There will be a strike

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: There will be a strike

Postby SKYO » Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:40 am

Oh snap uk laying down the law.

-

Instant Vancouver Giant fan now.

Image
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Postby Topper » Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:30 am

ukcanuck wrote:I have never said there was something wrong with wanting to make a buck.

Morally bankrupt is what you implied.

ukcanuck wrote:And perhaps, I have allowed emotion over some of the lack of knowledge, reason or understanding in the things being said to lead me to charge my words with more feeling than is called for.

LOL

ukcanuck wrote:However, the fact is that during the last lockout the owners claimed the system was broken and they needed cost certainty as if that were justification for an artificial drag on player contract values. The deal was (as I remember it,) that the 57% of HRR (btw we could have another entire discussion as to what constitutes HHR) was the carrot agreed upon in order to make the cap (a travesty of injustice by its self) palatable so as far as I am concerned pulling 57 % puts the cap back on the table...it was then and is now a completely shitty concept. As a fan we are now all accountants and it places limits on what a player can earn that is not relative to what he brings to the table. Salary cap by another name is wage and price controls and that if you remember is a term capitalists spat out with such contempt in economic hard times past.

Easy, get rid of guaranteed contracts.

ukcanuck wrote:Anyway the cap is here and if I also remember correctly and think I do, the revenue sharing link suggested by the players then and now has never been seriously adopted and I'm not talking about the limited currency compensation sharing thing they agreed to and which more than one or two people here think is real revenue sharing. I’m talking about real sharing of revenue before expenses which includes every one's salaries from the peanut vendor to the CEO and all of the capital costs and all of the increases in expenses like the trainers, charter planes, fuels taxes, etc. (and they deserve no more credit for providing those things, than does your barber for providing a nice chair and hair gel with your haircut)

By definition, revenue is before expenses. I noted that in the post you quoted.


ukcanuck wrote:Now clearly with sad sack franchises in the south (thanks for that Gary) revenue sharing wont be enough so players share will have to come down to compensate but with the owners shouldering half of the responsibility and all of the blame for running the league into the ground like they have, the onus would fall to the players... now if the players then say screw you we wont take less, then and only then is there any moral high ground to say the players are unreasonable are money grubbing, greedy or throwing each other under a bus.

There is nothing clear in your statement. The expansion to the south was prior to Gary Bettman's tenure as commissioner of the NHL. The league has not been run into the ground, instead revenues are at an all time high as are player salaries. But so are all other costs associated with running a franchise. The league is looking at preserving the viability of all teams. If the players wish to see the league contract and their job opportunities reduced, so be it.

ukcanuck wrote:But that’s not what is happening here, no one can say what Bettman's really wants but the solution is right in front of him as it is in the NFL and MLB in two different forms and he continues to call them diversions. He wants that pay cut and then he will talk...I'm sorry I don't believe him or his cadre of wealthy owners when they cry poverty a drowning man doesn’t throw back the life preserver because he doesn't like the colour.

The NFL has a cap and contracts, other than for marquee players, are not guaranteed. Is the NHLPA willing to give up guaranteed contracts? MLB is the only league that has an exception from US combine laws.

ukcanuck wrote:As for your mining example about costs rising faster than revenues, well that’s true and its a shame, but my costs are rising fasterthan my income, same for you, same for everyone, but try whining about it like the Bett men do and see who cares?
Besides when you transfer the model to the NHL, ticket prices have increased tenfold, beer, peanuts, parking, the whole experience has increased to cover all of this mess, so if anyone is losing money they aren't running their popsicle stick factory very well and Bettman needs to go and the changes that need to be made, need to made before the players rights are trampled.

So you agree that the rate of cost increases is higher than the rate of revenue increases, but you advocate stepping on the concession vendor rather than the player to make up the loss. How magnanimous.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4672
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: There will be a strike

Postby SKYO » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:02 am

Oh snap topper laying down the law.

-

Instant Vancouver Giant fan now. :D

Image
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Postby rats19 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:09 am

[quote="SKYO"]Oh snap topper laying down the law.


Quit using worms...... bait restriction enforced... :wink:
You are who you hang with.....
User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4583
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over there.....

Re: There will be a strike

Postby Topper » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:17 am

rats19 wrote:
SKYO wrote:Oh snap topper laying down the law.


Quit using worms...... bait restriction enforced... :wink:

Some hooks may be barbed.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4672
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: There will be a strike

Postby ukcanuck » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:20 am

Topper

Idealologically bankrupt was the term I used and by it meant that the idea that capital concerns trumps human concerns is worthless. I didn't mean that anyone was morally bankrupt even if one believes it :)

Sorry I'm on a mobile so can't edit and quote to your whole post in one shot
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Postby rats19 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:28 am

Topper wrote:
rats19 wrote:
SKYO wrote:Oh snap topper laying down the law.


Quit using worms...... bait restriction enforced... :wink:

Some hooks may be barbed.

Trebles:........banned :)
You are who you hang with.....
User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4583
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over there.....

Re: There will be a strike

Postby SKYO » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:29 am

rats19 wrote:Quit using worms...... bait restriction enforced... :wink:

Oh snap rats laying down the law...

lol, but yeah use barbed hooks as tops said. ;)
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Postby Topper » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:34 am

ukcanuck wrote:
Topper

Idealologically bankrupt was the term I used and by it meant that the idea that capital concerns trumps human concerns is worthless. I didn't mean that anyone was morally bankrupt even if one believes it :)

Sorry I'm on a mobile so can't edit and quote to your whole post in one shot

I thought you'd blame your mobile for the gibberish you've been spewing.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4672
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: There will be a strike

Postby ukcanuck » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:38 am

Topper: By definition, revenue is before expenses. I noted that in the post you quoted.

My point is that revenue sharing for the purpose of cost sharing and spreading the liability for running the league as a whole is what the term revenue sharing should mean and is not now used by the NHL.
And yes guaranteed contracts are a concern but were they not part of the old CBA before 2004? If not I agree they should be on the table moving forward. Having said that the way Bettman has negotiated to this point, by threat of lockout. I can't blame the players for not giving back a thing so far.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Postby ukcanuck » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:40 am

Topper wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
Topper

Idealologically bankrupt was the term I used and by it meant that the idea that capital concerns trumps human concerns is worthless. I didn't mean that anyone was morally bankrupt even if one believes it :)

Sorry I'm on a mobile so can't edit and quote to your whole post in one shot

I thought you'd blame your mobile for the gibberish you've been spewing.

Lol ok I'll wait till I get home and respond with a little less "gibberish" funny guy :D
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: There will be a strike

Postby Aaronp18 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:28 pm

Topper wrote:Easy, get rid of guaranteed contracts.


I definitely don't know enough about the CBA but buyouts are permitted. If a player is bought out they aren't paid the full amount of their contract are they?

Perhaps they could do something similar in the new CBA but the player gets less than he does now if bought out. He is then still free to sign with another team. Much like being fired in the real world and getting a severance.

Teams and GMs need to be accountable for the stupid contracts they hand out as well. So not only are teams responsible for paying some of a players salary but perhaps more of that salary should count against the cap if a player is bought out.

I agree that players should have some performance expectations when big contracts are signed but GMs need to be responsible for the contracts they are signing as well.

Out of pure curiosity should a 25% roll back be put in place does that mean Bettman, his cronies and all management staff hired by NHL teams are subject to the same roll back? :mrgreen:
User avatar
Aaronp18
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Postby SKYO » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:00 pm

In the end the players will take a bit of paycut, however the cap will still vary.

So the supertars can get paid, while they can keep the keep the team together, as dynasty is a dying cause, if the owners/board members care..................................... :drink:
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: There will be a strike

Postby Topper » Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:45 pm

Aaronp18 wrote:
Topper wrote:Easy, get rid of guaranteed contracts.


I definitely don't know enough about the CBA but buyouts are permitted. If a player is bought out they aren't paid the full amount of their contract are they?

Perhaps they could do something similar in the new CBA but the player gets less than he does now if bought out. He is then still free to sign with another team. Much like being fired in the real world and getting a severance

Yes they are, with cap restrictions. The Leaves taking a $1mil cap hit on Darcy Tucker for next two years.

When the current CBA was signed, there was a buyout grace period available to all teams. Infamously, I suggested the Canucks buyout the remaining contract of #16.

Aaronp18 wrote:Teams and GMs need to be accountable for the stupid contracts they hand out as well. So not only are teams responsible for paying some of a players salary but perhaps more of that salary should count against the cap if a player is bought out.

At what point does responsible contracts become collusion? If teams agree that at a certain level, they will stop bidding for a players services, that is collusion.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4672
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: There will be a strike

Postby Aaronp18 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:04 pm

Topper wrote:At what point does responsible contracts become collusion? If teams agree that at a certain level, they will stop bidding for a players services, that is collusion.


It's not limiting what a team can pay for a player, it just means that if they offer and in turn sign the contract they give to a player they are going to be responsible for at least a portion of that contract. It will make teams and GM's think twice about simply handing out ridiculous contracts.

If GM's were simply allowed to cut players and walk away from something previously agreed upon I don't think it's entirely fair. If players are going to be held accountable with non-guaranteed contracts teams and GM's have to be held accountable for handing them out as well.

Also I really don't understand how collusion would work in the NHL model. It's the same company with individual teams competing against each other.

All teams operate under the same CBA and if that type of operation is legal under the agreed set of rules how can it be collusion?

Wouldn't examples like the salary cap itself and the max 20% of the cap an individual is allowed to be paid be collusion? These both limit what teams can pay players.
User avatar
Aaronp18
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 5 guests