But Fehr is correct about all of those things. And note that he doesn't dismiss the offer out of hand. It is the closest thing the PA has seen to a reasonable offer but they are still taking over a 12% paycut in a growth industry. How many growth industries cut their employees pay?
Depends on how you look at it. No individual is losing salary on an existing contract. The salary pool will recover to existing levels within 3 years (with this proposal).
Many growth industries fire workers, they don't guarantee salary.
Hey at least if the players keep this up we can boo everyone on opening night this time(except Alfredsson of course). Poor ol Gonchar won't be the only one to feel the wrath of the Sens Army.
But Fehr is correct about all of those things. And note that he doesn't dismiss the offer out of hand. It is the closest thing the PA has seen to a reasonable offer but they are still taking over a 12% paycut in a growth industry. How many growth industries cut their employees pay?
How many growth industries pay their employees north of 50% of revenues? You can't compare pro sports with any other industries, it just doesn't work.
And I'm not saying Fehr is right or he's wrong: I'm saying that yesterday I mentioned there was no chance Fehr would accept the deal based on the precedent he's set for himself. And lo and behold, he lived up to his track record.
Depends on how you look at it. No individual is losing salary on an existing contract. The salary pool will recover to existing levels within 3 years (with this proposal).
Recover to existing levels is a misnomer because with inflation that is a paycut.
Quote:
Many growth industries fire workers, they don't guarantee salary.
And the NHL fires workers all the time. If the season starts up where will Alex Auld, Bobby Butler or Rob Klinkhammer be playing?
How many growth industries pay their employees north of 50% of revenues?
Certain consulting and entertainment industries would qualify.
Quote:
You can't compare pro sports with any other industries, it just doesn't work.
Sure you can. It is completely illogical for a business that is growing to expect the employees to take an across the board pay cut.
Quote:
And I'm not saying Fehr is right or he's wrong: I'm saying that yesterday I mentioned there was no chance Fehr would accept the deal based on the precedent he's set for himself. And lo and behold, he lived up to his track record.
Note that he didn't turn down the offer either. He is looking to see the players thoughts on this offer and will negotiate based upon those sentiments.
Recover to existing levels is a misnomer because with inflation that is a paycut.
And the NHL fires workers all the time. If the season starts up where will Alex Auld, Bobby Butler or Rob Klinkhammer be playing?
How were they fired?They were at the end of their contracts which were not renewed.
The last 2 will be back in either the AHL or NHL.They are not guaranteed jobs for life in the NHL after their contracts run out.Butler was just lucky that he got even one year at a million.
Yet Gomez and a host of other will be back and cannot be fired for poor performance.
I'd say buying a player out is as close to a firing as you can get.
I'll agree with that, but what about the other two players you mentioned? Buy outs are much less common than non-renewals, so I wouldn't say the NHL "Fires people all the time".
I'll agree with that, but what about the other two players you mentioned? Buy outs are much less common than non-renewals, so I wouldn't say the NHL "Fires people all the time".
Not renewing a contract is pretty much the same as firing someone. If you were working for the feds and didn't get your contract extended you'd essentially be fired as well.
Certain consulting and entertainment industries would qualify.
No and no. Not even Hollywood pays it's actors 50% of it's investments.
-Average production budget of a major Hollywood film is $100mil (in 2007).
-Of that ~$100mil, Marketing is the biggest expense, at $36mil on average, unless it's a special-effects-driven movie, in which case Spec-Eff is clearly the biggest expense.
-Actors on average run about 20-25% of a movie's budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilderPegasus
Sure you can. It is completely illogical for a business that is growing to expect the employees to take an across the board pay cut.
Not my point. Pro sports operate in a completely separate sphere than any other business is allowed to, by law. They are immune to MANY anti-trust anti/competition/ anti-monopoly laws, many labor laws, and are functionally. And, like I said before, pro sports EASILY have the highest % of wages going to the employees of any successful industry in existence, and it's not even close.
You absolutely can't compare pro sports to anything else.
Not renewing a contract is pretty much the same as firing someone. If you were working for the feds and didn't get your contract extended you'd essentially be fired as well.
Not really comparable at all. To fire someone is to remove them from a long-term job that is held for an undetermined amount of time. Under a standard employment contract, if you are living up to that contract, a person has no reason to believe they will be out of work. Under a term based contract system the employee is well aware that they will need to find work at the end of the current contract's term, and the availability of that work will be based on their performance.
Yes both situations involve someone looking for work and no longer working in the job they had before. The circumstances surrounding how they got to that position is completely different.
Some you guys honestly gotta get off the bath salts.
If you agree with Fehr on this, I demand you leave this board. Seriously.
There's no reason for the players to accept the new contract restrictions in conjunction with a pay cut. If the owners want a 50/50 split of HRR, they should be expected to give something back to the players in terms of quality-of-life improvements in exchange.
If Fehr told the PA to accept this deal, he should be fired immediately. The owners' offer sets up a good basic framework for negotiation, but there's absolutely no reason to take the deal as it stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic
How many growth industries pay their employees north of 50% of revenues? You can't compare pro sports with any other industries, it just doesn't work.
And I'm not saying Fehr is right or he's wrong: I'm saying that yesterday I mentioned there was no chance Fehr would accept the deal based on the precedent he's set for himself. And lo and behold, he lived up to his track record.
The employees aren't necessarily getting north of 50% of revenue. They're getting 57% of HRR (certain revenue minus certain expenses and deductions). Nobody knows what percentage of actual revenue that works out to, but it's certainly much closer to 50% than to 57%.
I really, really hope that's the case, and that it's enough to push forward and get things done.
If anything, I have confidence in the players being involved enough in the negotiations to drive that point forward. They can't let Fehr just do his thing. The worst thing that can happen right now is for Fehr to say "Hey guys, I know you want to sign this and get back to playing, but trust me, it's in your best interest to reject it, and wait for the owners to completely cave in. I didn't get the MLBPA to where it is by making compromises"... and for the players to buy it.
Gotta love the assumption put forth that Fehr "does his thing" and players follow like lemmings.
Fehr was/is paid to advise the players and negotiate a fair deal for his constituents, IMO he is doing his job.
The NHL proposal does nothing but take back from what the players have gained through previous negotiations, while offering NOTHING in return.
Yet just because the NHL finally arrives at what should be considered a reasonable starting point, the fans only considering their own personal wishes scream sign.
Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 10-17-2012 at 02:33 PM.
No and no. Not even Hollywood pays it's actors 50% of it's investments.
-Average production budget of a major Hollywood film is $100mil (in 2007).
-Of that ~$100mil, Marketing is the biggest expense, at $36mil on average, unless it's a special-effects-driven movie, in which case Spec-Eff is clearly the biggest expense.
-Actors on average run about 20-25% of a movie's budget.
Not my point. Pro sports operate in a completely separate sphere than any other business is allowed to, by law. They are immune to MANY anti-trust anti/competition/ anti-monopoly laws, many labor laws, and are functionally. And, like I said before, pro sports EASILY have the highest % of wages going to the employees of any successful industry in existence, and it's not even close.
You absolutely can't compare pro sports to anything else.
Compare the salaries (not gross income) of the top 1% of employees in all professions and I submit team professional sports is not at or near the top of the list.
Of course if/when an industry attempts to select the best of the best for the 700 jobs openings, the cost is going to be significantly above industry average.
Professional sport is not immune to existing laws, with baseball and antitrust law being the exception.
However existing law recognizes agreements between professional sports leagues and player unions in the form of CBAs as having precedence over the right of the individual in certain aspects.
For example, the salary cap is anti-competitive conduct by definition, yet is not subject to anti-trust law because it was legally agreed to by both parties.
There are many examples that disprove what you are suggesting re: professional sports and the law.
Compare the salaries (not gross income) of the top 1% of employees in all professions and I submit team professional sports is not at or near the top of the list.
Of course if/when an industry attempts to select the best of the best for the 700 jobs openings, the cost is going to be significantly above industry average.
Professional sport is not immune to existing laws, with baseball and antitrust law being the exception.
However existing law recognizes agreements between professional sports leagues and player unions in the form of CBAs as having precedence over the right of the individual in certain aspects.
For example, the salary cap is anti-competitive conduct by definition, yet is not subject to anti-trust law because it was legally agreed to by both parties.
There are many examples that disprove what you are suggesting re: professional sports and the law.
Sorry if you could clarify this for me. How does a business deciding to limit its costs go against competitive conduct? By those same standards teams like Nashville with an internal budget are displaying anti-competitive conduct by not spending with the big boys, even though doing so would cause them to go bankrupt.
Sorry if you could clarify this for me. How does a business deciding to limit its costs go against competitive conduct? By those same standards teams like Nashville with an internal budget are displaying anti-competitive conduct by not spending with the big boys.
Because if the players didn't consent, a salary cap would be collusion between the franchises. If Nashville has an internal budget but New York doesn't, that isn't collusion - the two teams created their budgets independent of one another.
__________________ CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
Sorry if you could clarify this for me. How does a business deciding to limit its costs go against competitive conduct? By those same standards teams like Nashville with an internal budget are displaying anti-competitive conduct by not spending with the big boys, even though doing so would cause them to go bankrupt.
It is anti-competitive simply because a salary cap prevents/throttles a player from realizing his real market value.
It is why players have decertified their union when lockouts occur, to enable the filing of anti-trust suits.
Nashville isn't violating the rules of the CBA (Cap ceiling & floor) and if they did you can be assured the NHLPA would be on it in a NY minute.
Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 10-17-2012 at 03:10 PM.
Because if the players didn't consent, a salary cap would be collusion between the franchises. If Nashville has an internal budget but New York doesn't, that isn't collusion - the two teams created their budgets independent of one another.
Couldn't you argue that the NHL is simply one team within a "league" of other international hockey organizations. If a player can't get what he wants in the NHL then he has the full right to go try the SEL, KHL, DEL. Which I would think is similar to someone being able to just sign with a different team within the NHL.
My opinion on this could be completely off as I'm not really clear on anti-trust laws, but since I'm taking a lot of other law classes, this stuff is interesting to discuss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe
It is anti-competitive simply because a salary cap prevents/throttles a player from realizing his real market value.
It is why players have decertified their union when lockouts occur, to enable the filing of anti-trust suits.
Nashville isn't violating the rules of the CBA (Cap ceiling & floor) and if they did you can be assured the NHLPA would be on it in a NY minute.
Again only his market value within that particular league though. The player still has the option to realize their market value in other league the world has to offer.
Last edited by WantEggRoll: 10-17-2012 at 03:30 PM.
No and no. Not even Hollywood pays it's actors 50% of it's investments.
-Average production budget of a major Hollywood film is $100mil (in 2007).
-Of that ~$100mil, Marketing is the biggest expense, at $36mil on average, unless it's a special-effects-driven movie, in which case Spec-Eff is clearly the biggest expense.
-Actors on average run about 20-25% of a movie's budget.
.
Slightly off topic I suppose... But for the Hangover 3; Stu, Phil and Alan are getting $15 Million EACH :O
Couldn't you argue that the NHL is simply one team within a "league" of other international hockey organizations. If a player can't get what he wants in the NHL then he has the full right to go try the SEL, KHL, DEL. Which I would think is similar to someone being able to just sign with a different team within the NHL.
My opinion on this could be completely off as I'm not really clear on anti-trust laws, but since I'm taking a lot of other law classes, this stuff is interesting to discuss.
Again only his market value within that particular league though. The player still has the option to realize their market value in other league the world has to offer.
Very briefly, lockouts were the cause of antitrust suits by NFL and NBA players that were under contract, hence they claimed they were denied the opportunity to work.
Collusion cases, like MLB and recently the NFL, have been filed as violations of US Labour Law and not based on Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under antitrust.
In both instances, the courts are being asked to rule on a potential violation of US law. Whether a player can go to Moscow and play isn't relevant.
