I do agree with your theory in most union environments. However, couldn't the same be said for the ownership group? Work out a deal, save the season, and make some money. OR, continue to fart around, come to an agreement eventually, but ultimately lose a lot of money due to the lost season and more importantly, lost future revenue from casual fans who give up on the league due to this crap.
(For the record, I believe both sides will lose a great deal of money from casual fans who give up on the league, and longer term fans who are fed up with 3 lockouts in relatively recent history).
You make a fair argument it's a two way street.
Yes, ultimately both sides lose money. However; I would argue the owners lose a lot less money.
First of all let's remember that most NHL owners were LOSING money before all this went down. 17 out of 30 IIRC? If I were an owner of the SJ Sharks, for instance I'd be telling myself... "No big deal... I was going to lose another 8M dollars this year anyway."
Then you consider that much of that HRR the owners were getting were expenditures, while ALL of the HRR the players were getting is profit.
The owners can simply minimize their losses by slashing overhead. They still get ****ed by their arena deals (if they don't own the arena), but when you consider they don't have to pay the players, charter private jets, hotel rooms, per diem, equipment, equipment staff, medical staff, security, merchants, etc; it looks like a pretty soft landing for them to me.
The players, on the other hand, are basically jumping off a ****ing financial cliff. The guys who make big dollars are not so concerned. The guys who make the average will start feeling it soon enough. The bank certainly doesn't give a **** if you're on strike.
All the while you have your union reps yelling, "Stay the course, boys!" Then, they see the NHL's latest proposal and say, "See, it's working!" This mentality of waiting it out longer trying to get a better deal makes me angry. The NHL took a leap of faith with their offer. I have yet to see the NHLPA do anything but dick around.
I'm of the mind that the longer this thing goes on the more it favors the owners.
Last edited by Flyerfan808: 10-25-2012 at 09:23 PM.
The financial numbers are coming from Bettman and the owners, so they aren't terribly trustworthy. For instance, apparently Pierre McGuire apparently saw or had numbers last week that indicated only 10 franchises were in the red...not the 17-20+ they've been claiming.
The financial numbers are coming from Bettman and the owners, so they aren't terribly trustworthy. For instance, apparently Pierre McGuire apparently saw or had numbers last week that indicated only 10 franchises were in the red...not the 17-20+ they've been claiming.
Why is there any reason to believe PMcG or his sources over the ones claiming to be losing millions of dollars.
A) I wouldn't trust Pierre McGuire in a room alone with school children.
The financial numbers are coming from Bettman and the owners, so they aren't terribly trustworthy. For instance, apparently Pierre McGuire apparently saw or had numbers last week that indicated only 10 franchises were in the red...not the 17-20+ they've been claiming.
but I thought only the players were greedy liars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808
Why is there any reason to believe PMcG or his sources over the ones claiming to be losing millions of dollars.
B) For what reason would the owners lie about it?
when you are playing the PR game with the fans, why wouldnt you lie? both sides not only want to win the negotiations, they want to come out smelling like roses with the fans.
Who is the bad guy here? The person who took the livelihood away from their employees just so they can force them to take the pay cut or the employees who are fighting against the pay cut?
The players put their bodies on the line to earn their salary. How do you think a guy like Pronger feels? His health could be forever compromised, but Snider feels he is due a pay cut so he could line his pockets with more money.
if every job was taking a pay cut, you are going quit all of them?
Since when is it greedy to not want to be in the red?
That's just good sense.
Or-- should they continue to run at a loss so that they avoid you sitting at home thinking them big mean greedy business monsters?
Please.
There is a difference between running things with good sense and being a Scrooge McDuck diving into his money vault.
It is not greedy to not want to be in the red just like it's not greedy for the players to want the salary they are owed.
That said, certainly not all of the owners are in the red. The hardliners like Snider and Jacobs were doing perfectly fine under the old CBA. They are the Scrooge McDuck figures in this.
Why is there any reason to believe PMcG or his sources over the ones claiming to be losing millions of dollars.
A) I wouldn't trust Pierre McGuire in a room alone with school children.
B) For what reason would the owners lie about it?
It's to the owners' benefit to act like they're all losing money left and right. It's hard to justify cutting the players' pay otherwise. "We're mostly fine. Give us more money please." is a lot harder to sell than "We're doomed if you don't give back some money." Certainly there are franchises that aren't healthy, but I have no doubt it's being exaggerated.
Edit: I mean, 10 teams losing money is still an issue that needs to be fixed. Ideally every team makes profit.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 10-26-2012 at 12:24 AM.
It's in the owners benefit to act like they're all losing money left and right. It's hard to justify cutting the players' pay otherwise. "We're mostly fine. Give us more money please." is a lot harder to sell than "We're doomed if you don't give back some money." Certainly there are franchises that aren't healthy, but I have no doubt it's being exaggerated.
First of all, this is not a recent development. Roughly ~50% of teams have been losing money going all the way back to 2006. If it really is some kind of conspiracy (like you're sort of suggesting) then it has been happeing for a very long time.
Secondly, to counter the argument; I would think the opposite is just as true. If anything, wouldn't alot of these teams stand to gain MORE by exaggerating the numbers in their favor? Especially teams like CBJ, PHX? Who, if they don't stop BLEEDING money, are going to get shipped off to new cities? Similarly, woudln't it make more sense for a middle of the pack team losing 4-8M to want to skew the numbers in their favor to seem more profitable. More profitable teams are have a higher sell value.
Lastly, just because they would stand to gain something from the numbers being as bad as they are, doesn't make them untrue. Perhaps the owners are crying poor, because they really are losing that much money?
To suggest these teams are fudging the numbers for the last 6-7 years just to **** the players over in the next CBA and basing that mainly on a rumor manufactured by a TSN analyst, seems counterintuitive.
It's to the owners' benefit to act like they're all losing money left and right. It's hard to justify cutting the players' pay otherwise. "We're mostly fine. Give us more money please." is a lot harder to sell than "We're doomed if you don't give back some money." Certainly there are franchises that aren't healthy, but I have no doubt it's being exaggerated.
Edit: I mean, 10 teams losing money is still an issue that needs to be fixed. Ideally every team makes profit.
Let's put this into more perspective. If every team spends to the cap then maybe 10 or so teams will lose money. but i highly doubt that many teams are actually losing money given they aren't forced to spend to the cap. the league wants guaranteed revenues for every team which for any business is smart. the question is how do they get there. not an easy solution especially when there's so much natural distrust between the sides. These losing teams have to bite the bullet eventually or close down shop. it's ridiculous that we aren't having an nhl season because we have put teams in cities that can't support them.
It is not greedy to not want to be in the red just like it's not greedy for the players to want the salary they are owed.
They are owed what is in their contracts, but the contracts are determined by the CBA, which has salary rollback provisions if I'm not mistaken. So, whatever the CBA comes down to is what they are owed.
You can't claim: I'm owed 3.45 million, as a player, if the CBA changes that number to 3.2. Then, that is what you're owed and that is what you'll get paid, as long as the CBA has rollback provisions.
You always have to keep in mind the external constraints of contracts. In this case, it is the CBA that is a determinant.
Quote:
That said, certainly not all of the owners are in the red. The hardliners like Snider and Jacobs were doing perfectly fine under the old CBA. They are the Scrooge McDuck figures in this.
You do realize that the Flyers are strattling the line right? They made 3.2 million last year over operating costs, 13 the year before (which is great), lost money, then have been hovering around breaking even before that.
3.2 million dollar return on 300 million is a pathetic 1%. Even lousy returns in the market will get you 5% (mutual funds have averaged 12% over the last 50 years and ANYONE can buy them).
They are owed what is in their contracts, but the contracts are determined by the CBA, which has salary rollback provisions if I'm not mistaken. So, whatever the CBA comes down to is what they are owed.
You can't claim: I'm owed 3.45 million, as a player, if the CBA changes that number to 3.2. Then, that is what you're owed and that is what you'll get paid, as long as the CBA has rollback provisions.
You always have to keep in mind the external constraints of contracts. In this case, it is the CBA that is a determinant.
The CBA can't reduce their salary without the players agreeing to it. Which is why we are here today. They are doing nothing wrong by demanding the NHL to honor their contracts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener
You do realize that the Flyers are strattling the line right? They made 3.2 million last year over operating costs, 13 the year before (which is great), lost money, then have been hovering around breaking even before that.
3.2 million dollar return on 300 million is a pathetic 1%. Even lousy returns in the market will get you 5% (mutual funds have averaged 12% over the last 50 years and ANYONE can buy them).
That is hardly diving in money vaults.
You do realize you can't trust those numbers, right? There's a lot of creative accounting for tax purposes. The Flyers are spending much less on player costs than they were 8 years ago while raking in more money due to higher ticket prices and a larger television contract. If the Flyers could support a $68M payroll 8 years ago they aren't losing money or barely breaking even in the salary cap era. Don't believe everything you read.
