Here is what I don`t get ...

The thing that I don`t understand with the CBA negotiations is how the NHLPA can absolutely and completely reject any type of cap or "cost certainty" as the owners put it. Who do they think they are? I mean here is a league that is barely even hanging on as being one of the four major league sports in North America and consistently has lower ratings than the likes of bowling and poker. Two of the other major leagues (NBA and NFL) that are much better off financially, not to mention way way more popular, already have some sort of cap in place. It boggles my mind how the NHLPA can have the arrogance to say that they will absolutely never accept a cap when two other much more popular and profitable leagues have already done so. I don`t want to hear about how the owners in those respective leagues broke the unions etc etc... The point is that the precedent is set in two of the other 4 major sports so I really don`t understand how the NHLPA will not accept any sort of cap.

It would be one thing if the owners were insisting on a cap with no precedent in North American professional sports, but here the "other" major league is refusing to accept what the two most popular major leagues have already have. I just don`t get it :shakehead

The thing that I don`t understand with the CBA negotiations is how the NHLPA can absolutely and completely reject any type of cap or "cost certainty" as the owners put it. Who do they think they are? I mean here is a league that is barely even hanging on as being one of the four major league sports in North America and consistently has lower ratings than the likes of bowling and poker. Two of the other major leagues (NBA and NFL) that are much better off financially, not to mention way way more popular, already have some sort of cap in place. It boggles my mind how the NHLPA can have the arrogance to say that they will absolutely never accept a cap when two other much more popular and profitable leagues have already done so. I don`t want to hear about how the owners in those respective leagues broke the unions etc etc... The point is that the precedent is set in two of the other 4 major sports so I really don`t understand how the NHLPA will not accept any sort of cap.

It would be one thing if the owners were insisting on a cap with no precedent in North American professional sports, but here the "other" major league is refusing to accept what the two most popular major leagues have already have. I just don`t get it :shakehead


The only other league with a hard cap is the NFL. The NFL has a cap for the opposite reason NHL owners want one. They have too much revenue. The NFL cap prevents hoarding of players, because every team has the resources to sign every free agent every year.

The NBA has a soft cap\luxury tax. MLB has a luxury tax.

What I am saying is that, considering that the NHL is way way behind these three sports in terms of popularity and revenue, how can they absolutely and completely reject a model that is not only used, but working in two other major league sports.

Here's a way they can keep playing!

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/775/29/

-HckyFght!

The NHLPA knows that to accept a cap will only cause problems for players down the road. The NFL cap was obtained in a situation where the union broke and the NFL revenue streams (namely from television) is a unique situation that essentially enables the NFL to dictate whatever it wants to the players. The NFL knows it doesn't need the players as much as the players need them.

The NBAPA accepted a salary cap basically after David Stern destroyed them in the eyes of the public and caused dissension among the players. Players were wondering why they weren't playing and why they would not just agree to some sort of cost structure. As a result, now the NBA has maximum salaries and a luxury tax system that has crippled many teams.

So...the NHLPA knows that cost certainty is what the owners want, and they also know that a salary cap will guarantee lower salaries for them. It's obvious that players would never agree to that. The fact that the NHL is in trouble in both finances and popularity is not sufficient reason for the players to automatically agree to a salary cap...they think a tax system is enough because they want to allow teams like the Red Wings and Rangers to keep on spending crazy money.

What I am saying is that, considering that the NHL is way way behind these three sports in terms of popularity and revenue, how can they absolutely and completely reject a model that is not only used, but working in two other major league sports.

The model the NHL wants is only used in the NFL. And I'm not having the NFL vs. NHL discussion again. And how does this proposed cap keep the big, bad, evil teams from giving out huge signing bonuses, which would worsen the current problems?

Until more info is available I am siding with the players for teh most part. The whole idea of a cap is predicated on the notion that Bettman keeps hounding: that 20 teams lost money, that the league is losing $200M+ a year, etc. But they will not release proof of that to the general public or anyone else. They're asking everyone to take their word for it, and that's BS.

They could very easily be doing some "creative accounting" to define what a loss is (and isn't), and they're not sharing that info. The only reason not to share it, is because people in the real accounting world will be able to see the accounting methods and comment publicly. Furthermor certain owners are running their clubs in a disgraceful way. I guarantee you Bill Wirtz (for example) is hoarding a lot of money in various ways, that he refuses to spend on hockey operations because he's a cheap priK.

It's to his advantage to demand a cap without any proof that he needs one.

Until more info is available I am siding with the players for teh most part. The whole idea of a cap is predicated on the notion that Bettman keeps hounding: that 20 teams lost money, that the league is losing $200M+ a year, etc. But they will not release proof of that to the general public or anyone else. They're asking everyone to take their word for it, and that's BS.

They could very easily be doing some "creative accounting" to define what a loss is (and isn't), and they're not sharing that info. The only reason not to share it, is because people in the real accounting world will be able to see the accounting methods and comment publicly. Furthermor certain owners are running their clubs in a disgraceful way. I guarantee you Bill Wirtz (for example) is hoarding a lot of money in various ways, that he refuses to spend on hockey operations because he's a cheap priK.

It's to his advantage to demand a cap without any proof that he needs one.

Go read the Levitt report. If the numbers the NHL is coming out with were so far from the truth the NHLPA would be all over it with a financial expert of their own. The fact that they haven`t shown any proof to the contrary and haven`t said anything since their three days of discussion on each team`s finances leads me to believe that the NHL`s numbers were pretty acurate.

The NHLPA knows that to accept a cap will only cause problems for players down the road. The NFL cap was obtained in a situation where the union broke and the NFL revenue streams (namely from television) is a unique situation that essentially enables the NFL to dictate whatever it wants to the players. The NFL knows it doesn't need the players as much as the players need them.

The NBAPA accepted a salary cap basically after David Stern destroyed them in the eyes of the public and caused dissension among the players. Players were wondering why they weren't playing and why they would not just agree to some sort of cost structure. As a result, now the NBA has maximum salaries and a luxury tax system that has crippled many teams.

So...the NHLPA knows that cost certainty is what the owners want, and they also know that a salary cap will guarantee lower salaries for them. It's obvious that players would never agree to that. The fact that the NHL is in trouble in both finances and popularity is not sufficient reason for the players to automatically agree to a salary cap...they think a tax system is enough because they want to allow teams like the Red Wings and Rangers to keep on spending crazy money.

If you read my original post you would have seen that I am not interested how the NFL and NBA put in place their sytems (frankly I don`t care), what I am saying is that the precedent is set. Not only is the precedent set, but it has been set by two much more popular and much more financially viable leagues who are thriving under their system.

If you read my original post you would have seen that I am not interested how the NFL and NBA put in place their sytems (frankly I don`t care), what I am saying is that the precedent is set. Not only is the precedent set, but it has been set by two much more popular and much more financially viable leagues who are thriving under their system.

And the biggest reason those league's are so well off financially is becuase of TV money. Each NFL team gets around $35 million per year from national TV. Each NHL team got $2 million a year under the last ABC deal, and they're not even gauranteed that under the new NBC deal.

I don't dobut the Levitt report says what the league says it does. the question is would another accountant find the same things. There's lots of ways to be creative, hide revenue, or take huge losses in one quarter or year instead of spreading them out over along period of time. the NHL needs to open thier books up to the public, team by team. They won't becuase they know other analysts will be able to make things look great for the players side. SOmeone even asked bettman today why the league doesn't do that, and he evaded the question.

Go read the Levitt report. If the numbers the NHL is coming out with were so far from the truth the NHLPA would be all over it with a financial expert of their own.

With no accounting or formal business training, I can concieve of a legal business that follows all proper accounting procedures, yet loses money on paper three years out of four and still grows as an asset. Do you think that the pros might be able to do a little more with their fancy training?

And the biggest reason those league's are so well off financially is becuase of TV money. Each NFL team gets around $35 million per year from national TV. Each NHL team got $2 million a year under the last ABC deal, and they're not even gauranteed that under the new NBC deal.

They get that money because of the popularity of the sport. The NHL is no where near as popular as the other major sports and NHL players cannot continue to be paid on par with the likes of football players, baseball players and basketball players.

I don't dobut the Levitt report says what the league says it does. the question is would another accountant find the same things. There's lots of ways to be creative, hide revenue, or take huge losses in one quarter or year instead of spreading them out over along period of time. the NHL needs to open thier books up to the public, team by team. They won't becuase they know other analysts will be able to make things look great for the players side. SOmeone even asked bettman today why the league doesn't do that, and he evaded the question.

This was a INDEPENDANT report done by one of the most respected economists in the world. He was not being "creative" he wasn`t hiding revenue, this was a completely independant study in which Levitt had access to every aspect of every team`s financial records.
The NHL has repeatedly invited the NHLPA to look at the books and they have repeatedly declined. Let`s face it: if there was anything wrong with the LEvitt report the NHLPA would be all over it and trumpeting it to the media. They have said nothing of substance of it, that tells you something.

With no accounting or formal business training, I can concieve of a legal business that follows all proper accounting procedures, yet loses money on paper three years out of four and still grows as an asset. Do you think that the pros might be able to do a little more with their fancy training?

Don`t you think the NHLPA "pros" would have been able to point out any errors or misrepresentations in the report by now?

They get that money because of the popularity of the sport. The NHL is no where near as popular as the other major sports and NHL players cannot continue to be paid on par with the likes of football players, baseball players and basketball players.



This was a INDEPENDANT report done by one of the most respected economists in the world. He was not being "creative" he wasn`t hiding revenue, this was a completely independant study in which Levitt had access to every aspect of every team`s financial records.
The NHL has repeatedly invited the NHLPA to look at the books and they have repeatedly declined. Let`s face it: if there was anything wrong with the LEvitt report the NHLPA would be all over it and trumpeting it to the media. They have said nothing of substance of it, that tells you something.


I agree that NHL players should be paid less, but I diagree on how.

I'm not saying Levitt lied, or hid anything, but he couldn't count what wasn't there. Hell, there was a story someone here quoted last week where an unidentified league executive admitted they had 2 sets of books. If the NHL was so upfront and confident in their reporting, why won't they relase team by team reports?

Don`t you think the NHLPA "pros" would have been able to point out any errors or misrepresentations in the report by now?

No, because the report is based on information that is not publically available.

But that doesn't matter, because I'm certain that many teams the NHL can, in fact, legitimately generate paper losses while maintaining a viable business or business division.

In other words, the Levitt report could be a totally accurate and based on accounting that is 100% factual and still not provide a complete picture. It's a red herring.

What I am saying is that, considering that the NHL is way way behind these three sports in terms of popularity and revenue, how can they absolutely and completely reject a model that is not only used, but working in two other major league sports.

Its simple. Because the players stand to lose nearly 30% in salary. If what Bettman said was true of the owners proposition: that average salary would drop from 1.8M to 1.3M (under their proposal), obviously thats a lot of money the players are conceding.

How could any sane person be 'ok' with a large cut in salary? And obviously, looking at the salary structure and CBA's of other leagues (NFL, NBA) isn't going to make you feel any better. I believe the NFL and NHL are two different markets (salaries are not competing). Put yourself in the players shoes. If you took a 28% pay cut, would you be happy?

I think, eventually, the players and the owners need to meet half way. Its the only way they'll come to an agreement both can accept. What creative concessions each makes is probably the key.

How could any sane person be 'ok' with a large cut in salary? And obviously, looking at the salary structure and CBA's of other leagues (NFL, NBA) isn't going to make you feel any better. I believe the NFL and NHL are two different markets (salaries are not competing). Put yourself in the players shoes. If you took a 28% pay cut, would you be happy?

I don't think anyone will be happy with a 30% paycut, but right now they are looking at a 50% paycut if half the season is lost, and a 100% paycut if the entire season is lost, and even after that, when a new CBA is signed, they will lose some salary on top of that.

No, because the report is based on information that is not publically available.

But that doesn't matter, because I'm certain that many teams the NHL can, in fact, legitimately generate paper losses while maintaining a viable business or business division.

In other words, the Levitt report could be a totally accurate and based on accounting that is 100% factual and still not provide a complete picture. It's a red herring.

All I am saying is that the Levitt report is the only hard evidence we have of any kind on the financial state of the NHL and until any other credible person or organization comes up with information that proves otherwise that is the only thing we have to go on.

All I am saying is that the Levitt report is the only hard evidence we have of any kind on the financial state of the NHL and until any other credible person or organization comes up with information that proves otherwise that is the only thing we have to go on.

Nobody else can come up with anything because the NHL won't let them. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Nobody else can come up with anything because the NHL won't let them. Why is this so hard to grasp?

The NHL has openly offered to open up the books for the NHLPA and they have refused. They even have had Levitt himself open himself up to questions on his study to the NHLPA and again they have refused. Why would the NHLPA refuse to take a good look at the finances of the NHL and refuse to ask questions to Levitt on how exactly he came up with the results he did? Because if they did they would have to acknowledge publicly that the NHL`s numbers were correct and that would completely devestate their stand in these talks.

The NHL has openly offered to open up the books for the NHLPA and they have refused. They even have had Levitt himself open himself up to questions on his study to the NHLPA and again they have refused. Why would the NHLPA refuse to take a good look at the finances of the NHL and refuse to ask questions to Levitt on how exactly he came up with the results he did? Because if they did they would have to acknowledge publicly that the NHL`s numbers were correct and that would completely devestate their stand in these talks.

That's because the players have no interest in anything to do with finances. They just want to play hockey... :joker:

Of course it's easier for them to just say that anything the owners say is a lie, and that even if the owners did show the books, there are other books that the NHL is not showing. And the owners have planty of money from all their other enterprises, so it doesn't matter if they lose money on hockey teams. Did I leave anything out?

LIke ive said I will never agree with the players or take there side. THey want to make a decent living my god Brain McCabe should be shot on the spot that son of a *****. There a tons of poor people who slave to pay for his salary and hes driving a fancy car, wearing a fancy suit, having groupies screwing him, while little 15 year old alex his studying for finals and working 8 hour shifts and burger king so he can pay 150 bucks to watch a garbage player like McCabe.

THey want to make a decent living my god Brain McCabe should be shot on the spot that son of a *****.

Maybe if you didn't have such an irrational hatred for entertainers who can put 20,000 butts in seats a hundred nights a year, you'd be able to see the issues more clearly.

[QUOTE=Chelios]The thing that I don`t understand with the CBA negotiations is how the NHLPA can absolutely and completely reject any type of cap or "cost certainty" as the owners put it. Who do they think they are?

Guess you have never heard of this modern concept of collective bargaining ??? I know it is a new concept but to reach an agreement both side must agree what that contract will be. Understand!!!! Bargain reach an agreement problem solved . ope this clears up your confussion regarding his matter.

The thing that I don`t understand with the CBA negotiations is how the NHLPA can absolutely and completely reject any type of cap or "cost certainty" as the owners put it. Who do they think they are?

They think they are a union that was able to make the owners bend over and moan like whales a couple of times now.

the guy who said mccabe should be shot was taking things a little far, but he should be at the VERY least beaten with some kind of large stick :)

the players arent stupid (well maybe they are, lol), they know that joe public is NEVER going to side with a 20-something year old whos making millions of dollars a year, when joe public is making 35k a year working a job he hates.... its a lose/lose situation for the players, they know that in the end the public wont have any respect for them, so they are gonna go the route that ensures that they wont lose money AND respect

ill tell you this..... im one of the biggest hockey fans that i know, but if they lose this entire season, i AINT coming back...... ill spend my money elsewhere, and there are thousands (if not millions) of others like me

Even if 20 teams are losing money, lowering saleries won't help that. The owners got these players in this situation in the first place, by oversigning them.


If they want a cap, why not just accept a marketplace, and then they can dictate the costs.

because thats collusion (sp?), and its illegal

the NHLPA keeps saying free market, free market, free market.... when in reality the NHL, as it currently stands, is not a free market at ALL, its not even close.... in a free market does your employer have to give you a new contract with a 10% raise when your old one is done? in a free market can you just decide to not agree to this contract and then get an outside arbitrator to FORCE your employer to pay you more? there are other examples as well, but you get the point.... the NHL is NOT a free market, the NHLPA should wake up and realize not everybody is an idiot

Even if 20 teams are losing money, lowering saleries won't help that. The owners got these players in this situation in the first place, by oversigning them.


If they want a cap, why not just accept a marketplace, and then they can dictate the costs.

Because dumb teams like the Maple Leafs feel nessecarry to pay over the hill garbage old men players like Ed Balfor, Joe Newindyk, Gary Robert all these huge deals, while they score 4 goals. While Iginla here is scoring like a mad man, and being paid less them then, and then he says I want 10 million while the Flames owners are secretly working at Arbys to pay for half the teams costs.

We need something to protect the smart teams, and the better teams so they can make some money and be rewarded for putting out a good team, and being financially responsible.

the NHLPA keeps saying free market, free market, free market.... when in reality the NHL, as it currently stands, is not a free market at ALL, its not even close.... in a free market does your employer have to give you a new contract with a 10% raise when your old one is done? in a free market can you just decide to not agree to this contract and then get an outside arbitrator to FORCE your employer to pay you more? there are other examples as well, but you get the point.... the NHL is NOT a free market, the NHLPA should wake up and realize not everybody is an idiot

Um, no one was forced to give a 10% raise. The Mighty Ducks, for example, refused Paul Kariya his 10% raise, and so he left. Also worth noting, the owners are allowed to refuse 3 arbitration agreements every 2 years. Has any arbitration agreement ever been refused? I can't think of one, but it's not like I've been paying attention. In any case, the owners have had opportunities to make their own "cost certainty" and not pay the players if they didn't think it would lead to profit, but I guess Holik stormed into Sather's office with a shotgun or something.

They think they are a union that was able to make the owners bend over and moan like whales a couple of times now.

Ouch. True. But, ouch.

Certain circumstances at the time dictated that such a fate couldn't be avoided. That's the way it goes sometimes. You roll with the punches. The successful accept that, part of the game (qualifier; PART). I had more to say but I'll cut it short.

Lord help the NHLPA if the owners are resolute in their stance. As much as I'm for the best benefits to employees (always will be as one their kind), the reality can smack you in the face. The owners have the power to do what they will. Right or wrong, they can exert that power if the need arises. And there aren't sufficient remedies (at least in this case) to change that if the owners wish it so. Often it doesn't come to that as both sides respect the contributions that the other has to offer. That is of course the middle ground that need to be reached here (insert myself begging for just that).

Not saying you're wrong, Vlad. You're one of the minority that takes both sides into account. Just trying to widen the perspective.

Its simple. Because the players stand to lose nearly 30% in salary. If what Bettman said was true of the owners proposition: that average salary would drop from 1.8M to 1.3M (under their proposal), obviously thats a lot of money the players are conceding. Aww... poor players, they'd only be getting an average 1.3 million now? How will they EVER survive of only 1.3 million dollars PER YEAR?!?!?!? http://www.hfboards.com/images/smilies/shakeshead.gif

The NHL has openly offered to open up the books for the NHLPA and they have refused. They even have had Levitt himself open himself up to questions on his study to the NHLPA and again they have refused. Why would the NHLPA refuse to take a good look at the finances of the NHL and refuse to ask questions to Levitt on how exactly he came up with the results he did? Because if they did they would have to acknowledge publicly that the NHL`s numbers were correct and that would completely devestate their stand in these talks.

another one of those comments that get completely ignored because there is no more lose ends to open up.

what ifs and because's can only go on for ever. No i have no real comment on this, as i agree with everything youve said and the Levitt/nhlpa facts can be found doing a search on the web. its just something ive seen done on this and other forums OFTEN. A comment is made, and somebody will attempt to discredit.. the discredit is countered and the countered is discredited again... The person then counters AGAIN, and its ignored because grasping at straws isnt that fun.

Not saying you're wrong, Vlad. You're one of the minority that takes both sides into account. Just trying to widen the perspective.

And you're absolutely right too.

There are literally hundreds of ways this can play out.

I just think the union is very confident, and rightly so. They have a past track record of solidarity and of victories. The momentum has been on their side in the recent past so I suspect several of their members are just not afraid of the owners.

This is the twofold problem the owners are facing now.

Take for example the Bettman speech today. I'm reading that and what I get is "we won't bend, we want this, we want that!".

Ok, so far that looks powerful enough. There's obviously the typical bull you read/hear in any negociation statement but it's still strong enough. BUT, here's my problem. They looked just as resolute many, many, many years ago.

I remember as clear as day. Salaries were much lower, the union was much weaker. We can guess the owners were probably richer (if they are telling the truth) and I swear to God, they were looking just as resolute back then. I remember how they looked strong, how they said they wouldn't flinch.

And then I remember afterwards, Marcel Aubut looking like he had just put down his dog. He was pale and you could immediately see that it was the end of Quebec City in the NHL. And he suggested that the whole thing was a joke, that the owners had been bickering and were absolutely not concerned for each others.

It takes time to "look" tough in a negociation. You gotta put effort in that to create an impression, a strong stance. It takes probably even more time if you have to erase your past defeats like the owners will have to now.

This is my problem. If this was a first CBA meeting, I think *some* (not all) players would be pausing at this point of the process. Some would be wondering if it is sane to lock horn with the bosses. Right now, if Goodenow is smart, he is playing old tapes of ownership statements back in the days, when they looked just as resolute.

Bettman's speech was only for the fans. Every owner right now HAS to know that there is not a chance, not a single tiny chance that the players will flinch before at least January. Because they know in the past owners have worked it out. The owners are ****ed because in order to get the credibility needed and prove they are serious, they must go at least to January and most probably scrap the whole season.

And that doesn't garantee them a victory. That just garantees them the minimum respect any man should have when he negociate. They left their balls in the drawer for a decade. They're wearing pink skirts for the rest of year 2004. My point is, the negociations haven't even started for real.

Anytime a player comes to Goodenow or a representative with doubts or fear, the owners will tell them to not even worry. It's not even serious until January.

So all I know is, if this conflict is resolved before January, it's because the players won and got exactly what they wanted. That's as far as I can go. Past that, anything can happen but since historically the players have been winning, my money is on them.

I do not expect a glowing victory. I expect a middle ground deal, but closer to satisfying the players.

Guess you have never heard of this modern concept of collective bargaining ??? I know it is a new concept but to reach an agreement both side must agree what that contract will be. Understand!!!! Bargain reach an agreement problem solved . ope this clears up your confussion regarding his matter.

I know what collective bargaining is. I think that if you read my previous posts you would realize my big issue is the union taking a stance completely against any type of link between revenues and expenses, after two other much more popular and fincancially viable leagues have already done so.

This is my problem. If this was a first CBA meeting, I think *some* (not all) players would be pausing at this point of the process. Some would be wondering if it is sane to lock horn with the bosses. Right now, if Goodenow is smart, he is playing old tapes of ownership statements back in the days, when they looked just as resolute.

Bettman's speech was only for the fans. Every owner right now HAS to know that there is not a chance, not a single tiny chance that the players will flinch before at least January. Because they know in the past owners have worked it out. The owners are ****ed because in order to get the credibility needed and prove they are serious, they must go at least to January and most probably scrap the whole season.

And that doesn't garantee them a victory. That just garantees them the minimum respect any man should have when he negociate. They left their balls in the drawer for a decade. They're wearing pink skirts for the rest of year 2004. My point is, the negociations haven't even started for real.

Anytime a player comes to Goodenow or a representative with doubts or fear, the owners will tell them to not even worry. It's not even serious until January.

So all I know is, if this conflict is resolved before January, it's because the players won and got exactly what they wanted. That's as far as I can go. Past that, anything can happen but since historically the players have been winning, my money is on them.

I do not expect a glowing victory. I expect a middle ground deal, but closer to satisfying the players.

Vlad I agree. The NHL should have set a deadline, no deal at the deadline = no season. Don't drag it out, just do it. The CBA expiring would have been good except it was too close to WC. I think owners need to set a date like Nov 15. If there is no deal by then, they cancel the season and try again for the next year.

They need to show some balls.

And you're absolutely right too.

There are literally hundreds of ways this can play out.

I just think the union is very confident, and rightly so. They have a past track record of solidarity and of victories. The momentum has been on their side in the recent past so I suspect several of their members are just not afraid of the owners.

This is the twofold problem the owners are facing now.

Take for example the Bettman speech today. I'm reading that and what I get is "we won't bend, we want this, we want that!".

Ok, so far that looks powerful enough. There's obviously the typical bull you read/hear in any negociation statement but it's still strong enough. BUT, here's my problem. They looked just as resolute many, many, many years ago.

I remember as clear as day. Salaries were much lower, the union was much weaker. We can guess the owners were probably richer (if they are telling the truth) and I swear to God, they were looking just as resolute back then. I remember how they looked strong, how they said they wouldn't flinch.

And then I remember afterwards, Marcel Aubut looking like he had just put down his dog. He was pale and you could immediately see that it was the end of Quebec City in the NHL. And he suggested that the whole thing was a joke, that the owners had been bickering and were absolutely not concerned for each others.

It takes time to "look" tough in a negociation. You gotta put effort in that to create an impression, a strong stance. It takes probably even more time if you have to erase your past defeats like the owners will have to now.

This is my problem. If this was a first CBA meeting, I think *some* (not all) players would be pausing at this point of the process. Some would be wondering if it is sane to lock horn with the bosses. Right now, if Goodenow is smart, he is playing old tapes of ownership statements back in the days, when they looked just as resolute.

Bettman's speech was only for the fans. Every owner right now HAS to know that there is not a chance, not a single tiny chance that the players will flinch before at least January. Because they know in the past owners have worked it out. The owners are ****ed because in order to get the credibility needed and prove they are serious, they must go at least to January and most probably scrap the whole season.

And that doesn't garantee them a victory. That just garantees them the minimum respect any man should have when he negociate. They left their balls in the drawer for a decade. They're wearing pink skirts for the rest of year 2004. My point is, the negociations haven't even started for real.

Anytime a player comes to Goodenow or a representative with doubts or fear, the owners will tell them to not even worry. It's not even serious until January.

So all I know is, if this conflict is resolved before January, it's because the players won and got exactly what they wanted. That's as far as I can go. Past that, anything can happen but since historically the players have been winning, my money is on them.

I do not expect a glowing victory. I expect a middle ground deal, but closer to satisfying the players.

I see where you're coming from. The dynamics fit.

The behavior even at the so-called "D-Day" isn't surprising, from either side. Good move actually. I've seen labor battles cross the line in crunch time, one side not exerting the rationale needed; showing the passion they had but giving away too much in the process. That's only one example of how it can go wrong of course. But both sides in this particular dispute today played the part as they should (according to them at least, though I'm not insinuating blame on either side).

Putting on a face, displaying the right image is more of an art than a science. I'm not talking about a motivational speaker who gives the audience what it wants. You obviously have to know what your talking about and you need to convey it in an intellegent manner. There's a subtlety beyond the guise of that motivational element (ie the real truth or heart of the matter). From my experience, Bettman doesn't pull that off. Neither does Goodenow. I listen to what they say but I see the gaps. The force of their words and their arguments can be impactful, but just not enough for me. To another vein...

This may just be me (judging by other comments it might be only me). I do see the similarities of '94, but I see the overall economic climate as being different. Old habits die hard and that can be seen many times over with successful businessmen who are wary to change the ways that made them a success in the first place. But just about everyone worth his salt adapts to the environment. That's the change I see from a decade ago. The economic climate of today (and the realities that go along with it) are different than 1994. Not just in the NHL, but in a broader sense as well. I believe the owners see this, that what we saw in '94 isn't nearly the same as what we see today. We'd probably be here until 2014 if you or anyone else wanted specifics (as you can probably see, I fairly long winded).

I could be wrong of course. That would hardly be a first. But that's just my perspective. Take it for what it's worth.

Vlad I agree. The NHL should have set a deadline, no deal at the deadline = no season. Don't drag it out, just do it. The CBA expiring would have been good except it was too close to WC. I think owners need to set a date like Nov 15. If there is no deal by then, they cancel the season and try again for the next year.

They need to show some balls.

You're right but the sad thing is, the union would not even have believed a deadline. This is how bad the situation is and this is why, IMO, the owners have not done much in the way of threats. You don't hear much about what they will do eventually if this situation is not resolved. It would be useless at this point.

I think even if they set Nov 15, the players would still expect this to be a bluff. Any respect the owners will garner will be won inch by inch over time, *if* of course they do not flinch.

Once we're past january, I suppose the players will start to listen a little, especially if the owner prepare plans for 2005 (like a sort of replacement league, although it is not clear if/how they can set this up legally due to varying labor laws in countries/states/provinces).

Any deadline they set would be better accompanied by paper work. Example: signing a contract leasing the arena to some 3rd party but the contract can be resilated up to a certain date. Stuff like that, to put pressure.

Or starting to sign replacement players, again, to contracts that can be resiliated up to a certain date (that would mightily suck for the scabs, though).

If ownership is smart, they already have plans for the next 3 years that include every scenario possible. The problem is I think last time around they just didn't have any backup plan, ever. They just played big guy. When the union didn't flinch, they looked dumb and the trousers went down. You need backup plans.

Players have backup plans. They go play elsewhere. They also don't have dormant assets like arenas collecting dust and staff to pay. It's an advantage they have. I sure hope for the owners they have elaborate plans for different situations. If they have, this is the sort of stuff which I expect we would hear about starting (again) in January. You'll start hearing whispers soon but it will get louder at that time.

Assuming the union doesn't break them down before then, of course ;)

This may just be me (judging by other comments it might be only me). I do see the similarities of '94, but I see the overall economic climate as being different. Old habits die hard and that can be seen many times over with successful businessmen who are wary to change the ways that made them a success in the first place. But just about everyone worth his salt adapts to the environment. That's the change I see from a decade ago. The economic climate of today (and the realities that go along with it) are different than 1994. Not just in the NHL, but in a broader sense as well. I believe the owners see this, that what we saw in '94 isn't nearly the same as what we see today. We'd probably be here until 2014 if you or anyone else wanted specifics (as you can probably see, I fairly long winded).

I could be wrong of course. That would hardly be a first. But that's just my perspective. Take it for what it's worth.

No, you can't be wrong. The evidence is there: the union HAS, undeniably, offered to make concessions. So this is already a strong indicator that both parties know something is wrong (and/or that something has changed as far as ownership stance).

They still can't agree on how much is wrong, though :D

All I am saying is that the Levitt report is the only hard evidence we have of any kind on the financial state of the NHL and until any other credible person or organization comes up with information that proves otherwise that is the only thing we have to go on.


The thing is Levitt or anyone else is only gonna get the info the owners give them. The only real way to get the true numbers is for the IRS to investigate the 24 owners.

Dont you all remember how a few years ago Bud Selig was claiming several MLB were on the verge of folding? Yet they sign a CBA that was almost the same as the previous CBA and now none of those teams are in finical trouble.

Even if 20 teams are losing money, lowering saleries won't help that. The owners got these players in this situation in the first place, by oversigning them.


If they want a cap, why not just accept a marketplace, and then they can dictate the costs.


So you want the owners to get together and determine what their limit should be agree on it and only sign players to that amount, outside of what the CBA dictates? That's called collusion.

So you want the owners to get together and determine what their limit should be agree on it and only sign players to that amount, outside of what the CBA dictates? That's called collusion.


But if each owners didn't run his franchise into the red, they NHL wouldn't be in this problem. If an owners revenue can support a 40 million dollar payroll, he does have to exceed it. I mean this problem exist from small market to big markets. Owners are spending more than they can afford. No one would blame them if they decided not to spend more than they can afford. Thats their right to do so. And just because a couple idiot owners go over their limit doesn't mean the rest of the owners have to follow. I think we've learned lately it's not about how much you spend on your team, it's how you build your team.

The thing is Levitt or anyone else is only gonna get the info the owners give them. The only real way to get the true numbers is for the IRS to investigate the 24 owners.

Dont you all remember how a few years ago Bud Selig was claiming several MLB were on the verge of folding? Yet they sign a CBA that was almost the same as the previous CBA and now none of those teams are in finical trouble.

The IRS? Are you kidding? I can hide money easier from the IRS auditors than I can my 4 year old daughter. Levitt had access not only to the club owners records but also to the any subsidiaries the club might have. Market analyst have come out and said hockey clubs were not good investments, these are independent analyst, just reporting the facts.

But if each owners didn't run his franchise into the red, they NHL wouldn't be in this problem. If an owners revenue can support a 40 million dollar payroll, he does have to exceed it. I mean this problem exist from small market to big markets. Owners are spending more than they can afford. No one would blame them if they decided not to spend more than they can afford. Thats their right to do so. And just because a couple idiot owners go over their limit doesn't mean the rest of the owners have to follow. I think we've learned lately it's not about how much you spend on your team, it's how you build your team.

I agree with this concept. The only 2 problems are 10% annual salary increases and Salary Arbitration. New York has pays Holik 8M a year as a 3rd line grinder so it drives the price up in arbitration.

If you start cutting these players loose the fans get upset and quit coming to the games, lowering your revenue, making it tougher to sign players the next season hurting your fan support even more, further cutting your revenue. See how the circle goes.

The IRS? Are you kidding? I can hide money easier from the IRS auditors than I can my 4 year old daughter. Levitt had access not only to the club owners records but also to the any subsidiaries the club might have. Market analyst have come out and said hockey clubs were not good investments, these are independent analyst, just reporting the facts.


So then i guess were just gonna have to trust what the owners then? Sorry i cant do that. I'm not saying they aren't losing money. I think teams are losing money. But it's mainly because of bad investments, overvalued certain players, miscalculated revenue, etc.

But if each owners didn't run his franchise into the red, they NHL wouldn't be in this problem. If an owners revenue can support a 40 million dollar payroll, he does have to exceed it. I mean this problem exist from small market to big markets. Owners are spending more than they can afford. No one would blame them if they decided not to spend more than they can afford. Thats their right to do so. And just because a couple idiot owners go over their limit doesn't mean the rest of the owners have to follow. I think we've learned lately it's not about how much you spend on your team, it's how you build your team.


Some modifications to the current CBA: no arbitration, no signing other teams RFAs & 75% qualifying offers to retain rights.

With arbitration a team would be forced to lose a player for nothing or ruin its salary structure.

No tendering other teams RFAs offers. Stops players seeking more money and losing a player they can't afford to.

75% qualifiers: gives teams options to lower salary of underperformer without losing their rights.

You need all of those things for your idea to work because a team can't let talent walk for nothing. It certainly can't afford to UFAs to replace these players as the UFAs would cost more. Its bad team building to let player X walk then replace him with an identical player Y and give up substantial picks to do it (better to just for X down to Ys price). Nor can a team continually trade its good players for picks and prospects (fans will abandon it).

So then i guess were just gonna have to trust what the owners then? Sorry i cant do that. I'm not saying they aren't losing money. I think teams are losing money. But it's mainly because of bad investments, overvalued certain players, miscalculated revenue, etc.

No you have to trust Levitt. He's one of the most trusted auditors in business. It's not like the NHL went out and hired Arthur Anderson to do this report.

So then i guess were just gonna have to trust what the owners then? Sorry i cant do that. I'm not saying they aren't losing money. I think teams are losing money. But it's mainly because of bad investments, overvalued certain players, miscalculated revenue, etc.

All of which are things that happen in business.

You can't base the league on the hope all GMs will perform as well as the top 20% of GMs. The league has to be able to cope with average performing GMs too.

I agree with this concept. The only 2 problems are 10% annual salary increases and Salary Arbitration. New York has pays Holik 8M a year as a 3rd line grinder so it drives the price up in arbitration.

If you start cutting these players loose the fans get upset and quit coming to the games, lowering your revenue, making it tougher to sign players the next season hurting your fan support even more, further cutting your revenue. See how the circle goes.


I agree with the Arbitration, but not with the 10% annual salary raise. While it might suck to have to give a guy like Mathieu Dandenualt a 10% raise, but it sure does help them to only have to give Henrik Zetterberg a 10% raise. So in the end it could be a wash. Plus teams can release these players and replace them with cheaper option. The Wings could have resigned Boyd Devereaux for 1.8 million (his 10% raise) instead they let him go and resign Jason Williams for less than a half a million.


Do you really think Rangers fans are gonna stop buy tickets if they let Holik go? Do you think Islander fans would be pissed if they were able to unload Yashins salary? We fans aren't stupid, we know who is overpaid and who isn't. Whats gonna piss people off is if the owners get their way and the NHL turns into the NFL where as home grow fan favorite players are cut just because of their cap number. Not because of talent level but because of their dollar figure. I love the NFL, but it's hard as hell to follow who's on what team because of the number of players changing teams every year.

No you have to trust Levitt. He's one of the most trusted auditors in business. It's not like the NHL went out and hired Arthur Anderson to do this report.


It's hard to trust any report done by anyone if they are not allowed to dig into the owners true finical reports. It's nothing against Mr. Levitt who is respected world wide.

Do you really think Rangers fans are gonna stop buy tickets if they let Holik go? Do you think Islander fans would be pissed if they were able to unload Yashins salary? We fans aren't stupid, we know who is overpaid and who isn't. Whats gonna piss people off is if the owners get their way and the NHL turns into the NFL where as home grow fan favorite players are cut just because of their cap number. Not because of talent level but because of their dollar figure. I love the NFL, but it's hard as hell to follow who's on what team because of the number of players changing teams every year.


But many small to mid-market teams already face the challenge of watching established stars walk because of money.

I think it's silly that the players can't accept a cap in order to make the game more viable. This goes to show that each player is just looking out for themselves and care nothing for the true supporters of the game, the fans.

When you really get down to it, this is just a bunch of rich men slap fighting for more money, that many don't deserve. Players have gotten richer in the last 10 years and production has decreased. Fans arn't happy to watch a 10 million dollar player loaf around the ice while they have to work hard to buy tickets for their family of four, you have to mortgage the house to see a game these days!

I'll be happy watching AHL for a year, let the players sit and wait or go to some other country.

But it's mainly because of bad investments, overvalued certain players, miscalculated revenue, etc.

It's a competitive sport. This is another myth perpetrated where you should supposedly know how to calculate your revenues when in reality, 14 out of those 16 teams won't get playoffs revenue at all and subsequently, half the remaining teams will be kicked out each round.

It's a fact of life, players of equal value will not make the playoffs while others will make it. It's not just about investments. Someone has to go down in hockey. There are winners and losers every year.

This is why I call bull**** every time people try to compare this with any other type of business. It's not. The product of the NHL is about cutting each others' throat on-ice, something the pro-players refuse to EVER address. But somehow the players have succeeded in brainwashing that same small minority of fans into thinking the 30 teams are supposed to accept a free market where they should cut each others' throat *off-ice* and not worry about disparities.

It should be the other way around.

In the given format of a competitive league, a cap is an acceptable possibility to me in great part because of this.

PS: I'm also tired of this overvalueing crap. Players sit down with their cockroach agent and overvalue themselves too. Then they don't own to their end of the bargain but it's the owners' fault only.

Yeah, right.

Owners just don't distribute cash to players for fun. Just like a CBA, a player's contract is negociated by both sides. That is the hard, cold reality.

It's a competitive sport. This is another myth perpetrated where you should supposedly know how to calculate your revenues when in reality, 14 out of those 16 teams won't get playoffs revenue at all and subsequently, half the remaining teams will be kicked out each round.

Why in the hell are owners even counting playoff revenues as part of their budget? Like everyone know on 16 teams are gonna receive said revenue. It's bad business practice.


PS: I'm also tired of this overvalueing crap. Players sit down with their cockroach agent and overvalue themselves too. Then they don't own to their end of the bargain but it's the owners' fault only.


That i do agree with. The owners have to live up to their contract so should the players. There has to be a way to cut a player without a huge penalty. I think a 50% penalty is fair. And if he signed another contract for less than said 50% the team that cut him should have to pick up the balance of his deal.

Example:
Player X makes 6 million a year. Team A cuts him, so they are forced to pay him 3 million a year for the remainder of his deal. Team B signs said player for 2 million a year. Team A would have to pay the player that extra 1 million. Makes sense???

Quite simply, the NHLPA obviously doesn't want to agree to a salary cap because they'll always potentially make way more money without one. While there are other leagues with salary caps, I'm sure their player associations would love to get rid of them as well.

The only problem I have with "cost certainty" and a salary cap is the level where it is set. If a $31 million cap or any cap for that matter ensures that all NHL teams make money, but that money isn't reinvested in the team either into its players or facilities or whatever and goes straight to the owners' pockets, why would any player want to agree to that? If you're paid $1.3 million a year, but your owner is making a $25 million profit off of you and your teammates, are you going to consider yourself overpaid? Probably not. Are you going to think you're entitled to a bigger cut of that revenue? Obviously. If the owners came up with a proposal that included a requirement that certain percentages of profit were reinvested into the clubs, then the players would look extremely bad to turn it down, but I doubt that will happen, and more importantly, I don't think either side actually cares how they look publically, because there's no indication that public perception will force a deal. Both sides know there will be consequences of pissing off their fans, but neither thinks it's so serious that there's any urgency to cut a deal now.

Why in the hell are owners even counting playoff revenues as part of their budget? Like everyone know on 16 teams are gonna receive said revenue. It's bad business practice.

Only if you're not pretty sure you're going to make it most years. The problem is that those who know drive the prices up in the market for everybody else.

And if you do not sign or re-sign a player you like because you are afraid to miss the playoffs, you may actually increase your chance of missing the playoffs.

In theory, what you say makes sense, in practice, it's actually a pretty wild market where your options aren't all that great unless you're one of the very comfortable teams financially.

Only if you're not pretty sure you're going to make it most years. The problem is that those who know drive the prices up in the market for everybody else.

And if you do not sign or re-sign a player you like because you are afraid to miss the playoffs, you may actually increase your chance of missing the playoffs.

In theory, what you say makes sense, in practice, it's actually a pretty wild market where your options aren't all that great unless you're one of the very comfortable teams financially.

I think it is very easy to forecast hockey revenues. A business can select any date to end a fiscal year. If they do not set it near the end of the regular season, revenues are uncertain. If you set it so that the playoffs begin the fiscal year, it is easy to know pretty much the entire year's revenue. From there the player budget is set.

Vancouver began this fiscal year with the revenues from 8 playoff games - call it $15 million - in the bank. Edmonton begins their year with zero. The playoffs are he biggest source of revenue disparity. Teams compete for that $150 million in profits. The teams that win it can afford to pay more on players the following year. Teams that don't, can't.

Tom

Fans hurrumph, fold their arms and say, "The owners got themselves into this with their profligate spending." But, as usual, it's not that simple. Owners actually did the players a favor in the '90's indulging their ridiculous salary demands and using expansion money and the promise of a network TV windfall to fund the operation. But expansion is over and the networks took a pass. So now, it's time for a league-wide adjustment.

The Mario Lemieux situation with the Pittsburgh Penguins illustrates my point perfectly. His salary demands were outrageous. But the Penguins were between a rock and a hard place. $60 million over 5 years? Don't pay it, and lose nearly all your season ticket holders and most of the value of your local media. In other words, pay it and go bankrupt, or don't pay it and go bankrupt. So, they sign a garunteed deal as per union rules, Mario, then pleads illness and can't play, and season ticket holders flee anyway. Next thing Mario knows, he owns the team!

The NHL AND the players gambled and lost regarding big media revenues and now it's simply time to pay up. The guys who write the checks know this all to well. It's time for the guys cashing the checks to figure it out.

-HckyFght!

Mario, then pleads illness and can't play, and season ticket holders flee anyway. Next thing Mario knows, he owns the team!

You forgot the next, hilarious part. He then suggests salaries in the NHL are a problem.

Well, duh. He's a living proof of that.

I was reading a comment a few pages back from Vlad about how the owners bent over and moaned like whales at the last impass and that they would do the same...

How many of those owners in 1994(?) are still around? I don't know? A bunch of these new guys joined with a promise of a new system...

It would be interesting to see who are the remaining owners from last time...team by team...

:help:

I was reading a comment a few pages back from Vlad about how the owners bent over and moaned like whales at the last impass and that they would do the same...

How many of those owners in 1994(?) are still around? I don't know? A bunch of these new guys joined with a promise of a new system...

It would be interesting to see who are the remaining owners from last time...team by team...

:help:

I think I remember someone mentioning ~16 new owners and 4 new teams since the last lockout. I'm not positive though...

I was reading a comment a few pages back from Vlad about how the owners bent over and moaned like whales at the last impass and that they would do the same...

How many of those owners in 1994(?) are still around? I don't know? A bunch of these new guys joined with a promise of a new system...

Hmmm... I didn't think much about that. Good point!