HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Players/NHLPA risking 40% of their salary by not getting a deal done now (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=113298)

eye 11-12-2004 03:06 PM

Players/NHLPA risking 40% of their salary by not getting a deal done now
 
I honestly believe the NHL will soon take legal action to shut down the NHLPA and start NHL2 with an imposed CBA that will cut players slaries by 40 percent or more plus reduced benefits and much lower entry level contracts. They have attempted to get a deal done now for over 5 years without any significant progress which sets them up for a good legal defense. Many believe that Players and Goodenow have a window of opportunity to get a deal done between now and December 1st or at least show an honest attempt to meet the NHL's requirement towards a cost certainty - revenue sharing system that maintains their current guaranteed contracts or risk losing it all and it will come with very little warning. More and more fans now want the NHLPA to be shutdown with a new agreement in place that can actually reduce the costs of tickets to games. Stay tuned. :yo: :handclap:

SuperUnknown 11-12-2004 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eye
More and more fans now want the NHLPA to be shutdown with a new agreement in place that can actually reduce the costs of tickets to games. Stay tuned. :yo: :handclap:

Don't kid yourself too much. Ticket prices aren't tied to salaries.

dawgbone 11-12-2004 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smail
Don't kid yourself too much. Ticket prices aren't tied to salaries.

No, but GM's and teams will be a lot more accountable in a lot of areas, and it's one thing to spend $125 on a team that isn't doing well, but has at least put the effort forth in terms of a high payroll, and quite another to see the team lining it's pockets with your money while the team sucks.

You'll get away with a $200 ticket if you go after and sign UFA's and put some big names in your lineup, and the fans see the money is going towards the team on the ice.

You won't get away with it if the team is struggling on the ice, and not performing (which will result in a lower ticket price).

SuperUnknown 11-12-2004 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgbone
No, but GM's and teams will be a lot more accountable in a lot of areas, and it's one thing to spend $125 on a team that isn't doing well, but has at least put the effort forth in terms of a high payroll, and quite another to see the team lining it's pockets with your money while the team sucks.

You'll get away with a $200 ticket if you go after and sign UFA's and put some big names in your lineup, and the fans see the money is going towards the team on the ice.

You won't get away with it if the team is struggling on the ice, and not performing (which will result in a lower ticket price).

Price fixing is an elaborated economical calculation. It depends on the demand and its elasticity. Since demand will probably be affected by the lockout, ticket prices will probably tumble, but it's not related to the salaries paid out.

FLYLine24* 11-12-2004 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eye
I honestly believe the NHL will soon take legal action to shut down the NHLPA and start NHL2 with an imposed CBA that will cut players slaries by 40 percent or more plus reduced benefits and much lower entry level contracts. They have attempted to get a deal done now for over 5 years without any significant progress which sets them up for a good legal defense. Many believe that Players and Goodenow have a window of opportunity to get a deal done between now and December 1st or at least show an honest attempt to meet the NHL's requirement towards a cost certainty - revenue sharing system that maintains their current guaranteed contracts or risk losing it all and it will come with very little warning. More and more fans now want the NHLPA to be shutdown with a new agreement in place that can actually reduce the costs of tickets to games. Stay tuned. :yo: :handclap:

YAY! I Cant wait till the crappy replacement players come in! It will be so EXCITING!!! NOT. If they do bring them in the the ticket prices are more then 20 bucks then thats a RIP cuz the AHL prices are like 15 bucks. So SCREW U NHL and Bettman may u ROT IN AHELL YOU GREEDY FATSO. Him and his buttbuddys are the only ones stillracking in all the money so he doesnt give a **** how long this goes on.

YellHockey* 11-12-2004 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smail
Price fixing is an elaborated economical calculation.

Are you sure you don't mean price setting? The owners don't really need to worry about price fixing since they have a monopoly on their products.

SuperUnknown 11-12-2004 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Are you sure you don't mean price setting? The owners don't really need to worry about price fixing since they have a monopoly on their products.

Yep sorry I meant price setting. Just a note though: I wouldn't really call the NHL a monopoly, since they compete with other entertainment forms and there are other hockey leagues out there in North America (and potential competition like the WHL).

gary69 11-12-2004 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smail
Just a note though: I wouldn't really call the NHL a monopoly, since they compete with other entertainment forms and there are other hockey leagues out there in North America (and potential competition like the WHL).

For sure NHL is a monopoly (as most of the N.A. sports leagues are) as far as sports go, at least if you compare them to e.g. free market European soccer or hockey leagues, where relegation/promotion exists every season.

Another question alltogether is, whether that kind of monopoly is the best way to run things in the best hockey league in N.A.

SuperUnknown 11-12-2004 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary69
For sure NHL is a monopoly (as most of the N.A. sports leagues are) as far as sports go, at least if you compare them to e.g. free market European soccer or hockey leagues, where relegation/promotion exists every season.

Another question alltogether is, whether that kind of monopoly is the best way to run things in the best hockey league in N.A.

Technically they are a monopoly in N.A. because they generate the majority of hockey revenues. However, their monopoly isn't law enforced and there could be another league taking their place (or growing).

two out of three* 11-12-2004 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
YAY! I Cant wait till the crappy replacement players come in! It will be so EXCITING!!! NOT. If they do bring them in the the ticket prices are more then 20 bucks then thats a RIP cuz the AHL prices are like 15 bucks. So SCREW U NHL and Bettman may u ROT IN AHELL YOU GREEDY FATSO. Him and his buttbuddys are the only ones stillracking in all the money so he doesnt give a **** how long this goes on.

:shakehead

YellHockey* 11-12-2004 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smail
Technically they are a monopoly in N.A. because they generate the majority of hockey revenues. However, their monopoly isn't law enforced and there could be another league taking their place (or growing).

It's a natural monopoly due to barriers to entry.

djhn579 11-12-2004 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
It's a natural monopoly due to barriers to entry.

If you use that as your definition of monopoly, then every corporation in the world is a monopoly. Every corporation has barriers to employment. Interviews, intelligence tests, drug tests, health tests...

The NHL is a league, they allow teams to join the league and they control the number of players allowed to enter the league. They do not prevent any other hockey league from starting up and competing with the NHL. If they did that, they would have a monopoly and would be in court pretty quickly.

YellHockey* 11-12-2004 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djhn579
If you use that as your definition of monopoly, then every corporation in the world is a monopoly. Every corporation has barriers to employment. Interviews, intelligence tests, drug tests, health tests...

What does employment (or interviews or tests) have to do with a monopoly?

The NHL is a natural monopoly because a rival league would have to get the infrastructure, such as rinks, tv deals, sponsors,etc, in place to lure away enough top players to compete with the NHL but they need the top players before they can get the infrastructure in place.

djhn579 11-12-2004 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
What does employment (or interviews or tests) have to do with a monopoly?

The NHL is a natural monopoly because a rival league would have to get the infrastructure, such as rinks, tv deals, sponsors,etc, in place to lure away enough top players to compete with the NHL but they need the top players before they can get the infrastructure in place.

But, it can be done. The NHL is only in 30 of the largest cities in N.A. The large cities should have arenas that are capable of supporting a start up hockey league. Once it gets going, they will be able to compete for leases against the NHL teams or they can build their own arenas with gov't support just like the NHL did.

Just because something would be difficult to do, and need to be planned properly, it does not make the existing league a monopoly.

Iggy-4-50 11-12-2004 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
YAY! I Cant wait till the crappy replacement players come in! It will be so EXCITING!!! NOT. If they do bring them in the the ticket prices are more then 20 bucks then thats a RIP cuz the AHL prices are like 15 bucks. So SCREW U NHL and Bettman may u ROT IN AHELL YOU GREEDY FATSO. Him and his buttbuddys are the only ones stillracking in all the money so he doesnt give a **** how long this goes on.

Good evening Mr.Goodenow! ;)

YellHockey* 11-12-2004 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djhn579
But, it can be done. The NHL is only in 30 of the largest cities in N.A.

No. They are in the 30 best hockey markets.

Quote:

The large cities should have arenas that are capable of supporting a start up hockey league.
Why should they? What city has built a rink without a tenant? What potential rinks could a startup franchise use?

Quote:

Once it gets going, they will be able to compete for leases against the NHL teams or they can build their own arenas with gov't support just like the NHL did.
How is an upstart league going to convince a city to build them a rink without any players signed? And if they can't convince cities to build them rinks they are at a competitive disadvantage with the NHL from the start.

And how is the league going to sign any players if they don't have any rinks?

Quote:

Just because something would be difficult to do, and need to be planned properly, it does not make the existing league a monopoly.

No it is a monopoly because it is an extremely expensive industry to enter with significant risk and an upstart league would start out at a competitive disadvantage because of the NHL's ability to get rinks for free.

Tom_Benjamin 11-13-2004 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
No it is a monopoly because it is an extremely expensive industry to enter with significant risk and an upstart league would start out at a competitive disadvantage because of the NHL's ability to get rinks for free.

I think it is a monopoly until another league actually starts. The fact that it is possible does not make the existing entity any less monopolistic. These are good reasons other leagues haven't started, but don't define whether a monopoly exists.

The Vancouver Canucks have a monopoly on major league hockey in Vancouver. They are a monopoly because they have no competition and they will have a monopoly until they do have competition.

Tom

CarlRacki 11-13-2004 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold

No it is a monopoly because it is an extremely expensive industry to enter with significant risk and an upstart league would start out at a competitive disadvantage because of the NHL's ability to get rinks for free.

You have an odd definition of monopoly.
Would it be difficult to start a competing hockey league? Yes. Would it be likely to succeed? No. But that alone does not dictate a monopoly.
The NHL does not and cannot prevent cities from hosting another league's teams. It does not and cannot prevent professional players and unsigned junior players from signing with another league. It does not and cannot stop a television network from broadcasting games of a competing league. For these reasons, and more, it does not qualify as a monopoly.

CarlRacki 11-13-2004 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I think it is a monopoly until another league actually starts. The fact that it is possible does not make the existing entity any less monopolistic. These are good reasons other leagues haven't started, but don't define whether a monopoly exists.

The Vancouver Canucks have a monopoly on major league hockey in Vancouver. They are a monopoly because they have no competition and they will have a monopoly until they do have competition.

Tom

Simply not true. The term "monopoly" does not denote a lack of competition. Rather it denotes the lack of possible competition.
The dictionary definition is: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
The NHL clearly does not have exclusive control over the selling of professional hockey because a) other leagues exist, though on a smaller scale (i.e. AHL, CHL, ECHL, etc.) and b) the NHL possesses no means by which it could block a start-up league which would challenge its position..

thinkwild 11-13-2004 10:17 AM

OK, the NHL is not a monopoly because other leagues could start. Until then, it operates as a monopoly although it isnt.

eye 11-13-2004 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
YAY! I Cant wait till the crappy replacement players come in! It will be so EXCITING!!! NOT. If they do bring them in the the ticket prices are more then 20 bucks then thats a RIP cuz the AHL prices are like 15 bucks. So SCREW U NHL and Bettman may u ROT IN AHELL YOU GREEDY FATSO. Him and his buttbuddys are the only ones stillracking in all the money so he doesnt give a **** how long this goes on.

You seem to be overlooking one thing. NHL players will actually make up a high percentage of the replacement players as they cross the line in big numbers. Most players would vote yes in a secret ballot for playing with a cost certaintly partnership like Bettman and NHL owners want but Goodenow's ego just won't allow him to give into Bettman who would one up him if successful. Goodenow is a fighter and and doens't care if he is right or wrong, whether he does damage to the game or not, whether he is best serving his clients or not and he will go down with a TKO in the 15 th round never to be heard from again. I for one am looking forward to that time because then the game of hockey can move forward.

Tom_Benjamin 11-13-2004 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eye
You seem to be overlooking one thing. NHL players will actually make up a high percentage of the replacement players as they cross the line in big numbers.

What a dreamer. So what are the owners waiting for? Bring it on. I can use the laugh. We can debate whether the Vancouver Canucks are as good as the Vancouver Giants.

Quote:

Most players would vote yes in a secret ballot for playing with a cost certaintly partnership like Bettman and NHL owners want but Goodenow's ego just won't allow him to give into Bettman who would one up him if successful.
Sure they would. Suddenly the players aren't doing it because they are greedy pigs. They are doing it because they are sheeple without a clue. It's all Goodenow's fault.

I don't think the partnership thingie flies any more. Nobody goes into a partnership with a madman who doesn't understand the game. Who would ever decide to be Gary Bettman's partner?

Tom

YellHockey* 11-13-2004 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlRacki
You have an odd definition of monopoly.
Would it be difficult to start a competing hockey league? Yes. Would it be likely to succeed? No. But that alone does not dictate a monopoly.

From economist.com

When a MONOPOLY occurs because it is more efficient for one firm to serve an entire market than for two or more FIRMS to do so, because of the sort of ECONOMIES OF SCALE available in that market. A common example is water distribution, in which the main cost is laying a network of pipes to deliver water. One firm can do the job at a lower AVERAGE cost per customer than two firms with competing networks of pipes. Monopolies can arise unnaturally by a firm acquiring sole ownership of a resource that is essential to the production of a good or service, or by a government granting a firm the legal right to be the sole producer. Other unnatural monopolies occur when a firm is much more efficient than its rivals for reasons other than economies of scale. Unlike some other sorts of monopoly, natural monopolies have little chance of being driven out of a market by more efficient new entrants. Thus REGULATION of natural monopolies may be needed to protect their captive consumers.

The NHL had, until the lockout, pretty much ownership of the best players in the world. That's a resource that is essential to the production of major league hockey.

SuperUnknown 11-13-2004 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What a dreamer. So what are the owners waiting for? Bring it on. I can use the laugh. We can debate whether the Vancouver Canucks are as good as the Vancouver Giants.

But whoever plays as a replacement player, it will be the best players available to NA, so it will be the best hockey one can buy. So bring hem on! :p:

thinkwild 11-13-2004 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
From economist.com

When a MONOPOLY occurs because it is more efficient for one firm to serve an entire market than for two or more FIRMS to do so, because of the sort of ECONOMIES OF SCALE available in that market. A common example is water distribution, in which the main cost is laying a network of pipes to deliver water. One firm can do the job at a lower AVERAGE cost per customer than two firms with competing networks of pipes. Monopolies can arise unnaturally by a firm acquiring sole ownership of a resource that is essential to the production of a good or service, or by a government granting a firm the legal right to be the sole producer. Other unnatural monopolies occur when a firm is much more efficient than its rivals for reasons other than economies of scale. Unlike some other sorts of monopoly, natural monopolies have little chance of being driven out of a market by more efficient new entrants. Thus REGULATION of natural monopolies may be needed to protect their captive consumers.

The NHL had, until the lockout, pretty much ownership of the best players in the world. That's a resource that is essential to the production of major league hockey.

But to be consistent, the NHL isnt one business, its 30. 30 different monopolies pooling as a cartel to claim their protected markets. With monopsony power over their RFAs.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.