HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Bettmans plan isnt for strikebreakers - its another year of no hockey. (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=115138)

thinkwild 11-24-2004 07:21 PM

Bettmans plan isnt for strikebreakers - its another year of no hockey.
 
As Bob Mackenzie was reporting, the owners plan may be to not use replacement players at all, but rather just to continue the lockout another year. Perhaps McCabes comment really irked them, and they decided then to put it to the test. After all, that is the only way they can win power back. Hopefully they also realize the folly that replacement players would do to the league.

But for whatever reason, if there is no replacement players, no draft, no hockey again next fall, and we are here one year from now, and nothing has changed ...

If this is the strategy, do you still find the owners decision making wise? Still worth it? Worth your support? Still cant find another way of saving the money?

Darkness descending faster lately.

SwisshockeyAcademy 11-24-2004 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild
As Bob Mackenzie was reporting, the owners plan may be to not use replacement players at all, but rather just to continue the lockout another year. Perhaps McCabes comment really irked them, and they decided then to put it to the test. After all, that is the only way they can win power back. Hopefully they also realize the folly that replacement players would do to the league.

But for whatever reason, if there is no replacement players, no draft, no hockey again next fall, and we are here one year from now, and nothing has changed ...

If this is the strategy, do you still find the owners decision making wise? Still worth it? Worth your support? Still cant find another way of saving the money?

Darkness descending faster lately.

Whatever it takes.

I in the Eye 11-24-2004 07:27 PM

If that's the strategy, a year from now I'd have to change my stance to pro-player, but not anti-owner...

me2 11-24-2004 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild
As Bob Mackenzie was reporting, the owners plan may be to not use replacement players at all, but rather just to continue the lockout another year. Perhaps McCabes comment really irked them, and they decided then to put it to the test. After all, that is the only way they can win power back. Hopefully they also realize the folly that replacement players would do to the league.

But for whatever reason, if there is no replacement players, no draft, no hockey again next fall, and we are here one year from now, and nothing has changed ...

Darkness descending faster lately.

Owners plan is seige them out if they can.
Players plan is wait out the seige if they can.

Me'h whatever, they deserve each other.

Quote:

Still cant find another way of saving the money?
They probably can but as soon as they do they'll be hit with collusion law suits.

bling 11-24-2004 07:28 PM

Thanks..good idea, start a new thread before eye starts another one. What has he got going now 5 new threads today basically saying the same thing?

Bettman is the second coming of Christ and Goodenow is the Devil incarnate and all you unbelievers are going to rot in hell....blah blah blah

SENSible1* 11-24-2004 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild
As Bob Mackenzie was reporting, the owners plan may be to not use replacement players at all, but rather just to continue the lockout another year. Perhaps McCabes comment really irked them, and they decided then to put it to the test. After all, that is the only way they can win power back. Hopefully they also realize the folly that replacement players would do to the league.

But for whatever reason, if there is no replacement players, no draft, no hockey again next fall, and we are here one year from now, and nothing has changed ...

If this is the strategy, do you still find the owners decision making wise? Still worth it? Worth your support? Still cant find another way of saving the money?

Darkness descending faster lately.

Strong unions are bad for pro sports leagues, both teams and fans, and good only for the players.

Weak unions are good for pro sports leagues, both teams and fans, and bad only for the players.

As a fan, I have a simple message for NHL owners. Do whatever it takes to bring this union to heel.

me2 11-24-2004 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Strong unions are bad for pro sports leagues, both teams and fans, and good only for the players.

Weak unions are good for pro sports leagues, both teams and fans, and bad only for the players.

As a fan, I have a simple message for NHL owners. Do whatever it takes to bring this union to heel.

Militant unions aren't good but strong unions are. You don't want to see NHL players getting exploited like they have been in the past. But strong unions also need to use their stength in a responsible manner and look after everyone's interests.

A slaughterhouse near where I lived had financial problems. They told the union they needed to restructure wages, cut overtime penalties and such or they would have to close. The union laughed in their face, it had fought long and hard for those increases and it wasn't giving them up. Again the company asked for concessions to remain viable. The union refused to look at the books or believe them. The company closed. The union still held out to call their bluff despite workers concerns. To make its point the company stripped the building and sold it for scrap, scorched earth style, then walked away never to return. 1/3 of the towns jobs disappeared, also never to return. I guess it was a win to the union because it held strong throughout.

thinkwild 11-24-2004 08:01 PM

A real fan wouldnt think the solution is to break the union. That is something one with a lack of control of their life would think. A power victory. Never mentioning the game itself.

ceber 11-24-2004 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2
You don't want to see NHL players getting exploited like they have been in the past.

Devil's advocate:
Why not?
As a fan, why do I care that the players are maximizing their salaries? So long as the NHL pays better than any other league (so they can attract the top talent), why should a fan care what they are paid?

me2 11-24-2004 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceber
Devil's advocate:
Why not?
As a fan, why do I care that the players are maximizing their salaries? So long as the NHL pays better than any other league (so they can attract the top talent), why should a fan care what they are paid?

A happy, well balanced league is good for everyone. If clubs are generally profitable and the players are getting great wages then things run smoothly. Its much easier to focus on hockey issues when the business issues are taking care of themselves. I don't want to see the players striking over a bad CBA, I don't want to see the owners locking the players out again because its cheaper than playing.

thinkwild 11-24-2004 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceber
Devil's advocate:
Why not?
As a fan, why do I care that the players are maximizing their salaries? So long as the NHL pays better than any other league (so they can attract the top talent), why should a fan care what they are paid?

Because it ensures the integrity of the market and fair competition. The players arent maximizing their salaries via the CBA. They maximize their salaries by negotiating them with the owners under the restrictions of the CBA. The trick is to to make a fair market, not a phony one. Fans should want a situation where winning brings owners profits and losing doesnt. That is needed for the integrity of competition. That fans have an assurance owners will do their best to win.

Just because players maintain the right to negotiate their salaries in a limited marketplace, doesnt mean they have to make the same money. Why cant they make an average salary of $1.3mil under the current system? Put the levers in place to allow it to work.

me2 11-24-2004 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild
Because it ensures the integrity of the market and fair competition. The players arent maximizing their salaries via the CBA. They maximize their salaries by negotiating them with the owners under the restrictions of the CBA. The trick is to to make a fair market, not a phony one. Fans should want a situation where winning brings owners profits and losing doesnt. That is needed for the integrity of competition. That fans have an assurance owners will do their best to win.

Just because players maintain the right to negotiate their salaries in a limited marketplace, doesnt mean they have to make the same money. Why cant they make an average salary of $1.3mil under the current system? Put the levers in place to allow it to work.

Ask Tom what would happen to the NHL teams if they just happened to all start offering contracts 30% under what they have offered for the last year or two. Repeat after me, COLLUSION.

Do you really think the NHLPA will voluntarily allow such levers to be legally put in? Not without a fight.

Motown Beatdown 11-24-2004 08:46 PM

I think it's becoming clearer what Bettmans intentions are. It's not to negotiate a fair labor deal, it's about whipping the union. It's not about making owners responsible for themselves, it's not about building a bigger fan base. He has a burn in his saddle about the players. After all he got the owners in this mess, now he needs to try to find a way to get them out. Which means guaranteed profits for owners. The only problem i see is when hockey comes back, half it's fan base could be gone. Who will Bettman blame for his short comings then?

thinkwild 11-24-2004 08:47 PM

I know you love this word collusioon but I dont know exactly what you are talking about. Collusion as in arbitration and comparables? What exactly? If an owner is losing money and cant sign an expensive player because he cant afford it, why is it considered collusion if he doesnt? The courts are going to make him lose money?

The players would like the owners to not spend more than they can afford because then the league would be healthy.

ceber 11-24-2004 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2
A happy, well balanced league is good for everyone. If clubs are generally profitable and the players are getting great wages then things run smoothly. Its much easier to focus on hockey issues when the business issues are taking care of themselves. I don't want to see the players striking over a bad CBA, I don't want to see the owners locking the players out again because its cheaper than playing.

But a weak union, which is what you were saying is not a good thing, wouldn't strike, or if they did it would be short one. The teams certainly wouldn't lock out the players if the owners thought they were exploiting the players.

I still don't know why a fan should care if the players are exploited, provided the NHL still pays better than any other league.

me2 11-24-2004 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild
I know you love this word collusioon but I dont know exactly what you are talking about. Collusion as in arbitration and comparables? What exactly? If an owner is losing money and cant sign an expensive player because he cant afford it, why is it considered collusion if he doesnt? The courts are going to make him lose money?

The players would like the owners to not spend more than they can afford because then the league would be healthy.

For a start there is arbitration. Arbitration precedence is set on the past few years which means it won't have the 30% paycut built in. Any player with arbitration rights will go to arbitration. Clubs will then have to accept the 100% pay won in arbitration or walk away. If clubs start walking away the players will get suspicious and start screaming collusion. If those players are not picked up by other clubs, and they are a bargain because they are RFA-priced not UFA-priced, then the players scream collusion.

Over the last few years prospects have been getting rookie max. If teams decide not to offer rookie max they'll reenter the draft or look for a pattern of teams that payed rookie max offering less. Again they'll scream collusion.

UFAs would want to know why rich teams like TO and Philly have suddenly dropped their offers by 30%.

The players have got the system nicely locked in to their best interests at present. And we know their lawyers kickbutt.

Teams could set budgets in advance but they'd have a hard time explaining why they've walked away from arbitration and high rookie payments when these are still reasonable value. If the NHL starts fining teams for going overbudget the NHLPA might view that as an illegal attempt to limit wages.

A handful of teams could try this budget as a limit on salary based approach but if all 30 teams do its way too obvious. If 10-15 don't follow the collusion system then it fails.

ceber 11-24-2004 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild
Because it ensures the integrity of the market and fair competition. The players arent maximizing their salaries via the CBA. They maximize their salaries by negotiating them with the owners under the restrictions of the CBA. The trick is to to make a fair market, not a phony one. Fans should want a situation where winning brings owners profits and losing doesnt. That is needed for the integrity of competition. That fans have an assurance owners will do their best to win.

Integrity of the market? What does that have to do with good hockey? If the owners could exploit the players financially, then they could concentrate on winning and not worry about making money. Again, so long as the league pays better than any other, why should a fan care if the players are underpaid or not?

Motown Beatdown 11-24-2004 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2
For a start there is arbitration. Arbitration precedence is set on the past few years which means it won't have the 30% paycut built in. Any play with arbitration rights will go to arbitration. Clubs will then have to accept the 100% pay won in arbitration or walk away. If clubs start walking away the players will get suspicious and start screaming collusion. If those players are not picked up by other clubs, and they are a bargain because they are RFA-priced not UFA-priced, then the players scream collusion.

Over the last few years prospects have been getting rookie max. If teams decide not to offer rookie max they'll reenter the draft or look for a pattern of teams that payed rookie max offering less. Again the scream collusion.


I'm sorry but didn't the players address some of these problems in their proposal to the owners? Sure it might not have been as much as we would like, but it was a start. Like any negations the players put out oposal out there that would give them wiggle room. They might be willing to give up more on these issues if the owners gave into some of their demands. Well thats if the owners were into fair negotiating practice.

Tom_Benjamin 11-24-2004 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceber
As a fan, why do I care that the players are maximizing their salaries? So long as the NHL pays better than any other league (so they can attract the top talent), why should a fan care what they are paid?

I agree. It doesn't really matter to us. If we don't care whether WalMart employees are exploited or slaughterhouse employees are exploited, why should we care about hockey players? I don't care what they are paid.

What we should not do, however, is condemn them if they decide they aren't going to be exploited. If they have the clout to prevent it - and they do - more power to them.

Tom

hawgee 11-24-2004 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I agree. It doesn't really matter to us. If we don't care whether WalMart employees are exploited or slaughterhouse employees are exploited, why should we care about hockey players? I don't care what they are paid.


Tom

That is the first and hopefully the last time I see hockey players in the nhl compared to walmart employees. Getting a little dramatic aren't we?

Street Hawk 11-24-2004 09:49 PM

Alternative??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild
As Bob Mackenzie was reporting, the owners plan may be to not use replacement players at all, but rather just to continue the lockout another year. Perhaps McCabes comment really irked them, and they decided then to put it to the test. After all, that is the only way they can win power back. Hopefully they also realize the folly that replacement players would do to the league.

But for whatever reason, if there is no replacement players, no draft, no hockey again next fall, and we are here one year from now, and nothing has changed ...

If this is the strategy, do you still find the owners decision making wise? Still worth it? Worth your support? Still cant find another way of saving the money?

Darkness descending faster lately.

Given the damage to the game that this prolonged lockout will bring to the NHL, the owners seem pretty set in their ways that this is the only way for them to go. They have a good gage of how much revenues will drop with a prolonged work stoppage and have made the determination that this fight with the PA is worth it.

In terms of strategy, it's the only one that will work for the owners. MacKenzie also said over a month ago that only 200 players make more than the 1.8 million average salary, leaving 500 players making less than that. Those are the ones who will crack before the likes of McCabe, Pronger, Linden, etc. That's what the Owners have to be banking on.

The players collectively last season made somewhere in the 1.2 to 1.4 billion in total salary. What's the take this year going to be? Maybe 5% which is 60 to 70 million. 260 and more are overseas, so if you take 70 million over 260 players, each player would have to make an average of $270K.

I saw an episode of the Business of Sports with Bob Magowan when he had 2 agents, Mike Gillis and JP Barry, along with the former CBS sports head and former Thrasher President and current NHL board of Governor as guests. At the end of the discussion, Magowan asked Mike Gillis if the players would take 53% of the Revenues after both sides have agreed what to include as Revenue. Gillis said no. When asked the same question, but with 75% of Revenues going to the players, Gillis then changed his answer to YES.

I think that says a lot about the labour situation.

me2 11-24-2004 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWI19
I'm sorry but didn't the players address some of these problems in their proposal to the owners? Sure it might not have been as much as we would like, but it was a start. Like any negations the players put out oposal out there that would give them wiggle room. They might be willing to give up more on these issues if the owners gave into some of their demands. Well thats if the owners were into fair negotiating practice.

What players demands are these? There will NEVER be a cap. Can't think of too many other demands made by the players. They stated they'll never give in on their demand.

Neither side wants to bargain. The NHLPA represented their crap proposal from the year before. They knew it would be rejected out of hand, like the owners knew theirs would. Neither set of proposals were designed to be interesting enough to spark discussion with the other side.

me2 11-24-2004 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I agree. It doesn't really matter to us. If we don't care whether WalMart employees are exploited or slaughterhouse employees are exploited, why should we care about hockey players? I don't care what they are paid.

What we should not do, however, is condemn them if they decide they aren't going to be exploited. If they have the clout to prevent it - and they do - more power to them.

Tom

The owners and Bettman are just playing the other hand in this game of poker. Why do you condemn them and hurl insults?

Tom_Benjamin 11-24-2004 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2
The owners and Bettman are just playing the other hand in this game of poker. Why do you condemn them and hurl insults?

Because they are greedy incompetent slugs who initiated the lockout in a vain attempt to exploit the players.

Tom

me2 11-24-2004 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Because they are greedy incompetent slugs who initiated the lockout in a vain attempt to exploit the players.

Tom

LOL. Such double standards.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 AM.

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.