Equally Obnoxious Hockey Trash Talk Thread, eh?

CornyKegs 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
sivdrinks said:
Isn't it already a 54/46 split for the owners and they want more? I'm still trying to figure out what "revenue" is. I thought the players were paid with a contract from their employee the owner and everything else was the owners to deal with, profit and loss.
Click to expand...

No it's 57/43 for the players. The salary cap is directly tied to league revenue, so as revenue as a whole increases, so does the cap (and therefore, floor).

The problem is there are really only 12 money-making teams, while the rest wallow in despair. Currently if they continue on the path they are on, these poorer teams cannot survive. There are a few ways to fix the problem:

1) Contraction. Simply eliminate the poorer teams that cant sustain themselves. Problem is this is very expensive, and players lose jobs, it's really good for nobody so it's not a viable option.

2) Relocation. Move some teams around, why not? We all know Quebec City could take another team.

3) Increased revenue sharing. If you're the Toronto Maple Leafs, are you interested in paying out a few hundred million in profit to places like Phoenix, Tampa, and Florida, simply so they can exist and compete against you? Better yet, if you're a Leaf fan paying $150 for a ticket, do you really care if some guy in Phoenix gets to go to a playoff game and pay only $30?

4) Lower the cap. A 50/50 split would do this to an extent.

5) Remove the salary floor, or increase the difference. Not sure if players would agree to this or not.


In the end the solution is out there - it's just whether or not the NHLPA is willing to start giving a **** enough to get this done. They stalled negotiations for 6 months hoping they could just continue playing under the current CBA, but the owners told them to stick that idea where the sun doesn't shine. Now everyone is paying the price for their stall tactics.
 
paulster2626 said:
No it's 57/43 for the players. The salary cap is directly tied to league revenue, so as revenue as a whole increases, so does the cap (and therefore, floor).

The problem is there are really only 12 money-making teams, while the rest wallow in despair. Currently if they continue on the path they are on, these poorer teams cannot survive. There are a few ways to fix the problem:

1) Contraction. Simply eliminate the poorer teams that cant sustain themselves. Problem is this is very expensive, and players lose jobs, it's really good for nobody so it's not a viable option.

2) Relocation. Move some teams around, why not? We all know Quebec City could take another team.

3) Increased revenue sharing. If you're the Toronto Maple Leafs, are you interested in paying out a few hundred million in profit to places like Phoenix, Tampa, and Florida, simply so they can exist and compete against you? Better yet, if you're a Leaf fan paying $150 for a ticket, do you really care if some guy in Phoenix gets to go to a playoff game and pay only $30?

4) Lower the cap. A 50/50 split would do this to an extent.

5) Remove the salary floor, or increase the difference. Not sure if players would agree to this or not.

In the end the solution is out there - it's just whether or not the NHLPA is willing to start giving a **** enough to get this done. They stalled negotiations for 6 months hoping they could just continue playing under the current CBA, but the owners told them to stick that idea where the sun doesn't shine. Now everyone is paying the price for their stall tactics.
Click to expand...

So as revenue increases the owners have to put it into the cap and the players get to put it into their pockets? Still not clear on revenue. Is that just tv contracts and sponsors like Bud Light?
 
sivdrinks said:
So as revenue increases the owners have to put it into the cap and the players get to put it into their pockets? Still not clear on revenue. Is that just tv contracts and sponsors like Bud Light?
Click to expand...

It'd be everything. It's all out there for us to read:
(a) "Hockey Related Revenues." "Hockey Related Revenues" or "HRR" for each League Year means the operating revenues, including Barter (as defined below), from all sources, whether known or unknown, whether now in existence or created in the future, as expressly set forth in this Section 50.1(a), of each Club or the League, for or with respect to that League Year, as expressly set forth in this Section 50.1(a), on an accrual basis, derived or earned from, relating to or arising directly or indirectly out of the playing of NHL hockey games or NHL-related events in which current NHL Players participate or in which current NHL Players' names and likenesses are used, by each such Club or the League, or attributable directly to the Club or the League from a Club Affiliated Entity or League Affiliated Entity, as expressly set forth herein, and is subject to any inclusions or exclusions as expressly set forth in the Article 50.
Click to expand...

The players' share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion.
Click to expand...

Lets say the league pulls in $3.6 billion next season in revenue. This is from everything - national TV contracts, local contracts, ticket sales, beer, jerseys, all of that.

This value would then be used to calculate the salary cap the following season. Since the players share is 57%, they'd be entitled to $2.05 billion. Divide that by 30, and you've got a $68M cap. The floor is just $16M less than the cap, so it'd be $52M.

Looking at the whole thing, it seems the League didn't realize how important the revenue sharing aspect would be, and screwed it up. Perhaps they really thought hockey would take off in the desert. Whoops.
 
Thanks for putting up with my ignorance, I suck at business stuff. I get how the salary cap works now. But, that's the only way the players get money is through contracts right? More cap more money? As far as the owners, they would just get their 43% in cash right?

Guess there's a lot of different ways to look at things. The more revenue that's created, presumably by the good teams, creates a higher cap. This basically in itself will bankrupt the less successful teams, they won't be able to afford the better players they need to compete. I don't think just getting rid of all the problem teams is a great answer, because I'm a Devils fan! There were some dumb expansions though, I don't even think the Dolphins do well in Miami.
 
Players also make money through endorsements, paid events they show up to, etc.

I also fault the owners for throwing out these hundred million dollar contracts and then complaining about player salaries and revenue.

There is a difference in this relationship of owners/employees than the local manufacturing shop in that the players are not replaceable. The NHL will cease to exist without the players. The only major sport in the world where the best of the best don't play in North America is soccer. The owners can't stop the players from going to Europe or other leagues. The owners still have buildings, taxes, etc.

Both parties are guilty.
 
sivdrinks said:
Guess there's a lot of different ways to look at things. The more revenue that's created, presumably by the good teams, creates a higher cap. This basically in itself will bankrupt the less successful teams, they won't be able to afford the better players they need to compete. I don't think just getting rid of all the problem teams is a great answer, because I'm a Devils fan! There were some dumb expansions though, I don't even think the Dolphins do well in Miami.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem. But it's not so simple to solve. Lets say you owned a Chick Fil A right beside a really busy highway. Then some 'tard comes along and sticks one up in the arctic, hoping to tap in to the so far untouched Inuit market, despite the constant reminders that the Inuit prefer to eat seal and shun fried chicken.

A few years later, 'tard is losing his shirt because nobody shows up to his restaurant, and now you're being asked to spread more of your profits around to keep him in business, as well as his unionized employees.

The whole setup is a farce. Bottom line is the NHL has 18 teams losing money, and therefore has 18 teams that would benefit from a lost season. If the players think they have any sort of power here, they're wrong. But good on them to stop talking.

I hate both sides. Millionaires fighting with billionaires, and the only real losers will be the ones who actually pay their salaries.
 
paulster2626 said:
And therein lies the problem. But it's not so simple to solve. Lets say you owned a Chick Fil A right beside a really busy highway. Then some 'tard comes along and sticks one up in the arctic, hoping to tap in to the so far untouched Inuit market, despite the constant reminders that the Inuit prefer to eat seal and shun fried chicken.

A few years later, 'tard is losing his shirt because nobody shows up to his restaurant, and now you're being asked to spread more of your profits around to keep him in business, as well as his unionized employees.

The whole setup is a farce. Bottom line is the NHL has 18 teams losing money, and therefore has 18 teams that would benefit from a lost season. If the players think they have any sort of power here, they're wrong. But good on them to stop talking.

I hate both sides. Millionaires fighting with billionaires, and the only real losers will be the ones who actually pay their salaries.
Click to expand...

If I agree do I have to vote for Romney?
 
paulster2626 said:
I hate both sides. Millionaires fighting with billionaires, and the only real losers will be the ones who actually pay their salaries.
Click to expand...

here here :mug:

that makes me think of Latrell Sprewell when he refused a giant contract of something like 20 million for just a couple years because he "had to feed his family"
 
We've only talked about the money, like who gets how much of what the league (teams) take in. The league claims that they need a better percentage of the $$ taken in to support the teams that are losing money. essentially, the players take a pay cut to finance the lower performing portion of the teams.

But there is more to it. The league in general, and teams in particular are responsible for advertising, merchandising, etc. Players have very little control over what the teams spend and do for these items.

So you can understand how the players might feel if they are asked to contribute out of their salary to what might be a very undeserving team, who may not be doing a very good job making people WANT to come and spend money at the rink. In a nutshell this could be described as the players bailing out the owners' poor business management.

I don't agree with the concept of more successful teams supporting underachieving teams. I don't support propping up teams in market areas with little interest in the game.

I think the solution would be for the league and the players to make concessions and reach a point they can agree on. The players will have to understand the percentage is fixed and won't revert back. Owners must understand that players need arbitration.

Most of all, they need to understand that they need to play some damn hockey!
 
paulster2626 said:
And therein lies the problem. But it's not so simple to solve. Lets say you owned a Chick Fil A right beside a really busy highway. Then some 'tard comes along and sticks one up in the arctic, hoping to tap in to the so far untouched Inuit market, despite the constant reminders that the Inuit prefer to eat seal and shun fried chicken.

A few years later, 'tard is losing his shirt because nobody shows up to his restaurant, and now you're being asked to spread more of your profits around to keep him in business, as well as his unionized employees.

The whole setup is a farce. Bottom line is the NHL has 18 teams losing money, and therefore has 18 teams that would benefit from a lost season. If the players think they have any sort of power here, they're wrong. But good on them to stop talking.

I hate both sides. Millionaires fighting with billionaires, and the only real losers will be the ones who actually pay their salaries.
Click to expand...

The players do have the power to not take the ice and play elsewhere. Then the owners are sitting on all their crap that's not making money to pay loans, taxes, etc. What's the league minimum salary? $600,000? Any player should be smart enough with their money to play a single year in the league and have enough money to get by without gainful employment for a long time. I know the cost of living varies, but you certainly could pay cash for a house and car and have money to feed your family and pay real estate taxes for years.

I don't agree with the amount of revenue sharing. It's contrary to the free enterprise, free market, capitalism way of life.

All of you talking about the 18 teams who benefit not playing the season because they won't lose money and complaining about revenue sharing better not be voting for Obama or for any democrat for that matter, if you live in the US.

Homercidal said:
We've only talked about the money, like who gets how much of what the league (teams) take in. The league claims that they need a better percentage of the $$ taken in to support the teams that are losing money. essentially, the players take a pay cut to finance the lower performing portion of the teams.

But there is more to it. The league in general, and teams in particular are responsible for advertising, merchandising, etc. Players have very little control over what the teams spend and do for these items.

So you can understand how the players might feel if they are asked to contribute out of their salary to what might be a very undeserving team, who may not be doing a very good job making people WANT to come and spend money at the rink. In a nutshell this could be described as the players bailing out the owners' poor business management.

I don't agree with the concept of more successful teams supporting underachieving teams. I don't support propping up teams in market areas with little interest in the game.

I think the solution would be for the league and the players to make concessions and reach a point they can agree on. The players will have to understand the percentage is fixed and won't revert back. Owners must understand that players need arbitration.

Most of all, they need to understand that they need to play some damn hockey!
Click to expand...

Subsidizing failing teams is stupid and a drain on the rest of the league.

The league will never go for it, but part of the concession could be to allow for revenue sharing to a fixed amount or percentage and if that isn't enough to finance the sinking ships, then they fold or relocate. The league doesn't want to admit they screwed up giving Atlanta two teams of any of the other failing franchises.
 
I missed the Obama thing, i would never vote on just one issue. I'm not buying that 18 teams lost money by conducting business, who are they? Well maybe I can. Tons of people lost their houses because they lived outside their means and reality. Someone enlighten me why Quebec would work this time? Jury is out on Winnipeg.
 
sivdrinks said:
I missed the Obama thing, i would never vote on just one issue. I'm not buying that 18 teams lost money by conducting business, who are they? Well maybe I can. Tons of people lost their houses because they lived outside their means and reality. Someone enlighten me why Quebec would work this time? Jury is out on Winnipeg.
Click to expand...

Who cares about Obama or any US politics here? This is hockey land.

The NHLPA has been looking at the League's finances for years. You're telling me these teams have been cooking the books to make it look like they're losing out on cash? It's fairly easy to name a ton of teams who obviously are not profitable:

Phoenix
NYI
Nashville
Tampa
Anaheim
Florida
Dallas
Columbus
St. Louis
New Jersey
Buffalo

I'm sure there's 7 more out there that would surprise us. Are people going to games in Carolina yet?

When Quebec and Winnipeg closed up shop it was more to do with the Canadian $ being worth $0.65 US than anything else. Other Canadian teams would have been lost as well if it weren't for Bettman pulling some strings. Since then, things have changed. You really think the "jury is out on winnipeg"? Honestly, you think the question of whether or not the 'Peg is a better spot for that franchise than Atlanta is debatable?

Quebec would work because they've been screaming for their team back since the day they left. Didn't they just build a new arena?
 
paulster2626 said:
Who cares about Obama or any US politics here? This is hockey land.

The NHLPA has been looking at the League's finances for years. You're telling me these teams have been cooking the books to make it look like they're losing out on cash? It's fairly easy to name a ton of teams who obviously are not profitable:

Phoenix
NYI
Nashville
Tampa
Anaheim
Florida
Dallas
Columbus
St. Louis
New Jersey
Buffalo

I'm sure there's 7 more out there that would surprise us. Are people going to games in Carolina yet?

When Quebec and Winnipeg closed up shop it was more to do with the Canadian $ being worth $0.65 US than anything else. Other Canadian teams would have been lost as well if it weren't for Bettman pulling some strings. Since then, things have changed. You really think the "jury is out on winnipeg"? Honestly, you think the question of whether or not the 'Peg is a better spot for that franchise than Atlanta is debatable?

Quebec would work because they've been screaming for their team back since the day they left. Didn't they just build a new arena?
Click to expand...

I'd say there's some quality teams there that do pretty well. Devils, Ducks and Stars have Cups. I guess I'm just amazed at how stupid you'd have to be to get into running a sports franchise if you can't make any money. I mean really? 18 teams? The ticket price, parking, beer and still no profit? Wow.

Oh, and I'm not debating if Winnipeg is a better location than Atlanta, just if it'll work this time.

No, no need for US politics here, word.
 
jtkratzer said:
Devils struggle to fill that building every single home game, every single year until the playoffs.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they don't get near the corporate ticket sales that Philly and NY do. Not sure exactly what they were thinking in "82" that made them decide they could do well with those other area teams. I don't know, the whole thing sucks. Greed, greed and greed. I hope they all make it through the next couple months ok, they got kids to feed.
 
sivdrinks said:
I'm sure they don't get near the corporate ticket sales that Philly and NY do. Not sure exactly what they were thinking in "82" that made them decide they could do well with those other area teams. I don't know, the whole thing sucks. Greed, greed and greed. I hope they all make it through the next couple months ok, they got kids to feed.
Click to expand...

I don't know...maybe it's just more passionate fans. They were still at 98.9% capacity in their worst season in franchise history, finishing last in the league.
 
jtkratzer said:
I don't know...maybe it's just more passionate fans. They were still at 98.9% capacity in their worst season in franchise history, finishing last in the league.
Click to expand...

No argument there. I'm still an Eagles and Phillies fan;)
 
paulster2626 said:
I hate both sides. Millionaires fighting with billionaires, and the only real losers will be the ones who actually pay their salaries.
Click to expand...

Words right out of my mouth.

This whole thing stinks.

The fact that some players have the audacity to say 'i need to think about my family and security' is the most naive, selfish bull i've ever heard.

These guys at a minimum make 500k a year. You make more than most people ever will, playing a freaking game. If you don't like it, go get a job as a mechanic or a carpenter and try to make ends meet. Unreal.

And the owners are even worse. Throwing out huge contracts, then crying poor. Sorry, no sympathy here.

Part of me really wants to just walk away from the NHL, it's the only professional sport i still watch because i just love hockey, but it's just such crap, and the worst part is that when/if this is resolved, it'll end up hurting the clubs that are doing well.
 
emjay said:
As if tickets to Leafs games aren't already expensive enough... :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't even imagine what that's like.

I mean the wealthier clubs will essentially make less money to keep other teams afloat.

It sucks in general, I just want to watch some hockey dammit.

So much for 'the love of the game'
 
jtkratzer said:
I don't know...maybe it's just more passionate fans. They were still at 98.9% capacity in their worst season in franchise history, finishing last in the league.
Click to expand...

ESPN lists their attendance at 87.4% for last season. 22nd in the league by percentage.

Too bad attendance alone can't predict profitability or else 21 teams would be in good shape.
 
Boleslaus said:
ESPN lists their attendance at 87.4% for last season. 22nd in the league by percentage.

Too bad attendance alone can't predict profitability or else 21 teams would be in good shape.
Click to expand...

Not terrible considering your competing with the Flyers and the Rags. If I'm not mistaken the lower level seats from blue line to blue line are $250, sorry but that's way too much scratch for most people.

Outdated but a good link. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hockey-valuations-10_rank.html
 
Barnzy02 said:
It wasnt too long ago that pitts was ready to fold and move to KC.
Click to expand...

Well yea I can understand it then, but not now when you have the 9th most vanuable team (as of 2010) and the most televised team in the league along with sold out games...

Is it really player salaries that are bringing the profit down? I mean I guess if you are only losing around 5% of total revenue a year, a 10-15% reduction in salary would allow for 5% profit...(assuming player wages are around 75% of costs), which I don't know if they are.
 
They also just had their new arena built, i don't know what the financials were like for that ... as far as, how much was publicly funded ... or how much they were on the books for. I remember hearing some of the new PA gambling revenue was going to go towards it ?? But i honestly have no idea.

It really is a shame that so many teams are struggling. I hope this all gets sorted out in a somewhat timely fashion, I'm not expecting the season to start on time, but i am expecting to be able to watch at least some hockey this year.
 
1.
I've been since middle school. Thought their logo was cool, very metal to like the DEVIL! I'm kinda an underdog guy too, they were pretty bad back then.

2.
Hmmm. I think in pro sports they would like all the teams to at least be competitive. In life, I guess that's debatable and not welcome here. Maybe over that beer!
 
sivdrinks said:
Could someone maybe delete the last couple posts? Too many Deviant Dales last night.
Click to expand...

Go back and click the edit button and change the text to whatever you want...however, the posts where you were quoted by emjay will still show your original comments unless he edits his posts, too.
 
jtkratzer said:
Go back and click the edit button and change the text to whatever you want...however, the posts where you were quoted by emjay will still show your original comments unless he edits his posts, too.
Click to expand...

I deleted mine so that he can get rid of it if he wants. He'll have to edit them though, as only premium members can delete their posts.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top