The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Wings' Devellano: On Bettman, owners' stance, players should be grateful...
Every article I've read on the subject is biased in one direction. Why can't both sides just split it down the middle 50/50 and be done with it? Seems fair to me, no one side is at an advantage, nor are they at a disadvantage, everyone is happy and working for each other to keep profits up.
Especially funny is the claim that linkage is courtesy of the NHLPA. That was the centerpiece of the owner victory. Which is ironically now seen as the very cause of the new problems.
The NHLPA had multiple chances to not have linkage in the CBA. Every single league proposal did have a cap, but not linkage. Depends on the timeline. In the beginning, the NHL's proposals always had linkage but that went away in an attempt to make a deal.
In 2005, the NHL proposed a $40 million salary cap plus benefits with no linkage to revenue. The PA voted it down. The PA countered with a $52 million cap that featured a luxury tax. The owners voted it down. The NHL then countered with a $42.5 million cap plus benefits without linkage. The PA voted it down. The PA then countered with a $49 million cap with a luxury tax. The owners voted it down and the season was cancelled. As time went on, the PA essentially replaced their luxury tax proposal with linkage.
Did the owners prefer linkage? Of course. Was it a requirement? No. The league made offers without it that were rejected. Besides that, the linkage the owners wanted did not involve a salary floor. The PA added linkage in and added a floor to protect their members, as they should have. It was a very smart and calculated move by the union.
That is absolute revisionist nonsense. The entire mantra of the owners 2004 bargaining position was that they wanted cost certainty - i.e. linkage.
They offered 6 choices to the PA:
1. A salary cap with linkage
2. A cap on salaries with linkage
3. A hard cap with linkage
4. A payroll range system with linkage
5. A public private partnership with linkage
6. Linkage.
The players had zero leverage to force the owners into anything when the cba was signed. There was not one credible voice that could suggest the owners had to concede on any issue or the players wouldnt sign. That was not the dynamic at all.
Although it is certainly understandable how allowing yourself to believe such fantasy histories makes supporting the owners unconditionally much more palatable.
Do you think the players wouldn't strike if they were operating under a CBA they didn't agree with?
I don't believe the players would strike right now, and I am sure they don't believe in this CBA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19
?? The last time the NHLPA voted "no" to the last owners' proposal, and too much time passed by to save the season, the lockout became a cancelled season.
Tell me, if the players had voted "yes" to that last proposal, would we have had lockout #2? Serious question, take your time.
And remember the CBA the players eventually "accepted" (you know, the one they LIKE now) was less than the last one offered by the owners. If this whole season is lost, the same thing will happen this time too.
I'm not going to reply to all your points, but the NHL made it clear the direction they are going. The direction is parody. How does rich team "X" offering a poison pill contract to RFA from "Y" team that is trying to manage costs to sustain their club?
Oh, good. Well, the NHL is a parody of major professional sports league.
Owners can't stop tripping over their freakin's feet. They're a bunch of Leslie Nielsen's
That is absolute revisionist nonsense. The entire mantra of the owners 2004 bargaining position was that they wanted cost certainty - i.e. linkage.
They offered 6 choices to the PA:
1. A salary cap with linkage
2. A cap on salaries with linkage
3. A hard cap with linkage
4. A payroll range system with linkage
5. A public private partnership with linkage
6. Linkage.
The players had zero leverage to force the owners into anything when the cba was signed. There was not one credible voice that could suggest the owners had to concede on any issue or the players wouldnt sign. That was not the dynamic at all.
Although it is certainly understandable how allowing yourself to believe such fantasy histories makes supporting the owners unconditionally much more palatable.
NEW YORK (CP) - The NHL delivered a take-it-or-leave-it offer to the Players' Association on Tuesday, upping its salary cap offer to $42.5 million US from $40 million and imposing an 11 a.m. EST deadline Wednesday. ''This offer is not an invitation to begin negotiations - it's too late for that,'' commissioner Gary Bettman wrote in a letter to NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow. ''This is our last effort to make a deal that's fair to the players and one that the clubs (hopefully) can afford.
''We have no more flexibility and there is no time for further negotiation.''
That put the ball in the union's court, with the clocking ticking down to 1 p.m. EST Wednesday when Bettman is expected to cancel the season barring an agreement. ''I know, as do you, that the `deal' we can make will only get worse for the players if we cancel the season - whatever damage we have suffered to date will pale in comparison to the damage from a cancelled season and we will certainly not be able to afford what is presently on the table,'' Bettman wrote. ''Accordingly, I am making one final effort to reach out to make a deal that will let us play this season.'' There was no immediate public response from the union.
The league counter-offer came around supper time on a tense day where facts were few but opinions were plentiful. It appeared the door leading to a possible solution had finally started to open following Monday night's revelation that the NHLPA had changed direction at the final turn and offered to play under a $52-million salary cap.
The league, meanwhile, moved by proposing a $40-million salary cap with no ''linkage'' to revenue.
Now, what else was in that proposal? We don't know. But there were offers on the table without linkage and the PA rejected them and proposed luxury taxes instead.
People crying about the owners not winning in 2005 are being revisionist to a certain extent.
The truth is that nobody saw revenues going up the way they did...
The truth is that more poor market owners would be in good shape today had they accepted the PA's offer of a luxury tax.
Completely agree. I don't think its worth revisiting and nobody could predict the future. My only problem is that there's misconceptions about the last CBA on both sides of the table. Not to mention, everyone lost since a season of hockey went away. Im not sure anything was worth that in the end.
I always preferred the luxury tax model and I think it would've avoided some of the battles we are having today.
People crying about the owners not winning in 2005 are being revisionist to a certain extent.
The truth is that nobody saw revenues going up the way they did...
The truth is that more poor market owners would be in good shape today had they accepted the PA's offer of a luxury tax.
You have no way of knowing this. Small market teams likely would not have been able to keep as much of their home grown talent. Ticket sales and revenue for those teams might have been impacted, as well as the growth of the game in cities like Nashville.
I am sure being a Red Wing fan that you would have been ok with a luxury tax, but please don't bend the truth on its impact on the game. Why are the fans of big market teams so afraid of their GMs have to compete on a level playing field?
You have no way of knowing this. Small market teams likely would not have been able to keep as much of their home grown talent. Ticket sales and revenue for those teams might have been impacted, as well as the growth of the game in cities like Nashville.
I am sure being a Red Wing fan that you would have been ok with a luxury tax, but please don't bend the truth on its impact on the game. Why are the fans of big market teams so afraid of their GMs have to compete on a level playing field?
First, off there is no reason why a luxury tax works in baseball but not in hockey
Second, Captain Bob does not benefit in anyway from growing the game, which at this point is a failed strategy, this lockout is happening because people can't pay the bills, end of story.
Third about talent, who cares? Really when have ever heard someone itching to move to a small market other then ryan suter. Hell most Canadian teams still can't get FAs. I have said this before, you cannot force anyone to stay where they don't want to stay. If UFA is lowered to 24 (hypothetically) and someone gets an offer from the Rangers its because they want to go. How many people are itching to play in Columbus? Not everyone wants to play for their draft team.
You have no way of knowing this. Small market teams likely would not have been able to keep as much of their home grown talent. Ticket sales and revenue for those teams might have been impacted, as well as the growth of the game in cities like Nashville.
I am sure being a Red Wing fan that you would have been ok with a luxury tax, but please don't bend the truth on its impact on the game. Why are the fans of big market teams so afraid of their GMs have to compete on a level playing field?
At the same time, Illitch absolutely hates revenue sharing, so maybe the luxury tax becomes a hard cap for Detroit.
What I can tell you is that there wouldn't be a salary floor. And it's the salary floor that is causing teams most pain.
But the players also say that they don't understand why owners can't control their own spending, and ask why should the players have to save the owners from themselves by taking less money. Well, if an unwritten rule exists with regards to RFA's, then that's the owners trying to save themselves from themselves. Because if the owners cannot, legally, save themselves from themselves, then the players can't keep asking that question.
It's one or the other. It's either unwritten rules, or the players have to save the owners from themselves.
Do they really want to see the end of bidding wars for free agents? Doh.
But the players also say that they don't understand why owners can't control their own spending, and ask why should the players have to save the owners from themselves by taking less money. Well, if an unwritten rule exists with regards to RFA's, then that's the owners trying to save themselves from themselves. Because if the owners cannot, legally, save themselves from themselves, then the players can't keep asking that question.
It's one or the other. It's either unwritten rules, or the players have to save the owners from themselves.
Good point I think. I think this unwritten rule was born more out of common sense than collusion.
I missed who said it on Twitter, but the NHL condemned the comments for being counter-productive and out of line. What they didn't condemn was it's accuracy.
What Devellano doesn't seem to appreciate, based his absurd rangers/cattle analogy, is that the NHL needs the NHLPA in order to operate the league as they currently have it established. Without the NHLPA and a negotiated CBA, much of the structure of the league is illegal under the Sherman Act.
Of course, Devellano is a mouthpiece for Illitch, who I am sure would rather operate in an uncapped, unregulated free-for-all market system, so maybe he knows that full well and it's part of his point.
That's not entirely true. You can look at the Detroit Red Wings failure to sign (and overpay) Suter to see how upset fans are at Holland and Co. for not offering Suter a blank check for him to fill in any amount he wants to get him here.
If hockey clubs are not willing to put the best product they can on the ice, fans will lose interest and revenue will go down.
Parise and Suter are both severely overpaid, but the Wild will probably earn record revenue for the next season they play.
My guess is DRWs revenue will go down because fans are showing they are already losing interest after losing out on Suter. Even if DRWs make the playoffs and Wild fail to make the playoffs, I think Wild increase of revenue percentage will be higher than DRWs.
As far as collusion. I didn't read it that way, I read it as agreement they had so owners don't harbor animosity towards each other and refuse to trade no matter how much it may help their hockey club; anger and bitterness overrides business decisions. If everyone gets pissed off at "X" hockey club and refuses to negotiate with them because they broke the unwritten rule, then that will hurt club "X" if they can't trade players at trade deadlines.
For me thought, it's not the offersheet that bugs me, it's the poison pill that should be removed.
Take Webers' offsheet for example. Nashville should only be responsible to match Webers' money, not the way the money [bonuses] are distributed.
So if Flyers want to offer Weber $46million the first year to get him interested in signing the offersheet, then that should be their business. Nashville's only responsibility to match should only be the actually salary @ $14million. The way the money is distributed should not matter. Only the yearly wage.
So Flyers offer is $110million with $46million paid up front.
Poile can match at $110million with $14million paid upfront for his yearly wage.
That will cut out the poison pill. The new CBA should also remove front loaded contracts, or become more strict on the contracts they approve. Maybe they should max out at 8 years and and the salary can't be more than a 5 million differential from year one to year eight.
So if Shea Weber makes 14 million for the 2012 season, that means he's salary for 2020 can be no less than 9 million. So that means a 36 year old shea weber is making 9 million. That's more than Lidstrom made.
Lastly, they should increase the compensation if the team doesn't match. So each year Weber makes over 10 million (which is 6 years), Flyers will have to give up a 1st round pick for each year he is paid over 10 million, which is 6. Then decrease that down by under 10 would be a 2nd round pick and keep going. So in theory, Flyers would need to give up at minimum 6 first round picks and 4 second round picks if Nashville opted no to match.
That would make GMs think twice about making reckless offersheets.
It wasn't a 'reckless' offer sheet. The Flyers could afford it, that's why they did it. It would be 'reckless' if they didn't.
And the PA would never agree to your compensation proposal, because it takes away the little leverage they do (should) have.
People crying about the owners not winning in 2005 are being revisionist to a certain extent.
The truth is that nobody saw revenues going up the way they did...
The truth is that more poor market owners would be in good shape today had they accepted the PA's offer of a luxury tax.
That's debatable.
What needs to be remembered is only 6 NHL teams had operating income of over 10 mil last year, and taxes still have to come out of that plus other expenses.
The 12 teams (of 30) that made a profit last year generated 252.6 mil in operating income. 170.9 mil of that, or 68%, is from 3 teams, nyr, tor, mtl.
The 18 teams that lost money had operating income of negative 126.1 mil.
thats almost exactly half of all operating income from the 12 teams that made a profit. There's absolutely no way luxury taxes and increase revenue sharing could sustain the league. The majority of the burden would be on the 3 franchises I previously mentioned as 68% of league profit. Theres no way they'll agree to that and no way they should have to.
Just remember, this past year you needed to cover 126.1 mil in shortfalls of 18 teams with 252.6 mil in profit from those 12 teams. But only 6 of those 12 profited more than 10 mil, which means taking anything more than a few mil from the bottom 6 teams is the difference between them making money and breaking even.
You'd literally have a league supported by 4-5 teams which is highly risky, unfair, and not smart for the future.
What needs to be remembered is only 6 NHL teams had operating income of over 10 mil last year, and taxes still have to come out of that plus other expenses.
The 12 teams (of 30) that made a profit last year generated 252.6 mil in operating income. 170.9 mil of that, or 68%, is from 3 teams, nyr, tor, mtl.
The 18 teams that lost money had operating income of negative 126.1 mil.
thats almost exactly half of all operating income from the 12 teams that made a profit. There's absolutely no way luxury taxes and increase revenue sharing could sustain the league. The majority of the burden would be on the 3 franchises I previously mentioned as 68% of league profit. Theres no way they'll agree to that and no way they should have to.
Just remember, this past year you needed to cover 126.1 mil in shortfalls of 18 teams with 252.6 mil in profit from those 12 teams. But only 6 of those 12 profited more than 10 mil, which means taking anything more than a few mil from the bottom 6 teams is the difference between them making money and breaking even.
You'd literally have a league supported by 4-5 teams which is highly risky, unfair, and not smart for the future.
Using Forbes numbers may be okay for comparative purposes of how teams stack up in general, but you absolutely cannot use their figures to make conclusions about actual losses and profits.
Using Forbes numbers may be okay for comparative purposes of how teams stack up in general, but you absolutely cannot use their figures to make conclusions about actual losses and profits.
Yes, Forbes' numbers could be wrong, there could be 24 teams losing money.
What needs to be remembered is only 6 NHL teams had operating income of over 10 mil last year, and taxes still have to come out of that plus other expenses.
The 12 teams (of 30) that made a profit last year generated 252.6 mil in operating income. 170.9 mil of that, or 68%, is from 3 teams, nyr, tor, mtl.
The 18 teams that lost money had operating income of negative 126.1 mil.
thats almost exactly half of all operating income from the 12 teams that made a profit. There's absolutely no way luxury taxes and increase revenue sharing could sustain the league. The majority of the burden would be on the 3 franchises I previously mentioned as 68% of league profit. Theres no way they'll agree to that and no way they should have to.
Just remember, this past year you needed to cover 126.1 mil in shortfalls of 18 teams with 252.6 mil in profit from those 12 teams. But only 6 of those 12 profited more than 10 mil, which means taking anything more than a few mil from the bottom 6 teams is the difference between them making money and breaking even.
You'd literally have a league supported by 4-5 teams which is highly risky, unfair, and not smart for the future.
What also needs to be remembered is that the NHL's LINKAGE is what caused small market teams to have to pay more than they could afford and caused GMS to starting paying big bucks to average players (Tomas Kopecky, for example) -- jacking up the market for lots of players.
