NHL CBA Talk

shabbs wrote:

Riprock wrote:Just for fun...

If the average Canadian income is $46K, that's $3'833/month. On that salary, the typical mortgage approval is $211K.

For the average NHLer on a $2.4M salary, the monthly income is $200K, and they could get approved for an $11M home.

If you are an NHL player and for roughly half the year you are on the road, and you have a wife and 2-3 kids, you really do not need a mansion, so you could easily buy a $400-500K home, your typical 2,500 sq/ft, 4 bed, 3 bath type deal. You'd bank so much money, you could even live off the interest that $1M in a 4% interest account could accumulate.

Problem is, most hockey players aren't thinking like that. They're out there living it up, spending money on frivolous crap like blinged-out luxury cars, stoopid pricey shoes and other Dung and helping out family members and friends by giving them money, running up huge bar tabs etc... and getting involved in stupid business ventures... I'd say that a small percentage are making the wise choices and being smart with their money. But, maybe I'm wrong. Hopefully the athletes are getting better money advice these days.

shabbs wrote:

Riprock wrote:Just for fun...

If the average Canadian income is $46K, that's $3'833/month. On that salary, the typical mortgage approval is $211K.

For the average NHLer on a $2.4M salary, the monthly income is $200K, and they could get approved for an $11M home.

If you are an NHL player and for roughly half the year you are on the road, and you have a wife and 2-3 kids, you really do not need a mansion, so you could easily buy a $400-500K home, your typical 2,500 sq/ft, 4 bed, 3 bath type deal. You'd bank so much money, you could even live off the interest that $1M in a 4% interest account could accumulate.

Problem is, most hockey players aren't thinking like that. They're out there living it up, spending money on frivolous crap like blinged-out luxury cars, stoopid pricey shoes and other Dung and helping out family members and friends by giving them money, running up huge bar tabs etc... and getting involved in stupid business ventures... I'd say that a small percentage are making the wise choices and being smart with their money. But, maybe I'm wrong. Hopefully the athletes are getting better money advice these days.

Big Ev wrote:Ron MacLean: No Lockout in 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012/09/04/spf-nhl-nhlpa-cba-ron-maclean.html

NEELY wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Ron MacLean: No Lockout in 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012/09/04/spf-nhl-nhlpa-cba-ron-maclean.html

What's the difference between his opinion and Don Cherry who insists there will be one?

Unless one side caves there will be a lockout, plain and simple. Neither one are economists... they know hockey, that's it.

I want to thank Rod Fort, economics professor at University of Michigan, as always for his guiding hand in dissecting the game we're in. As Fort points out, Fehr has been in precisely this position many times at the MLBPA. Every time the PA stood its ground, there was never a lockout. The wildcard would be player solidarity. Fehr will keep them in check, and Bettman will make a deal.

shabbs wrote:I guess Ron is saying that Fehr's reputation precedes him and that Bettman should know this. Make a deal now or risk a long lockout. Interesting. I don't see it happening. I see the players blinking first after a short lockout.

Big Ev wrote:

NEELY wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Ron MacLean: No Lockout in 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012/09/04/spf-nhl-nhlpa-cba-ron-maclean.html

What's the difference between his opinion and Don Cherry who insists there will be one?

Unless one side caves there will be a lockout, plain and simple. Neither one are economists... they know hockey, that's it.

That's why he says this at the end:

I want to thank Rod Fort, economics professor at University of Michigan, as always for his guiding hand in dissecting the game we're in. As Fort points out, Fehr has been in precisely this position many times at the MLBPA. Every time the PA stood its ground, there was never a lockout. The wildcard would be player solidarity. Fehr will keep them in check, and Bettman will make a deal.

NEELY wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

NEELY wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Ron MacLean: No Lockout in 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012/09/04/spf-nhl-nhlpa-cba-ron-maclean.html

What's the difference between his opinion and Don Cherry who insists there will be one?

Unless one side caves there will be a lockout, plain and simple. Neither one are economists... they know hockey, that's it.

That's why he says this at the end:

I want to thank Rod Fort, economics professor at University of Michigan, as always for his guiding hand in dissecting the game we're in. As Fort points out, Fehr has been in precisely this position many times at the MLBPA. Every time the PA stood its ground, there was never a lockout. The wildcard would be player solidarity. Fehr will keep them in check, and Bettman will make a deal.

PA stood their ground in the last lockout and lost millions from the year they were off, lost millions in the roll back, and lost millions from the damage it did to the game which they probably made back with a better on ice product.

This was an article by MacLean for the players saying they won't back down, nothing more. It's propaganda and you should realize that.

Riprock wrote:The NHL could do A LOT to try to salvage the relationship with fans. Drop ticket prices significantly, sell jerseys for $45 bucks (like you can get online through bootleggers), offer free parking to games, etc.

Some NHL owners are probably going to save money with a lockout hehe. Like the guys that can barely pay the floor now not having to pay anything.

And as NEELY said, Melnyk can bring in more concerts, and the 67s will thrive. Bigger arena, more ticket sales. They just better not milk the ticket prices.

NEELY wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Ron MacLean: No Lockout in 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012/09/04/spf-nhl-nhlpa-cba-ron-maclean.html

What's the difference between his opinion and Don Cherry who insists there will be one?

Unless one side caves there will be a lockout, plain and simple. Neither one are economists... they know hockey, that's it.

Big Ev wrote:

NEELY wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

NEELY wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Ron MacLean: No Lockout in 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012/09/04/spf-nhl-nhlpa-cba-ron-maclean.html

What's the difference between his opinion and Don Cherry who insists there will be one?

Unless one side caves there will be a lockout, plain and simple. Neither one are economists... they know hockey, that's it.

That's why he says this at the end:

I want to thank Rod Fort, economics professor at University of Michigan, as always for his guiding hand in dissecting the game we're in. As Fort points out, Fehr has been in precisely this position many times at the MLBPA. Every time the PA stood its ground, there was never a lockout. The wildcard would be player solidarity. Fehr will keep them in check, and Bettman will make a deal.

PA stood their ground in the last lockout and lost millions from the year they were off, lost millions in the roll back, and lost millions from the damage it did to the game which they probably made back with a better on ice product.

This was an article by MacLean for the players saying they won't back down, nothing more. It's propaganda and you should realize that.

Why would he care about the players here? He used to be a ref and has always favoured the NHL.

anyways, it's just another take. No need to get all worked up about it. It doesn't make it propaganda if you don't agree with it. We're just showing all sides to the story and all the information we can get.

wprager wrote:

NEELY wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Ron MacLean: No Lockout in 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012/09/04/spf-nhl-nhlpa-cba-ron-maclean.html

What's the difference between his opinion and Don Cherry who insists there will be one?

Unless one side caves there will be a lockout, plain and simple. Neither one are economists... they know hockey, that's it.

Cherry's still thinking about the good ol' days when players had a reason to strike for better wages, and when they could make a similar living tending bar or waiting on tables. He's an old ex-player from before the golden age.

wprager wrote:Sad, but true

I always used to think that McLean was the brains in that outfit but I just read his article and I'm no-longer convinced. I don't really understand his point. But I must admit I liked the title. How many hits you think he would have gotten if the title was "Players won't cave; Bettman will be forced to make a deal" instead of "No lockout in 2012".

Big Ev wrote:Ron Maclean or reporters in general don't set the title of their articles. Don't blame MacLean for that.