mediators work for 2 Whole Days...and now they're done

[flyerrod]

Yes it sucks, it sucks to get walked on and taken advantage of. But if it's shown clearly that 18 teams are in the red, or if it's 8 teams....whatever...and the biggest hurdle to profitability is labor costs - then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that labor costs have to go down. Either that or shut down the team(s).

I forget which thread it was now but Vanflyer broke down several of the "losing" money teams. The Florida Panthers was one of the teams that has had an article written about it. According to Forbes, they lost 7.1 mil last season but according to their Broward County Tax Return, they made OVER 10 Million. This is supposedly one of the poorest teams out there. Creative book keeping is allowing these teams to scream Woe is me! Until you can get an unbiased( good luck with that ) auditor who will do the research and not just take the NHL's numbers at face value, this will continue to be a sore topic among people on both sides of the argument.

[radoran]

I have no problem with the players making less. Sidney Crosby at $8.7M or $7.1M doesn't mean a damn thing to me.

I was 100% on the owners' side in 04-05, with Chris "why should I pllay for less than $10M" Pronger being the poster child for it.

This time around, I put the shenaniganson the owners. I am sick and tired of hearing about how these guys are using "their money" to put "their teams" into publicly-financed stadiums and in situations where the locality - Nashville, Winnipeg, etc. - is subsidizing their activity.

If they want to be a "business" then act like one. Stop asking me for tax money and stop expecting other people to give you a "do over" on your many, many, many mistakes.

[canoli]

Until you can get an unbiased( good luck with that ) auditor who will do the research and not just take the NHL's numbers at face value, this will continue to be a sore topic among people on both sides of the argument.

...strange how this particular point is never emphasized in the articles about the lockout. So Forbes says one thing and Broward Cty says another...a discrepancy this huge and it's not even a small part of national hockey media's coverage? This should be a major story, headline-worthy on NHL.com and across the hockey media.

There has to be more to the story. And of course there is.

Like you you said..."Good Luck" getting an honest account of what's what. The thing is you don't really need one because "the fix" is well-known to both sides.

Everyone knows there's a huge amount of "fudging" the books. Both sides do it and so both sides [implicitly] agree to look the other way, to not make an issue of it publicly. If the PA decided to make it a story they would immediately open themselves up to the exact same attacks from the owners. "Fudging the books" has long been accepted practice in corporate accounting - under-report income, inflate liabilities...there are literally hundreds of ways... The only saving grace is that both sides do it so everyone knows to factor it in.

Of course this is also why it's useless for us fans to support either side. Unless your "inside" you can't possibly know enough to construct an informed opinion.

[radoran]

I disaagree with the characterization that you can't support a "side" without all the gory details.

For one thing, it's not like these organizations are claiming to be profitable, they virtually all claim to be "losing money". The whole pointt of this lockout is that teams are "losing money."

If it can be shown demonstrably that, for example, FLORIDA of all places is profitable DESPITE claiming otherwise, that calls into question the entire need for this lockout as a "fiscal" and not "ideological" process.

The players CLEARLY accept the fudging of numbers (witness the long-term contract shenaningans)

Again, I'm probably 85/15 players this time around, which is 360 degrees from where I was last time.

[canoli]

I am sick and tired of hearing about how these guys are using "their money" to put "their teams" into publicly-financed stadiums and in situations where the locality - Nashville, Winnipeg, etc. - is subsidizing their activity.

could not agree more - I only wish I knew to what extent this is really happening. Charlie Wang got a bad name - for lots of things, true - after he went to Nassau County residents and said "gimme $400 million or else your precious Islanders are moving away" and they said "Fk off Charlie our taxes are already too high."

But the truth was Wang did try to finance the new arena on his own, he just wanted to build a huge complex of hotels and retail stores along with it. The city of Hempstead said "no" so he asked for public money to build the arena their way. It never happened and now the Isles are moving to Brooklyn...into the Barclays Center, which of course has its own complicated history of public financing, eminent domain issues, etc....along with the inevitable public backlash... surrounding it.

Who's right? Who are the greedy jerks? Hard to tell imho - in this case anyway. That area around Nassau Coleseum is desolate, it needed something big and maybe Wang's vision was the right one.

I'm just saying it's hard to tell who's being greedy and who's protecting their own (political) self-interests. Owners have to maneuver through a political machine that is not always aligned with the public interest.

It's a shame they can't all be like the Green Bay Packers, back when they really were (literally) "the people's team."

[radoran]

Ed Snider did it. The only thing the City gave the Big Bank Building were:

1) site prep (removal of the old JFK Stadium)

2) parking rights

3) land

It was mostly privately financed as was, IIRC, the Spectrum.

I'll bash Ed on occasion (BRYZGALOV!!!!!!) but he hasn't suckled on the public teat to the extent of some of these "private industry businessmen."

[Vanflyer]

I'm on record saying that Hartnell and Simmonds were fools to sign those deals when they did.

Perhaps a bit foolish, but not completely. Even with a 20% rollback, I think both players are getting paid fair market value. I think it is more the players that signed 2-3 years ago that are getting screwed. I am talking mostly about 1st and 2nd line players. I do think that some (not all) 3rd and 4th line players are overpaid. 1.3m for a Jody Shelley or Riley Cote? That is ridiculous.

[Vanflyer]

c'mon Vanman... talk about a load of crap. ha!

In the weber / suter / parise situation, what I am trying to say is that I dont feel bad for them. My thought on it is that EVERYBODY knew the deal (re: cba). Of course you are going to go for the most money you can get (particularly if you listen your agent and you union). What I am trying to say is don't cry now because the the Owners (as a collective whole) want to roll that money back. It is the players that signed two-three years ago that are getting screwed more (imho), because at the time they signed, I highly doubt they suspected / expected to take a pay cut. I would really love to go look at salaries of 1st line / 2nd line players from say 1998. I know I have used Lindros as an example (he was getting paid 8.5m that year), but I would like to see 2nd line players / 3rd line players as compared to today.

[Vanflyer]

is that there is a lot of pressure to get all you can, to make the team pay its absolute highest price for your services.

That comes from the NHLPA.

I saw @radorans post regarding the projected losses for Simmonds and Hartnell. I still don't think they were that foolish to sign those contracts when they did. If everyone is going to take a 20% pay cut then their pay cuts are in alignment.

[radoran]

That comes from the NHLPA.

I saw @radorans post regarding the projected losses for Simmonds and Hartnell. I still don't think they were that foolish to sign those contracts when they did. If everyone is going to take a 20% pay cut then their pay cuts are in alignment.

Except that Hartnell, for example, is going to get less than he was making before - instead of the more he signed for.

And Simmonds, in Y4-6 is, if he continues to develop as he has, going to be massively underpaid.

It's not the initial price I'm talking about in terms of foolishness, it's signing a six year deal.

The deals seem "fair" to me for initial price - even with a rollback - but the length of both "hometown discount" deals is what strikes me as foolish.

And, I believe if you'll go back and check the threads, I've been saying this frrom the moment the signed both deals.

[Vanflyer]

It's not the initial price I'm talking about in terms of foolishness, it's signing a six year deal.

The deals seem "fair" to me for initial price - even with a rollback - but the length of both "hometown discount" deals is what strikes me as foolish.

And, I believe if you'll go back and check the threads, I've been saying this frrom the moment the signed both deals.

I think Simmonds more than Hartnell will be screwed. At the same time, if you love where you are playing, have a great nucleus of teammates, etc. The money become insignificant. Your argument is very valid. I guess for me, I just feel that making 3.5M v. 4.5M is no skin off my back. Of course I am flipping burgers at McDonalds, so it is all subjective.

On the length, I personally like that both players committed to the team for the term that they did. I truly get tired of players moving every 2-3 years to another team (unless there name is Jody Shelley) and enjoy watching a player have a tenure with a team. I mean, how else am I going to play my "Hartnell Down" drinking game with my friends??

[radoran]

I think Simmonds more than Hartnell will be screwed. At the same time, if you love where you are playing, have a great nucleus of teammates, etc. The money become insignificant. Your argument is very valid. I guess for me, I just feel that making 3.5M v. 4.5M is no skin off my back. Of course I am flipping burgers at McDonalds, so it is all subjective.

On the length, I personally like that both players committed to the team for the term that they did. I truly get tired of players moving every 2-3 years to another team (unless there name is Jody Shelley) and enjoy watching a player have a tenure with a team. I mean, how else am I going to play my "Hartnell Down" drinking game with my friends??

If they wanted the six year term, they cold just as easily have signed it after the new CBA as before it - assuming the team didn't negotiate the deals thinking there would be a 20% rollback off the top "in good faith."

I'm happy as heck that both guys are signed for six years and completely concur that whether they make $3M or $2.4M is meaningless to you and me.

But if someone told you that the contract you signed is now paying you millions of dollars less than you signed for, I think you might have a different perspective than "well, gosh, thanks!"

[canoli]

But if someone told you that the contract you signed is now paying you millions of dollars less than you signed for, I think you might have a different perspective than "well, gosh, thanks!"

Ya I would grumble and moan for a short time. But hopefully within a minute or two I'd realize I'm still being paid a gigantic salary - along with the first-class accommodations and all the benefits - to do what I love.

If I was convinced my salary rollback was for the common good - that it actually benefited my co-workers and/or the health of my profession - I'd be okay with earning $2 million instead of $2.4 million a year.

Wouldn't you?

[radoran]

Again, I don't care if Sidney Crosby is making $8.4M or $7.1M - but I'm not making that decision.

I don't personally care if Wayne Simmonds signed a six year deal with a guy who's first order of business was to set about undermining the terms of that deal.

I don't personally care if the owners make cent number one running their "businesses."

But the people involved on both sides seem to be worried about those sorts of things, so to the extent that they prevent hockey from being played, it interests me.

[canoli]

no, i know you don't "personally care" and neither do I - who makes what, whether the owners or the players get the better deal...etc. But we all care how it affects the sport we love and that's what we're talking about here.

You implied "gosh, thanks" was the response the owners expected from simmonds or hartnell after their recent contracts were downgraded by 20% [edit: if the owners have their way]. My point was, while they probably wouldn't jump up and yell "Yippee, we're making less money!" they might - hopefully - realize a 20% reduction isn't the end of the world since they'll still be making an awfully good living doing something they both love.

Edited December 8, 2012 by canoli

[radoran]

no, i know you don't "personally care" and neither do I - who makes what, whether the owners or the players get the better deal...etc. But we all care how it affects the sport we love and that's what we're talking about here.

You implied "gosh, thanks" was the response the owners expected from simmonds or hartnell after their recent contracts were downgraded by 20% [edit: if the owners have their way]. My point was, while they probably wouldn't jump up and yell "Yippee, we're making less money!" they might - hopefully - realize a 20% reduction isn't the end of the world since they'll still be making an awfully good living doing something they both love.

I don't disagree. I just think if you tell Wayne Siimmonds he's signiing a $20M six year deal that is then really worth $16M the overall enjoyment of the contract might be diminished somewhat.

The owners could just as easily be happy with what they are getting. It's not like Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Toronto are hurting at the gate. The only billionaires that have gone bust owning an NHL team went bust in other areas of their business first. And the franchises still exist.

I think the players will come back, but I do think there will be bad blood that is not conducive for the success of the franchises.

And, again, the basic point that the owners offered contracts and then suddenly, unexpectedly, out-of-the-blue asked for an immediate 20% rollback in the contracts would, for me and I would argue for any NHL "businessman" owner - leave open the real question of how much "good faith" is on offer from the owners' side.

[canoli]

asked for an immediate 20% rollback in the contracts ... how much "good faith" is on offer from the owners' side.

yep, no getting around that. The bad blood will be thick for awhile after this. The only saving grace - the only thing that makes it palatable at all for the players - is the salaries will still be quite high compared to 98% of the rest of us.

Of course the owners have "banked on" this all along, playing the "you should be grateful" card like they did last time. I assume that message is having considerably less effect this time around - else the lockout would be over by now.

[radoran]

yep, no getting around that. The bad blood will be thick for awhile after this. The only saving grace - the only thing that makes it palatable at all for the players - is the salaries will still be quite high compared to 98% of the rest of us.

Of course the owners have "banked on" this all along, playing the "you should be grateful" card like they did last time. I assume that message is having considerably less effect this time around - else the lockout would be over by now.

Yeah, but I think we're just talking about a matter of zeroes.

If Hartnell had signed a deal for $470,000 and was now going to make $376,000 he's still making more than 98% of us, but the $564,000 over six years is more relatable to us.

Take that to $47,000 and a reduction to $37,600 and the $56,400 starts looking pretty big.

They've essentially told Hartnell and Simmonds that they will be working for at least one year "for free" (technically 14.4 months) compared to the contracts they signed.

That's pretty big from where I sit, no matter how much some one is making.

The fact that the man DEMANDING that those players play for a year for free for him - after offering the contract - isn't facing any sort of real financial distress as a result of his "money losing" hockey operations is also revealing.

[JackStraw]

the length of the term and the uncertainty of the CBA process, coupled with what could be considered "hometown discounts" for both players.

And then facing a 20% haircut.

What? The owners are demanding that the players get 20% of their hair cut off? What a bunch of greedy b*st*rds!

[radoran]

What? The owners are demanding that the players get 20% of their hair cut off? What a bunch of greedy b*st*rds!

Hartnell was one of the first to take the haircut and look what they still did to him!

[JackStraw]

Hartnell was one of the first to take the haircut and look what they still did to him!

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile!