Lockout

[tfrizz]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

A large number of the players affected by these CBA talks won't be around for the next CBA negotiation.

[Fire0nice228]

If there's one thing I'm good at, it's sticking to my stupidity!

No, but seriously. I'm confused to how it's bad that I side with the players (my terrible reasonings aside), but people can throw out equally stupid stuff in favor of the owners and no one sees a problem with it?

That's what's drawing my ire. You ignore basically the whole entire side, so somewhere in my mind, I have to be just as reactive for the other side (I've done this before, it's sort of becoming my MO).

We ignore the other side in this instance because your argument was essentially that the owners make money elsewhere so they should be fine with losing money in their NHL endeavors. Which is really

It appears to me most posters understand that there needs to be some common ground but understand that they players surely need to make bigger moves, or else we simply wont be playing hockey anytime soon.

[Sarcastic]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

That's why it's hard to negotiate with people who don't understand economics.

It's even more than that. It feels like they don't understand common sense.

They players is duuumb.

[MRandall25]

If there's one thing I'm good at, it's sticking to my stupidity!

No, but seriously. I'm confused to how it's bad that I side with the players (my terrible reasonings aside), but people can throw out equally stupid stuff in favor of the owners and no one sees a problem with it?

That's what's drawing my ire. You ignore basically the whole entire side, so somewhere in my mind, I have to be just as reactive for the other side (I've done this before, it's sort of becoming my MO).

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

We ignore the other side in this instance because your argument was essentially that the owners make money elsewhere so they should be fine with losing money in their NHL endeavors. Which is really [/quote]

That's not what I meant. There are some (not naming names) who just completely ignore the players side and think the owners should get everything they want because "lolol Don Fehr is a terrorist".

Is that really any different than what I have said at times?

And don't get me started again on the "Hurr durr players are dumb" stuff.

[offsides]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

Anything wrong with getting a real job after playing 5 years of hockey?

[Fire0nice228]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

Anything wrong with getting a real job after playing 5 years of hockey?

Most of them dont even have high school education..so yeah.

[MRandall25]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

Anything wrong with getting a real job after playing 5 years of hockey?

It's harder than you think (to make the transition from NHL/pro sport to "real life").

[pens_srq]

Fehr is trolling them. He's infuriating.

"Donald Fehr has pointed out that in five years, the NHLPA, because of the nature of sports, will have a multitude of new members and it is only fair to give those members a say in what will happen to them in their careers."

Yeah Don lets just have a work stoppage every 5 years because players don't understand economics.

[offsides]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

Anything wrong with getting a real job after playing 5 years of hockey?

Most of them dont even have high school education..so yeah.

Maybe better life choices? I wouldn't have minded being set for life after working 5 years.

[tfrizz]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

Anything wrong with getting a real job after playing 5 years of hockey?

Who's going to employ a late-20s (or 30-something) former hockey player with no education and no work experience?

[meow]

This thread just got hilarious.

[offsides]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

Anything wrong with getting a real job after playing 5 years of hockey?

Who's going to employ a late-20s (or 30-something) former hockey player with no education and no work experience?

I went back to school at 50 years old and started a new\different profession. It is hard to start over, but not impossible.

[tfrizz]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

Anything wrong with getting a real job after playing 5 years of hockey?

Most of them dont even have high school education..so yeah.

Maybe better life choices? I wouldn't have minded being set for life after working 5 years.

There's not much they can do in the way of life choices, it's the way the system works. Sacrifice everything for a shot at the NHL.

[MRandall25]

I wish I could show this Powerpoint on retiring players (any sport) and how hard it actually is for most of them in the first few years after.

[shmenguin]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

Anything wrong with getting a real job after playing 5 years of hockey?

Who's going to employ a late-20s (or 30-something) former hockey player with no education and no work experience?

lots of people. they just wouldn't make a lot of money. but they should have enough of a nest egg to afford education after they retire. from there, do whatever you want. if you only make 50K a year to start out with in some sales job, big whoop. i'd rather earn a few mill and start from scratch at 30 than have nothing and start from scratch at 21.

[Sarcastic]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

A large number of the players affected by these CBA talks won't be around for the next CBA negotiation.

Well, they're not making any cash now. And even if they somehow, eventually, get more of their way, they'll still end up losing more than they gain if the whole season is lost. It's really comical when you think about it. I wonder how much of it is saving face now more than anything. I know some of those players have got to feel stupid. So they keep pressing to prove something to the fans and, likely, to themselves.

[Fire0nice228]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

Anything wrong with getting a real job after playing 5 years of hockey?

Most of them dont even have high school education..so yeah.

Maybe better life choices? I wouldn't have minded being set for life after working 5 years.

I dont think you'd be able to live roughly 60 years on what the league minimum is for an NHL player after taxes and other expenses like your Agents cut%...

I get where your going with that argument, and to a point I agree.. Every 'normal' person thinks they could do it, but its been proven time after time that it isn't that easy for most people and you get used to a certain lifestyle.

But I agree.. Lets see where 'Biznasty' is in a few years.. if his twitter is any indication he'll be flat broke a few years after he's out of the show.

[Sarcastic]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

A large number of the players affected by these CBA talks won't be around for the next CBA negotiation.

Well, they're not making any cash now. And even if they somehow, eventually, get more of their way, they'll still end up losing more than they gain if the whole season is lost. It's really comical when you think about it. I wonder how much of it is saving face now more than anything. I know some of those players have got to feel stupid. So they keep pressing to prove something to the fans and, likely, to themselves.

[tfrizz]

Lets say they go with the 57/43 split. Go with no changes under previous CBA. The teams at the bottom lose all revenue because they cannot even spend to the cap floor. The fans in those markets stop going to games. The teams in those markets are unsellable because business men will not buy them. The total league revenue goes down as the league contracts. Then there are less jobs for players and the 57% equals less money as the NHL business as a whole did not correct obvious problems. So what the owners are proposing is actually going to make money for the players by growing the total revenue for the league. Whereas the players want stuff now and can't see the forest from the trees.

It's a difference in perspectives. Owning a team is a long-term investment and needs to be planned/treated that way, so planning for long-term gains is much more viable. The average NHL career length, on the other hand, is somewhere between 3 and 6 seasons (depending on what metric you want to measure it by) and could realistically be ended at any moment. For them, cashing in now is the only option.

A large number of the players affected by these CBA talks won't be around for the next CBA negotiation.

Well, they're not making any cash now. And even if they somehow, eventually, get more of their way, they'll still end up losing more than they gain if the whole season is lost. It's really comical when you think about it. I wonder how much of it is saving face now more than anything. I know some of those players have got to feel stupid. So they keep pressing to prove something to the fans and, likely, to themselves.

But a large number of players are making money by playing elsewhere, and even if the NHL shut down for good that would still be an option. IMO the real problem is that not enough teams are losing money due to the lockout for their to be a sense of urgency to resolve it, but that'll still be the case at a 50/50 split.

Elite Prospects has a list of 200 locked out NHLers who are (or were, in some cases) playing in other leagues. That's about 30% of the entire NHLPA, which is a pretty significant number.


Edit: Fixed the link fail, ugh.

[Sarcastic]

I wish I could show this Powerpoint on retiring players (any sport) and how hard it actually is for most of them in the first few years after.

They retire as multi-multi-millionaires and it's hard for them? Say whaaaaaaat?

[Sarcastic]

But a large number of players are making money by playing elsewhere, and even if the NHL shut down for good that would still be an option. IMO the real problem is that not enough teams are losing money due to the lockout for their to be a sense of urgency to resolve it, but that'll still be the case at a 50/50 split.

It's still a minority, isn't it? Does anyone have the numbers how many NHL players are playing overseas? And, wow, I wonder how players who normally play in those leagues feel about that Hockey Brotherhood, eh?

[MRandall25]

I wish I could show this Powerpoint on retiring players (any sport) and how hard it actually is for most of them in the first few years after.

They retire as multi-multi-millionaires and it's hard for them? Say whaaaaaaat?

That's not it at all.

[Sarcastic]

I wish I could show this Powerpoint on retiring players (any sport) and how hard it actually is for most of them in the first few years after.

They retire as multi-multi-millionaires and it's hard for them? Say whaaaaaaat?

That's not it at all.

Well, then explain it to me.

[MRandall25]

I wish I could show this Powerpoint on retiring players (any sport) and how hard it actually is for most of them in the first few years after.

They retire as multi-multi-millionaires and it's hard for them? Say whaaaaaaat?

That's not it at all.

Well, then explain it to me.

Most athletes don't have a pre-retirement plan set in place. The majority of the time, the retirement is not brought on by the athlete themselves. They're typically phased out by either:

1. Age

2. Deselection (we have guys who can fill your role for less money).

3. Injury

They typically aren't prepared for any of those to happen (you could argue they should be prepared for age, but when they're still at least contributing, but aren't signed because they're "too old", they aren't necessarily prepared).

When you factor in a player's psyche (coping skills, self-identity, social support outside their sport, their perception of control) with the fact that they suddenly don't have income flow AND they can't do something they've been working at since childhood, it creates problems, which can lead to problems including drug and alcohol abuse and depression.

So to answer your question, no, it's not that easy.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

I have zero patience for the arguememt of post athletic careers. They are paid handsomely and nobody is forcing you to play hockey. There are also built in pensions, league sponsored advisors and official help on anything and everything they want from finances to personal to careers and beyond......my job doesn't baby me half as much as these pro players get in all sports.

There is zero excuse to come out of a career, even a small one with a less chance at life.

Give me $100,000 and I can get an apartment, a Honda civic and 9 degrees at CCAC over 4 years.

The entitlement of those ideas are frightening.