Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1getzlaffan

Lockout 2012-13

Recommended Posts

I think the only sides the fans should be on is their own. I don't believe either side when they say they cared about the fans. If they did, they would have been working at this thing 24/7 until it was done, not 2 or 3 times a week. Hell, they didn't even meet this past Saturday. They just had a phone call. Yeah, they really care about us :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a ducks fan from the beginning....watched the Pond being built, even was an extra when D2 was filmed at the Pond! ( part of the crowd. Awsome experience!) Now I am a big ducks fan. But I will not go to a game next season. My way of protesting. Yes, I will more then likely watch the games, however, I will not pay to go. I feel the more fans who refuse to go to games at least for the next season, as partial as it may be, can show how upset we are over this. It will only work thou if the true loyal fans DON'T go to the games.

Just my thoughts......as a angry Ducks fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the 1st year i bought season tickets, when i bought the package back in June, I didnt even have a clue this may happen, and belive me, the ducks didnt say a thing, now, my PLANS on can i or cant i schedule, really is a inconvenice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should update the Ducks player tracker on the website to follow which European teams Ducks players are going sign with for the upcoming season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the NHLPA should have been willing to meet before July? I think there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

Yes and no, if I remember right, the NHLPA made the first proposal about what they wanted in the new CBA. If the NHL had made the first proposal and had asked to meet and discuss it, that would be different than asking to meet just to be on record as having asked to meet.

The yes is, yes there is plenty of blame to go around. The no is, I don't think the NHL was interested in discussing what they wanted in the new CBA so much as they were interested in finding out what the NHLPA was looking for. I imagine the reason was that the NHLPA didn't know what they wanted, that they weren't prepared for discussions of their plan because they didn't have one yet. In that they are to blame. But Bettman and the NHL deciding to not meet the day the previous CBA was expiring isn't about lack of preperation, it's about going for the lockout rather than trying to avoid it.

In the end, all the issues that the owners are concerned about could be adressed if owners and GM's would simply be more responsible in their business operations. The Wisniewski signing two offseasons ago, The Parise & Suter signing this offseason, The Red Wings' circumventions of the salary cap over the years; what do these things have in common? They all involved GM's and owners signing contracts that the majority of GM's and owners would say was a bad idea. The Red Wing's circumvention of the salary cap, involves an owner and gm actively trying to find a way to spend more money on player salaries, even with the cap being established to supposedly protect owners and GMs from overspending. These are all things done by the owners. the players weren't going to strike if Wisniewski didn't get overpaid, if Parise & Suter didn't get overpaid. The owners are locking out the current season because of what the owners themselves have done.

The solutions are simple, owners need to not spend more money than they can make from the purchase... unless they're after a tax write off for business losses. I think revenue sharing needs to be reviewed between the owners. I think the truth is that the league doesn't need a salary cap if the owners and GM's acted as responsible business persons.

As to the NHLPA, players shouldn't demand % of profits if they're not going to take a % of the losses too. The players aren't owed anything more than what the owners think they are worth. The KHL's right over there if they want to go. Just because the organisation finds a way to make more money by marketing better, upgrading the venue, improving food and drink offerings, the player doesn't have anything to do with that. Merchandise sales, sure. A portion of the ticket sales, sure. But a percentage of all profits, without having to put any of their own money on the line? No way.

So, yeah, there's blame to go around, but Bettman wanted a lockout, the owners gave him the go ahead, I blame them for holding the next hockey season hostage over issues that result mostly from the owner's lack of self control and common business sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no, if I remember right, the NHLPA made the first proposal about what they wanted in the new CBA. If the NHL had made the first proposal and had asked to meet and discuss it, that would be different than asking to meet just to be on record as having asked to meet.

The yes is, yes there is plenty of blame to go around. The no is, I don't think the NHL was interested in discussing what they wanted in the new CBA so much as they were interested in finding out what the NHLPA was looking for. I imagine the reason was that the NHLPA didn't know what they wanted, that they weren't prepared for discussions of their plan because they didn't have one yet. In that they are to blame. But Bettman and the NHL deciding to not meet the day the previous CBA was expiring isn't about lack of preperation, it's about going for the lockout rather than trying to avoid it.

In the end, all the issues that the owners are concerned about could be adressed if owners and GM's would simply be more responsible in their business operations. The Wisniewski signing two offseasons ago, The Parise & Suter signing this offseason, The Red Wings' circumventions of the salary cap over the years; what do these things have in common? They all involved GM's and owners signing contracts that the majority of GM's and owners would say was a bad idea. The Red Wing's circumvention of the salary cap, involves an owner and gm actively trying to find a way to spend more money on player salaries, even with the cap being established to supposedly protect owners and GMs from overspending. These are all things done by the owners. the players weren't going to strike if Wisniewski didn't get overpaid, if Parise & Suter didn't get overpaid. The owners are locking out the current season because of what the owners themselves have done.

The solutions are simple, owners need to not spend more money than they can make from the purchase... unless they're after a tax write off for business losses. I think revenue sharing needs to be reviewed between the owners. I think the truth is that the league doesn't need a salary cap if the owners and GM's acted as responsible business persons.

As to the NHLPA, players shouldn't demand % of profits if they're not going to take a % of the losses too. The players aren't owed anything more than what the owners think they are worth. The KHL's right over there if they want to go. Just because the organisation finds a way to make more money by marketing better, upgrading the venue, improving food and drink offerings, the player doesn't have anything to do with that. Merchandise sales, sure. A portion of the ticket sales, sure. But a percentage of all profits, without having to put any of their own money on the line? No way.

So, yeah, there's blame to go around, but Bettman wanted a lockout, the owners gave him the go ahead, I blame them for holding the next hockey season hostage over issues that result mostly from the owner's lack of self control and common business sense.

To be honest, I can see why Bettman decided not to meet with the NHLPA the day before the lockout. It has become pretty clear that the players are not willing to make any concessions at this point. They have budged what, 1% from their initial offer, while the NHL has gone from offering 43% of revenues to the players to 50% becoming 48%? At least the NHL is working towards a middle. Until the players are ready to actually give something up, there is no point in talking.

I don't follow the logic in saying the owners should simply be more responsible in their business operations. For one thing, the system is in place and all owners (GMs) have to work within in. Do you really expect a GM to give himself a self-imposed limit on contract size or length? Never going to happen, as he would be tying his own hands. This is the whole point of having these restrictions in a CBA - it creates an even playing field (or at least is supposed to create an even playing field) for every team (every GM). Secondly, the players are guaranteed 57% of revenues anyway. If every single contract in the league does not add up to 57% of league revenue, then every player would get their contract topped up. If GMs gave themselves a self imposed limit of $6M per player, in the end it would not matter because the players have to receive 57%. So I find it a little hard to blame the owners for trying to fix a broken system.

The player examples you give indicate why I have little sympathy for them. Players like Wisniewski are getting RIDICULOUS money. They keep crying that they gave up a 24% salary rollback in the last deal and were "screwed" by the owners. They act as if they are living on the streets. But look where they are now - the average NHLer is earning almost twice as much as they were in 2004.

There are no easy answers. I think the NHLPA is right that the revenue sharing system needs to be adjusted. But the players association also has to be willing to give up a percentage and probably agree to a 50/50 split. Right now they are holding firm simply because they don't want to appear weak after getting "screwed" last time. I think the players are the ones holding things up right now, not the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I can see why Bettman decided not to meet with the NHLPA the day before the lockout. It has become pretty clear that the players are not willing to make any concessions at this point. They have budged what, 1% from their initial offer, while the NHL has gone from offering 43% of revenues to the players to 50% becoming 48%? At least the NHL is working towards a middle. Until the players are ready to actually give something up, there is no point in talking.

57% to 50% to 48% is way more "budging" than 43%...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

57% to 50% to 48% is way more "budging" than 43%...

I'm talking simply about negotiation tactics. The NHLPA has barely moved off their original offer. The NHL offered a 57/43 split in favor of the owners. Their most recent offer has been a 50/50 split which turns into a 52/48 split in favor of the owners. So they gave up 5-7 points from their original offer. While the players have lowered their original offer by 1%. Of course it would be a big drop for the players to go from a 57% share to a 48% share. But their easiest way to minimize this is to make offers (including concessions) of their own, and meet in the middle. If they keep holding firm like this, eventually they might end up with a worse deal than what is on the table right now.

It isn't necessarily in this area where they have to concede something, but they have to concede something. They are never going to have a season if the NHLPA offers exactly the same deal over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players can end up in the KHL. That's the thing in the end. Unlike in the past lockouts where the NHL was the only place to make big money, the KHL is there now. I think that changes the balance a little, and I still think Bettman is overestimating the strength of his position in these negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players can end up in the KHL. That's the thing in the end. Unlike in the past lockouts where the NHL was the only place to make big money, the KHL is there now. I think that changes the balance a little, and I still think Bettman is overestimating the strength of his position in these negotiations.

I think that sort of depends on how screwy the KHL wants to be with their contracts. If they say NHL players must stay a full season in the KHL if they sign there, do players chance it and sign with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that sort of depends on how screwy the KHL wants to be with their contracts. If they say NHL players must stay a full season in the KHL if they sign there, do players chance it and sign with them?

If the money is there, and they don't mind not being in North America, what does it matter? It won't take all the talent away, but it is going to start attracting talent from the NHL... unless the KHl and NHL have already agreed not to poach talent during strikes and lockouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ovechkin thinks many players won't come back.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405665

To be honest I don't see this being a problem. Canadian and American players grow up wanting to win a Stanley Cup, there is no risk of mass-exodus from those nationalities. We might see a few less Russians in the NHL but I doubt the lockout lowers the talent pool too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darren Dreger said on twitter that Scott Niedermayer was on Canada AM, saying he feels bad for the fans who are caught in the middle of the NHL lockout.

To be honest, I feel worse for the people who work for teams/arenas who are losing income over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be European players more than North Americans who might defect. But there are a lot of European players in the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darren Dreger said on twitter that Scott Niedermayer was on Canada AM, saying he feels bad for the fans who are caught in the middle of the NHL lockout.

To be honest, I feel worse for the people who work for teams/arenas who are losing income over this.

This really is the bottom line. As fans, we're missing out on watching hockey, but it's not really costing us anything. There are plenty of people who rely on this income, and now will not have that money during the holiday season.

It even extends beyond that to businesses who benefit greatly from hockey games taking place. From the people working at a bar in Toronto, to the waitress relying on tips at J.T. Schmid's before a 7 PM Friday Ducks game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really is the bottom line. As fans, we're missing out on watching hockey, but it's not really costing us anything. There are plenty of people who rely on this income, and now will not have that money during the holiday season.

It even extends beyond that to businesses who benefit greatly from hockey games taking place. From the people working at a bar in Toronto, to the waitress relying on tips at J.T. Schmid's before a 7 PM Friday Ducks game.

I agree, the people who are always hit the hardest are the ones that are overlooked. I do not believe that with a few months of a lockout players will be as affected than the average worker that depends on these events to go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to an article that really explains why the owners & players should get together soon. I read it a few minutes ago & I totally agree. Besides it leads off with a quote from :The Stache"! It might explain a lot to some of the fans that can't understand what's happening between these guys.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl--nhl-lockout--league--union-can-t-afford-to-pass-the-point-of-diminishing-returns.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain why players get revenue sharing on top of there million dollar contracts? I think this revenue sharing should be a benefit offered and agreed upon with their respective teams if owners of said team even want to share their revenues. Players get paid to play the game, let the owners do their job by doing the operations part of the business which requires lots of overhead and personell . Running a business takes lots of risk and money to operate, if owning a team was luxurious then we would see a line of businessmen wanting to purchase teams when they are available but when they are available the market to find someone to invest is very limited. Why don't the players try owning a team themselves?

Players make their millions regardless on how well ticket sales do due to their contracts, it's garanteed either by that team or another. But earnings for the owners are not so garanteed. Even if a player gets injured he has a great insurance payout which is worth millions as well. Owners have most of the risk and employ others. Players employ themselves.

My understanding is that the owners have compromised the most in these negotiations while the players have been unwilling to make reasonable sanctions. Maybe they should get rid of these unions who have their greedy hands out (like most unions do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain why players get revenue sharing on top of there million dollar contracts? I think this revenue sharing should be a benefit offered and agreed upon with their respective teams if owners of said team even want to share their revenues. Players get paid to play the game, let the owners do their job by doing the operations part of the business which requires lots of overhead and personell . Running a business takes lots of risk and money to operate, if owning a team was luxurious then we would see a line of businessmen wanting to purchase teams when they are available but when they are available the market to find someone to invest is very limited. Why don't the players try owning a team themselves?

Players make their millions regardless on how well ticket sales do due to their contracts, it's garanteed either by that team or another. But earnings for the owners are not so garanteed. Even if a player gets injured he has a great insurance payout which is worth millions as well. Owners have most of the risk and employ others. Players employ themselves.

My understanding is that the owners have compromised the most in these negotiations while the players have been unwilling to make reasonable sanctions. Maybe they should get rid of these unions who have their greedy hands out (like most unions do).

Players get revenue sharing because MOST NHL players DON'T have million dollar contracts. They make league minimum or a little higher, for a couple of years, and then quit/retire with injuries and no experience or training for a job in the REAL world. Of the 700 players represented by the NHLPA, how many have nice fat contracts that will set them up for the rest of their life? A very small percent.

You are absolutely right that running a business takes lots of risks and money to operate. But the NHL has made RECORD profits since the last CBA yet they are asking the NHLPA to take a big cut.

Finally, the NHLPA offered to play under the previous CBA to save the season, and the owners said no. What wasn't working? We had record profits and a distribution of talent and wealth among all 30 teams. It's not like the players went on strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain why players get revenue sharing on top of there million dollar contracts? I think this revenue sharing should be a benefit offered and agreed upon with their respective teams if owners of said team even want to share their revenues. Players get paid to play the game, let the owners do their job by doing the operations part of the business which requires lots of overhead and personell . Running a business takes lots of risk and money to operate, if owning a team was luxurious then we would see a line of businessmen wanting to purchase teams when they are available but when they are available the market to find someone to invest is very limited. Why don't the players try owning a team themselves?

Players make their millions regardless on how well ticket sales do due to their contracts, it's garanteed either by that team or another. But earnings for the owners are not so garanteed. Even if a player gets injured he has a great insurance payout which is worth millions as well. Owners have most of the risk and employ others. Players employ themselves.

My understanding is that the owners have compromised the most in these negotiations while the players have been unwilling to make reasonable sanctions. Maybe they should get rid of these unions who have their greedy hands out (like most unions do).

Revenue sharing is not for the players. It's for the owners and fans. Teams that can't financially compete with big market franchises are getting left over money from the cap surplus under the theory that it will equalize the league. And it has, sort of. Proof is in the pudding right here.

The Ducks are a perfect team to look at and examine why this is happening. This team was at the cap when they won the cup. Regardless of that victory they were and are not able to sustain the revenue needed to run a profitable business at the cap. If this current lockout does not drive home the fact that this "sport/game/entertainment" isn't first and for most a business then I don't know what to say to you.

So the game grows and as it grows the money comes in larger and larger sums. By putting the cap on spending the surplus grows greater and greater and as the sharing (surplus) gets spread around the owners as a whole make more. Bring the cap down even further and the surplus is greater and there is yet more to go around for the owners. It's a simple formula and both sides are digging in. Kiss this season off, Bettman's expansion plan is now facing the final showdown.

The best thing that could happen to the NHL is the very thing that won't. Retraction. Concentrate the talent, cut the fat. Just get rid of teams that can't keep up with the market. If your a hockey fan you'll find a new team. Instead they'll look to relocate a few teams, as they should, but thats a drawn out process so in the mean time they have seen what has been and what can be by restricting the earnings of the workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain why players get revenue sharing on top of there million dollar contracts? I think this revenue sharing should be a benefit offered and agreed upon with their respective teams if owners of said team even want to share their revenues. Players get paid to play the game, let the owners do their job by doing the operations part of the business which requires lots of overhead and personell . Running a business takes lots of risk and money to operate, if owning a team was luxurious then we would see a line of businessmen wanting to purchase teams when they are available but when they are available the market to find someone to invest is very limited. Why don't the players try owning a team themselves?

Players make their millions regardless on how well ticket sales do due to their contracts, it's garanteed either by that team or another. But earnings for the owners are not so garanteed. Even if a player gets injured he has a great insurance payout which is worth millions as well. Owners have most of the risk and employ others. Players employ themselves.

My understanding is that the owners have compromised the most in these negotiations while the players have been unwilling to make reasonable sanctions. Maybe they should get rid of these unions who have their greedy hands out (like most unions do).

I have the same question. Why negotiate a contract, if a fixed percentage must go to a player anyways. Seems silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing that could happen to the NHL is the very thing that won't. Retraction. Concentrate the talent, cut the fat. Just get rid of teams that can't keep up with the market. If your a hockey fan you'll find a new team. Instead they'll look to relocate a few teams, as they should, but thats a drawn out process so in the mean time they have seen what has been and what can be by restricting the earnings of the workers.

The thing is, how many hockey markets are truely always major markets? Remember a few years back when Detroit couldn't sell out games? But I bet Detroit is one of the clubs you would suggest not be part of the contraction. What about the teams in Canada? They're called major markets, but are they the top money making franchises of the NHL? Should Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary be removed from the NHL by way of contraction? Heck, Vancouver will be on the downslide over the next four years as a franchise, maybe we get rid of them before they're on the respirator?

Sorry, it's just that whenever people talk about contraction, they usually have reasons why they think certian franchises should be removed from the NHL, but they never seem to apply that same reasoning to their hockey club. Canadian teams are supposed to be untouchable. The Original Six are supposed to be untouchable. If you watch NBC's national broadcasts, you'd think that there were only ten teams in the league, maybe those teams are untouchable too? Most of those ten teams haven't won a Stanley Cup in the last decade, but we're supposed to keep them in the league and remove clubs that have won a cup in the past decade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same question. Why negotiate a contract, if a fixed percentage must go to a player anyways. Seems silly.

I guess it's like a guaranteed minimum. The salary cap prevents player revenues from going above a 57% share, but if total player share doesn't equal 57% then each player will have their contract topped up slightly in order to reach the 57% threshold. I'm just guessing that's how it works based on what I've read, but it's a complicated area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, how many hockey markets are truely always major markets? Remember a few years back when Detroit couldn't sell out games? But I bet Detroit is one of the clubs you would suggest not be part of the contraction. What about the teams in Canada? They're called major markets, but are they the top money making franchises of the NHL? Should Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary be removed from the NHL by way of contraction? Heck, Vancouver will be on the downslide over the next four years as a franchise, maybe we get rid of them before they're on the respirator?

Sorry, it's just that whenever people talk about contraction, they usually have reasons why they think certian franchises should be removed from the NHL, but they never seem to apply that same reasoning to their hockey club. Canadian teams are supposed to be untouchable. The Original Six are supposed to be untouchable. If you watch NBC's national broadcasts, you'd think that there were only ten teams in the league, maybe those teams are untouchable too? Most of those ten teams haven't won a Stanley Cup in the last decade, but we're supposed to keep them in the league and remove clubs that have won a cup in the past decade?

Great post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my limited understanding of revenue sharing all Hockey Related Revenue ( ticket price, parking, concessions, apparel ware, TV/radio revenue, etc) is directed into a large pot and each player’s salary comes from that pot. They players pay into an escrow fund should that pot not be large enough to cover all the contracts in the NHL.

What is being debated is how this money should be divided. Last year the total of HRR was 3.3 BILLION dollars. With this kind of cash, and the miserable economy , I have no sympathy for either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, how many hockey markets are truely always major markets? Remember a few years back when Detroit couldn't sell out games? But I bet Detroit is one of the clubs you would suggest not be part of the contraction. What about the teams in Canada? They're called major markets, but are they the top money making franchises of the NHL? Should Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary be removed from the NHL by way of contraction? Heck, Vancouver will be on the downslide over the next four years as a franchise, maybe we get rid of them before they're on the respirator?

Sorry, it's just that whenever people talk about contraction, they usually have reasons why they think certian franchises should be removed from the NHL, but they never seem to apply that same reasoning to their hockey club. Canadian teams are supposed to be untouchable. The Original Six are supposed to be untouchable. If you watch NBC's national broadcasts, you'd think that there were only ten teams in the league, maybe those teams are untouchable too? Most of those ten teams haven't won a Stanley Cup in the last decade, but we're supposed to keep them in the league and remove clubs that have won a cup in the past decade?

What does winning a cup have to do with this? In the case of the Ducks very little.

Of course 'all' of the struggling teams would not be bought out. It would require serious studying and the cooperation of the owners. On the surface, not pointing out any particular teams if the league cut say 4 franchises, and reorganized the conferences the pool of talent would be that much more potent and the competition to make the grade that much more demanding.

I personally wouldn't mind it. But like I said it aint gonna happen. moving teams around is going to be the first order at hand long before any fat trimming. Seattle seams ready to go, a perfect location for phoenix. It would be a move that would make sense for Anaheim as well, but I don't see this team going anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...