They had to spend a certain amount under the old CBA.
Other than that, if enough owners start controlling their spending habits, questions start being asked, and words like collusion get thrown around.
The only way owners can control their spending habits is to negotiate it in a CBA. They're trying to spend less on player salaries, and that's why there's no hockey.
Fehr won't even agree to a status quo deal, let alone give anything to the owners. The PA didn't want a cap in either of the previous two lockouts, and you don't hire Donald Fehr for Round 3 if you're not looking for a fight. We'll be lucky if there's NHL hockey in January 2014.
And this is the key here. With salaries tied to revenues without any correlation between who was actually generating the revenue, small market teams were forced to pony up "market prices" for players to meet the cap floor or just to sign players and stay competitive. With revenues (driven by a handful of teams) going up every year, it was going to drive up player costs anyway because the cap was going up (ceiling and floor).
It is the owners fault that they created and botched the last CBA but it doesn't change the fact that it is going to make teams insolvent if they continue down that path. The players can blame them all they want but they raked in the winnings from the owners mistake on the last deal and they need to compromise or they'll be making zero dollars for a long time. I will not feel sorry for these guys one bit. They've made plenty of money over the last 7 years and will continue to make good money no matter what deal they sign whether it be 47% of revenue or 57%. Boo-****ing-hoo!
Everyone says there are "8" owners that are controlling this, but after a number of challenges I have never seen anyone name them.
It's all bull-****.
blah. Figured it was a media plot.
This is getting ridiculous. And I'm sorry, the KHL is a joke as well (not trying to offend any KHL lovers) but I was in Czech a few weeks ago and watched the Liga played against the Dynamo. I was really trying to get into it but it was just so different and boring.
Do any of you guys know who the 8 owners are that is holding the season hostage?
I think the "8" owners thing is thrown out there because that is all that is needed to keep a CBA from being accepted. It used to be 50%+1 to get a CBA passed, but the owners went over Bettman's head (in '97?) and he changed the rules so that it only takes 8 owners to kill any agreement.
Gary Bettman Surprised By Popularity Of NHL Lockout
NEW YORK—As labor talks between team owners and the NHL Players’ Association enter their fifth straight week, league commissioner Gary Bettman announced Monday that he has been “blown away” by the ongoing lockout’s immense popularity. “There’s just a buzz about hockey right now that I don’t think we’ve ever seen before,” said Bettman, adding that the outpouring of support he has received for the continuing lack of NHL games has been “incredibly touching.” “We get calls every single day from people who are begging us to keep this thing going. People just can’t wait to see more regular season hockey games canceled. Frankly, this is the best thing that has ever happened to the NHL in terms of growing its appeal among sports fans.” Bettman confirmed that he hasn’t seen so much public enthusiasm about the sport since 2004, when a labor dispute forced the NHL to cancel the entire season.
As a youngster I believed that unions were a good thing to protect workers from owners. It was a war betweeb workers and owners and the owners had the upper hand and unions made sense. As I grew older I felt that, in cases, especially with government workers who could not be fired got the right to strike, that the public suffered. When government began to give into the worker's demands the situation started to compound itself in the form of higher taxes necessary to feed workers current salary demands and pension retirement benefit safeguards. This all resulted with unionization and collective bargaining rights for those employed to serve the public. When these workers got the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike, the general population was the injured party who suffered. As our present economic condition started to worsen, unionized government workers became the new royalty suported by the taxpayers they served. Their extraordinary pensions are protected, they have seniority and for the most part are protected from layoffs, etc.
What I can't understand is why owners who take the economic risk have to share their profits with the players who don't take any risk.
Did this phenominon start with Kurt Flood and mushroom to what it is today.
I cannot understand twhy the owners who take all the risk in owning and operating a hockey team have to share profits with the players who take zero risk. Shouldn't the player's compensation be sufficient for the work they perform. The logic of this sharing is mind boggling to me. The players are taking zero risk and they get to share in the profits, plus their salary. Maybe the fans who pay the money to support the team in order to enable the owners to earn a profit from the risk they take be entitled to share in the profit split also. Perhaps the fans should unionize and force the owners to give us a share of the profit split. Maybe we should unionize.
Players Decline the above offer and win but at the cot of the season - 50/50 with no rollback.
Player Y loses entire season and 1 year of contract
Player makes $12M and sees $4.0M in loss and grows one year older.
So essentially he trades 800K for one year of not playing.
Not to mention that league revenues will go way down so salary cap goes even further down and your next contract is lower.
So my question is why are the players listening to Fehr? He is gambling with their money and by not settling they lose out?
On a personal level I am amazed that the NHLPA players are willing to sacrifice so much of their own money to build a system that many of them wont likely ever see the the benefit from.
A year lost for a player is like 10 years for an average person when you realize how short their careers are.
Players off the ice are just the same as on the ice. They want to win at everything. And I get the impression a lot of them see the owners as people who don't put in the work that they put in to make whatever they can get out of the whole deal. Which is their prerogative just as it is the owners to tell them that they don't deserve any more than they've offered.
Originally Posted by Duck Fan
The players are taking zero risk and they get to share in the profits, plus their salary.
This is absolutely incorrect and with regards to a majority of the rest, sorry, you couldn't be more wrong about a lot of that. I am strictly speaking with regard to the anti-union rhetoric here. The players take risks of being injured by lunatics that for some reason the NHL front office protect rather than throw them out of the league (the union is also implicit in this because they help them do that). The majority of players also forgo educational opportunities to pursue their dream, but when it's over they have to go work back in their home town, dealing with all the injuries they've taken, with a 9 to 5 job just like the rest of us. I understand that the players are greedy but I don't know if I would be much different in their shoes. You have to get what you can while you can get it and this applies most to the rank and file, who aren't cashing 7 or 8 million dollar checks per year. Unions are a good thing for regular people and that applies to the majority of the players involved here as well. Their union has done a lot of good for them, it's hard to fault them for loyalty. But this is absolutely ridiculous.
I am extremely bitter and disgusted about this whole thing, frankly I don't know how enthusiastic I'll be whenever there is a season. A pin it all on one side viewpoint doesn't do it for me. I couldn't care less who makes what, but I think it would serve all of us to know what profits are actually out there to be had, and what the revenues really are. Opening up the books would do us all a service and help us to understand all this.
At this point though, of course revenues are going to go down and probably stay down, so the PA needs to dial back their expectations. There are no rule change gimmicks to help hockey out of the mess that has been created this time.