumps in salary year over year...
b)let's look at the salary cap increases over the life of the current CBA and see how their slowdown affects things or not:
Salary Cap over life of current CBA (including upcoming season's current projected cap):
05/06 - $39M
06/07 - $44M - 12.8% increase
07/08 - $50.3M - 14.3% increase
08/09 - $56.7M - 12.7% increase
09/10 - $56.8M - 1.7% increase
10/11 - $59.4M - 4.6% increase
11/12 - $64.3M - 8.2% increase
12/13 - $70.2M - 9.2% increase
If you throw out the upcoming year and base it only on 05/06 to 11/12, the salary cap has increased 64.9% over six years (the initial year of the cap introduction plus 6 additional years of increases). That's an average increase of 10.8% year over year, taking into consideration a couple off years when the US economy went in the crapper. Some of those increases were driven by escalators in the CBA that allowed the players to invoke an increase in spite of flat revenues and take more escrow out.
Union wants average of 4% each year for the next 3 years instead of the 10.8% they've been averaging. What that means for salary cap numbers:
12/13 - $65.6M - 2% increase - X 30 teams = $1.968Billion max spent on salaries
13/14 - $68.2M - 4% increase - X 30 teams = $2.046Billion max spent on salaries
14/15 - $72.3M - 6% increase - X 30 teams = $2.169Billion max spent on salaries
Total Max salaries under cap = $6.183Billion
Under current CBA model with current $70.2M cap plus 2 more years of 10.8%:
12/13 - $70.2M - 9.2% increase - X 30 teams = $2.106Billion max spent on salaries
13/14 - $77.8M - 10.8% increase - X 30 teams = $2.334Billion max spent on salaries
14/15 - $86.2M - 10.8% increase - X 30 teams = $2.586Billion max spent on salaries
Total Max salaries under cap = $7.026Billion
Difference - $843 Million
So the Player's union assertion that their plan could save the owners up to $800 million over the next 3 years is based on revenues continuing to climb by 10+% year over year and every single team in the league spending to the full salary cap.... The $400+million actual savings is looking at actual cap spending by clubs since not all teams spend to the cap...
Players are trying to guarantee raises to the cap over the next three years and then go back to the existing system. If we have a couple years like 9/10 and 10/11 (hey, no one knows what kind of calamity is going to befall the economy), then there is no saving to the owners and possibly a loss to the owners. Sure, the cap hasn't gone down since its inception... but will ticket buyers continue to absorb the rise in prices? Will the Canadian dollar continue to be so strong against the US dollar (because of US political policy and the US economy going in the crapper)? notice that if revenue goes up over 10%, the players get their cut of the revenue over 10% (i.e. they get a cut of that .8% of the 10.8% average increase, which is why I rounded down to $800 million.
3) all reports indicate the players want everything else in the current CBA to stay the same... same contract terms, same ability for long term crazy deals, same RFA/UFA/arbitration/etc... all because those very much are in the player's favor because of fan pressure on GMs to show they are doing something with their roster and not losing their players....
Notice that there is no pretense this time about it being about the fans... there never was any plan to control ticket prices... this plan from either side does none of that... both sides are wanting to maximize profit. The players want to go one step further and ensure that all teams can afford to give out the stupid contracts and all teams can spend closer to the cap by redistributing profit from the larger teams to the lower revenue teams... that increases the bidding pool for their services, drives up contract values even further by forcing GMs to overpay to land the good players to make their team competitive and keep season ticket renewals strong, increases salaries on all teams, forces teams to charge more for tickets and concessions to pay for the higher salaries, etc. etc. etc. and the vicious cycle continues.... a better TV deal helps offset some of it... but hockey relies significantly on gate receipts... and that means all of this comes directly out of the fans pocketbook, not out of the non-hockey fan paying $1-$5 more a month for TV unaware they are subsidizing the NHL like the NFL does now with their huge TV deals...
At this point, with nothing but the laughable (IMO) proposal from the owners, that looks fantastic.
Perfect? Of course not. Are both sides looking out for their own self-interests? Why shouldn't they be?
But that proposal certainly looks more like considering the situation, trying to be creative and come up with some new ideas, and coming to NEGOTIATE and not just shove something down the other side's throat.
Now we'll see how it plays out.
At a bargaining table, does anyone get to shove something down their throat? I mean, neither side has any control over what the other side does.
I don't think the NHL can look at other leagues that are swimming in money to set their salaries. The pie is only so big. Of course, there's debate over how big the pie is as well.
I just have a really really tough time throwing my support behind anyone -- even the players. For 10 years I've been a STH, even in times when I probably shouldn't have been. We've absorbed "down years" when our employers didn't even give us increases to cover the increased cost of gas. It's very very hard to be anything but apathetic -- towards all of them.
reading in a couple places that teams can trade cap space under NHLPA proposal....
so there is Fehr's method around the salary cap.... trade with a lower revenue team that has no intention of spending to the cap to get extra cap space...
Players get some of those lost salaries back by using cap space that is currently dead and never going to be used by teams... especially teams that are struggling to make the salary floor... so the Islanders sell $10M in cap space to the Flyers for a pick and the Flyers now go to $80M in cap for a year... $10M more in players hands than would have happened....
advantages for teams in a rebuild or with a bunch of entry level contracts not having to spend to the floor... so in that situation the salaries aren't increased... but floor teams like us traditionally would love to sell some space to get some draft picks or cash compensation to help pay the bills... a pseudo luxury tax or way to trade a player and some money sweetener in the deal....
AWard has been tweeting on the info he gets about the PA proposal.
His most recent stuff indicates that trading cap space is "VERY limited" and only to teams in need (he also used the term "franchise in distress" ).
And we have our answer.
From a tweet Luke RT'd:
"Bettman: 'the sides are far apart and have different views of the world'"
Note the single quotes, so I'm guessing that's a paraphrase?
On a different front....Gotta say that I find it funny that the PA's draft included limits on "non-player" spending. Without details it's hard to understand, but boy that sounds odd and complicated.
Meanwhile, the September 15 deadline is one month away.
TSN has the full remarks up now.
And can you love Jeff O'Neill any more? I mean, yeah he RT's the most ridiculous bathroom humor type stuff, but two days in a row he's my favorite person.
First he told all the people trying to get him to RT that awful Ice Jersey's promo to "fuggggggg off" (he did RT a couple first and then realized what a spam-a-thon it was) and today he says:
"Now that I'm done I feel bad for the guy that works his bag off and looks forward to watching Hockey".
I just saw that one... nice. Jeff has some cool takes once in a while so I kept him on follow, but I had to turn off RT's from him - too much crap there even before the icejerseys baloney.
Yeah, after that avalanche of crap came thru I turned off RT's for every player. But I missed him and Tim Brent....who both started to RT. Went back in and got those later.
Originally Posted by StormChaserBH
But you're right. His RT's are not the best of his timeline anyway!
ok, how do you turn off retweets? and can you turn off ads?
All this stuff right now is just the males strutting and trying to win the mating rights for the ... wait wrong idea. No... it's just the same. They are going to strut and posture for a while before they actually get down to business. There is no perceived pressure to get anything done right now. They are going to throw this turd back and forth for a while and try to get the public's backing. I don't expect to see anything happening until it gets closer to preseason games starting. Once the budget teams start having to refund money for STH's that have paid for these up front, there will be some incentive to deal. It will also be closer to when the players start having to give up checks.
When I see one of the early proposals in this type of thing, I always expect to see "and a pony" at the end.
On twitter.com, click on the user's name or icon in your timeline to get that popup with the Follow button and their last 3 tweets or whatever (the button says "Following" if you follow the user).. right next to that is a "head-and-shoulders" icon, click on that, and "Turn off Retweets" is an option.
Originally Posted by caniac97
The 3rd party client programs may have an way to do that, or might not... not sure, but if you change it on the web site it affects your timeline no matter which client you use.
Originally Posted by StormChaserBH
My always optimistic husband had no qualms 2 weeks ago of paying the whole ticket bill in full. He was "confident" that a deal would get done so boom, he paid it all.
We "locked in" last time around and were 'rewarded'..... I'm personally fine with requesting a refund right now, I'm so completely irritated. This will be the ONLY recourse for fans to say their piece. I lay all the blame on the greedy owners and we all know our owner is pretty damn greedy.
I understand your frustration but don't write it off just yet. The best thing myself, or anyone else for that matter, could do would be tune it out for a few weeks. However, knowing myself and anyone else, that ain't going to happen. I agree, the owners suck for the most part. I totally side with the players here but nobody has called my number yet so I guess my vote doesn't count.
Originally Posted by SoCalcaniac
If Maurice were still here and Semin and J. Staal hadn't moved to town, I wouldn't even give a crap.