I agree ..... When the owners caved in 94-95 it was the death knell of the Jets. I hope the owners don't give an inch and the players get way way less then what was proposed to date.
The thing that really pisses me off about this whole process is the posturing. Whether or not you are pro owners or players, the lack of meetings has been nothing short of obscene.
It's like 2 teenagers who really really like each other, but don't want to admit it because they don't want to seem desperate so they are both acting totally aloof and think the other doesn't really like them.
The fact that they weren't meeting 8 hours a day, every day is a friggin shame. The fact that they weren't working around the clock as the deadline approached is pure stupidity.
50/50 split of HRR. Meaningful revenue sharing between teams. Boom. Done.
The problem with the system is, the first person to give the perfect offer (which I think yours is) loses ground as the other than asks it to go a step their way.
The stupidest thing is they can't actually friggin' bargain by going "you go down a percent point and I'll give you this or I'll go up a percent point in my offer".... frig man...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diatidialga
Players can go **** themselves
At the beginning I was 50/50 thinking both were sorta idiots and they needed to get their heads straightened...
Now I'm starting to think it's a contest on who's the biggest idiot and players are pulling out all the guns to win it.
how does one explain in simple terms why the owners arnt the bad guys here
In simple terms, how does one explain why the owners arnt the bad guys
Myself being a semi knowledgeable ($$ wise how the league works) Jets fan im scared (long term) for the players "winning" the lockout. We couldn't keep up in the 90s and IMO there is absolutely no way we would even be back at this time if it weren't for the last lockout. Problem with this is the vast majority of people I talk to in real life are taking the NHLPAs side. How do I get threw to them in the quickest way possible? I realize this is my opinion and I may be completely wrong, teehee.
Both sides of being absolutely stupid about the negotiations, and there is no clear at fault here. The long and short of it is Bettman won't leave a contract on the table he personally is not satisfied with. I don't think there is any real danger of the players 'winnin ' the contract negotiation, so to speak. The owners need to stop saying one thing and doing the complete opposite, though.
I don't think either side is "right" in this battle.
The NHL is asking for salary rollbacks, a lesser split of the HRR (I assume it'll end at 50/50, that's fair), and a cap on contract lengths. However, they're the ones dolling out these massive 10+ year contracts, they set the market value. They need to stop themselves from out bidding each other. I believe they also want to lower the cap and have artificial growth instead of it being attached to revenues.
Of course, the players don't want any of this, and they seem to be focused on revenue sharing to fix the problems. The two deals they've offered were slight variations, and they still easily favored the players.
The crazy thing is that the owners control the revenue in the first place. With that considered, a lot of the problems could be solved by getting rid of the cap floor. That is leading to salary escalation when teams have to overpay their RFA's and bring in unwanted UFA's at a stupid price just to reach the floor. So far all I've seen is Bill Daly going around saying how the cap floor is one of the good things to come out of the last lockout. Maybe when the cap was $39 million and the floor was $21 million.
Simple. What entitles the players to 57% of revenues when the owners are the ones with all the risk and expense of growing the business? The players don't have any rationale as to why they should be getting what they're getting besides that's what they've been getting.
The crazy thing is that the owners control the revenue in the first place. With that considered, a lot of the problems could be solved by getting rid of the cap floor. That is leading to salary escalation when teams have to overpay their RFA's and bring in unwanted UFA's at a stupid price just to reach the floor. So far all I've seen is Bill Daly going around saying how the cap floor is one of the good things to come out of the last lockout. Maybe when the cap was $39 million and the floor was $21 million.
Removing the cap floor won't mean a thing if the salary cap itself wasn't restricted by some means. You will still hve teams spending to the cap. All it will mean is that the have not teams won't be able to compete with the big guys again, which will render the salary cap useless.
Removing the cap floor won't mean a thing if the salary cap itself wasn't restricted by some means. You will still hve teams spending to the cap. All it will mean is that the have not teams won't be able to compete with the big guys again, which will render the salary cap useless.
Not really. The cap is still a cap. Even in the free market (no cap) system, the teams that spent the most weren't always great or even good teams. It is insane to force franchises who can't afford it to spend to a certain level. On the other side, why penalize a team that could play "Moneyball" and build a solid team with a few more ELC's than the average team and a sprinkle of value-priced veterans? Without the floor there would be many more good veteran players in the bargain bin because teams wouldn't have to pay them $3.5 million to make the floor.
Simple. What entitles the players to 57% of revenues when the owners are the ones with all the risk and expense of growing the business? The players don't have any rationale as to why they should be getting what they're getting besides that's what they've been getting.
I completely agree.
The players need to realize this very soon
In simple terms, how does one explain why the owners arnt the bad guys
Simply:
- a viable business typically pays out 20-30% gross revenue in salaries, not the >50% that players expect
- most NHL teams, hence owners, lose money. players would never dream of losing money for hockey. Makes you wonder who loves the game more, doesn't it?
The players gloss over all of this by quoting "NHL revenue", not team revenue. If players want "what's fair" then it only makes sense that they want a ten team, profitable, league with all of the losing teams shut down .... and as a result several hundred less jobs and contracts to fight for. That'd be fair. Your local Ford dealership isn't going to give you a raise when it's been bleeding money 10 years runnning, just because the Ford Motor Company head office is reporting a profit.
how does one explain in simple terms why the owners aren't the bad guys here
I guess if you are hanging out with buddies trying to explain why owners are not "the" bad guys I would say both sides should have worked harder to get a deal done by now but be that as it may here we are. Then i would say that the owners honored the last deal they had with the players until it expired and have the right to negociate a new deal. they are probably looking for a revenu split with the players that is along the lines of the other major sports currently and that seems to be fair in this day and age.
Why they aren't the "bad guys"... short answer: 'cos to be the bad guy you need a good guy and the NHLPA, Fehr and the players are doing some real stupid things.
Garret's plan: Lock them in a room with cages of lions, tigers and bears (oh my!) and have a timer on those caged doors.
Really what I'd like to see:
*slow regression to 50/50 split
*better HRR terms and rev sharing
*ceiling that is an algorithm based off of either or both league profits or inflation (NOT revenue)
*cap floor that is not fixed to the cap but based off of a similar algorithm as the cap so that the floor doesn't rise at a faster rate than the ceiling
When the NHLPA (or more accurately, a small cabal of players in the PA) maneuvered to fire Paul Kelly and then turned around and brought in Donald Fehr, the writing for labour war was on the wall.
When the NHLPA (or more accurately, a small cabal of players in the PA) maneuvered to fire Paul Kelly and then turned around and brought in Donald Fehr, the writing for labour war was on the wall.
Huh. I never knew all of that. Ironic that an honourable lawyer gets screwed by the people he's supposed to represent. I'm not surprised to hear that Lindros was instrumental in it.
In simple terms, how does one explain why the owners arnt the bad guys
Myself being a semi knowledgeable ($$ wise how the league works) Jets fan im scared (long term) for the players "winning" the lockout. We couldn't keep up in the 90s and IMO there is absolutely no way we would even be back at this time if it weren't for the last lockout. Problem with this is the vast majority of people I talk to in real life are taking the NHLPAs side. How do I get threw to them in the quickest way possible? I realize this is my opinion and I may be completely wrong, teehee.
Bettman has consistently said one thing that stands out in my opinion:
The system contained in the expired CBA is not the problem...but the amount (% calculation) being paid to the players is simply "too much!"
Donald Fehr and the players are not interested in "tweaking" or "adjusting" the expired CBA...and you can see why below.
Since the last lockout...the revenues have increased 1.1 or 1.2 billion dollars. In that same period...the salary cap floor has increased 30+ million dollars per team!? Simple math would indicate that the players have gotten 900+ million of the increased revenues while the owners (who's job is to increase revenues...according to Donald Fehr) got 200-300 million!?!?!?!?!
The "fair" deal seems pretty obvious to me. The players are going to have to give up some % share (maybe a 3%-3%-2% reduction over three years will ultimately be the compromise).
The majority of the owners aren't the bad guys, they're losing money year after year.
The big market owners are the bad guys. They keep the struggling markets struggling through refusing revenue sharing such that they artificially lower the cap, i.e. their own player expenses, and maximize their own profits while screwing over the majority of the owners as well as the players. To clarify (using ballparked figures), consider that a cap set at 57% of revenues likely equates to the Maple Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, etc. spending around 20% of their revenue on player salaries even while spending to the cap. Their revenues are so out of whack with the rest of the league that the very existence of a cap and the continued propping up of the struggling franchises is simply a way for them to maximize their profits. They're only offering enough revenue sharing to keep those teams on life support - were they given enough of a chance to succeed that might ruin the artificially lowered player costs for the big markets. Furthermore, the big market owners are now using the existence of those struggling markets, which are already to their advantage, as a means of negotiating an even lower cap in the current CBA negotiations.
I concede that the revenue split will likely end up around 50-50. That's fairly irrelevant in the long run IMO. That'll just mean big markets continue to spend 20% of their revenue on player costs spending to the cap, while struggling markets will still be spending ~70% of their revenue on player costs spending to the floor. Owners overall will make out a little better but the league will still be horribly imbalanced and continue to have half the teams struggling to break even. The only thing that'll fix the league is increased revenue sharing.
Simple. What entitles the players to 57% of revenues when the owners are the ones with all the risk and expense of growing the business? The players don't have any rationale as to why they should be getting what they're getting besides that's what they've been getting.
Because that is exactly what the owners wanted? What businesses have complete cost certainty? No matter how bad the economy gets or how much their revenues fall off, they're guaranteed to only pay 57% of it to the players. They were willing to guarantee the players 57% of revenue to get it 8 years ago. They must be really, really stupid and they obviously severely miscalculated.
The owners HAD the option of paying the players less in a free market, like most business have in a free market. Unfortunately for them they were too stupid to effectively run their businesses, they shut the league down less than a decade ago to get cost certainty and they evidently made a stupid deal in that regard as well.
Because that is exactly what the owners wanted? What businesses have complete cost certainty? No matter how bad the economy gets or how much their revenues fall off, they're guaranteed to only pay 57% of it to the players. They were willing to guarantee the players 57% of revenue to get it 8 years ago. They must be really, really stupid and they obviously severely miscalculated.
The owners HAD the option of paying the players less in a free market, like most business have in a free market. Unfortunately for them they were too stupid to effectively run their businesses, they shut the league down less than a decade ago to get cost certainty and they evidently made a stupid deal in that regard as well.
Sorry, but this is a very uninformed opinion. A toatally free market would destroy the league as we know it and the Jets would soon be history or would soon turn into a glorified farm team. There are only 8 - 10 teams that could compete on the open market and the Jets aren't one of them. And to say Chipman and Thomson are too stupid to run their businesses may be the most naive thing I've read on the board.
The majority of the owners aren't the bad guys, they're losing money year after year.
The big market owners are the bad guys. They keep the struggling markets struggling through refusing revenue sharing such that they artificially lower the cap, i.e. their own player expenses, and maximize their own profits while screwing over the majority of the owners as well as the players. To clarify (using ballparked figures), consider that a cap set at 57% of revenues likely equates to the Maple Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, etc. spending around 20% of their revenue on player salaries even while spending to the cap. Their revenues are so out of whack with the rest of the league that the very existence of a cap and the continued propping up of the struggling franchises is simply a way for them to maximize their profits. They're only offering enough revenue sharing to keep those teams on life support - were they given enough of a chance to succeed that might ruin the artificially lowered player costs for the big markets. Furthermore, the big market owners are now using the existence of those struggling markets, which are already to their advantage, as a means of negotiating an even lower cap in the current CBA negotiations.
I concede that the revenue split will likely end up around 50-50. That's fairly irrelevant in the long run IMO. That'll just mean big markets continue to spend 20% of their revenue on player costs spending to the cap, while struggling markets will still be spending ~70% of their revenue on player costs spending to the floor. Owners overall will make out a little better but the league will still be horribly imbalanced and continue to have half the teams struggling to break even. The only thing that'll fix the league is increased revenue sharing.
Great post. I'm 100% in agreement. The same can be said about the NBA and its most recent lockout. The NHL and NHLPA need to stop wasting everyone's time and just copy the NBA's latest collective bargaining agreement.
You can't explain it. I believe the owners acted disingenuously over the course of the summer in dishing out those contracts for term and $$$ knowing specifically what was coming. Yes, the players had to have an idea of what was coming, but the owners new specifically what was coming and acted in bad faith in negotiating those deals. If I'm at the NHLPA and the players have to take a pay-cut, say 15% then all those contracts for term not meeting the new criteria under the negotiated CBA should be declared null and void and I hope both Suter and Parise walk and sign somewhere else. It would serve Leopold right for the way he acted this past summer.
You can't explain it. I believe the owners acted disingenuously over the course of the summer in dishing out those contracts for term and $$$ knowing specifically what was coming. Yes, the players had to have an idea of what was coming, but the owners new specifically what was coming and acted in bad faith in negotiating those deals. If I'm at the NHLPA and the players have to take a pay-cut, say 15% then all those contracts for term not meeting the new criteria under the negotiated CBA should be declared null and void and I hope both Suter and Parise walk and sign somewhere else. It would serve Leopold right for the way he acted this past summer.
Sigh...
People need to seperate what happened under the current CBA rules and what they want the rules to be. The owners, like Leopold acted as such because, under the current system and increased demand, the players values were such. You can't expect the owners to all meet up and say ok we will only pay 2 mill for this guy and 3 mil for that guy when they are competing and bidding against each other. The CBA contracts meanwhile are (supposed) to be about what's good for the league overall (although I think either side has really been working that way and thus the situation we have).
Have the owners done stupid things, yes. But, can you really say the players, Fehr and NHLPA also haven't been stupid.
The problems are:
*contracts' cost rates have slowed down since pre lockout, but are still growing too fast for the financially losing team
*the cap floor is always the same $value away from the cap meaning the floor moves faster than the ceiling and the space between the two is decreasing (%wise) which when you think about players being the main cost, you can see how this cap floor situation is hurting the cap floor teams
*league revenues have been growing but (except for a very small minority) slower than player salaries, and also other inflationary costs
So again, what I think needs to happen:
*gradual decrease to 50/50 split in order to decrease costs for lower teams. This will not work alone; it needs the other points.
*increased rev share to lower end teams. Sorry big owners, suck it up; the 50/50 split should pad a bit for the big owners so its not as much of a loss
*cap ceiling to be either frozen/sloweddown to inflation rates or an algorithm based on league profits (at the very least for shortterm). This would help prevent accelerated costs. The owners didn't "win" last time. They wanted cost certainty but with its acceleration; it isn't certain.
*cap floor based on %. The $value cap floor isn't fair as it means costs for cap floor teams rel to revenue is growing faster than for cap ceiling teams and % wise the cap and floor is moving closer together. This allows "parity" to still be similar %wise no matter where rev is. Could you imagine a cap floor 12mil under the ceiling if each team was pulling in 1bil, it would be pointless.
PS. The capless free market system was having a worse problem with accelerating contract rate so please don't say free market was better. This isn't like a standard business when you have teams that costs rise from bidding against eachother but increase revenues as a total product.
You can't explain it. I believe the owners acted disingenuously over the course of the summer in dishing out those contracts for term and $$$ knowing specifically what was coming. Yes, the players had to have an idea of what was coming, but the owners new specifically what was coming and acted in bad faith in negotiating those deals. If I'm at the NHLPA and the players have to take a pay-cut, say 15% then all those contracts for term not meeting the new criteria under the negotiated CBA should be declared null and void and I hope both Suter anpd Parise walk and sign somewhere else. It would serve Leopold right for the way he acted this past summer.
Right. Damn those owners for playing by the existing rules and not the as of yet undefined future rules!
Working Arbitrarily below those rules would collusion. Not saying they don't look stupid, but I don't get the outrage.
