HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Blinkage, Linkage & Stinkage (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XVII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2012, 03:49 PM
  #326
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
um, why don't you go read your previous post. YOU said, quite shortsightedly, that the players "fine not gaining anything" because they were happy to play under the previous deal. I was merely pointing out that you were over simplifying things.
What? I'm not trying to be snide, but I really don't understand your point or why you think I'm shortsighted.

The players were fine not gaining anything, they'd have lined up and applauded a 6 year extension. They didn't start this war, because the status quo was serving them well.

So now (correct me if I'm wrong here) you and your friend are arguing that the league needs to give something to the players in exchange for what they're trying to take. And I argued that that's silly because the PA hasn't even asked for anything. they ignore the peripherals in their own offers. They're only negotiating the financials, and they haven't even asked for any gains there. So what is there for the league to give them?

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:52 PM
  #327
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
Fixed the problems you listed....got cost certainty.

If Owners just spend to the cap floor...then they start losing fan interest, people stop showing up...revenues plummet...cap goes down.

It's a system the Owners wanted, lost a year for it, got it, and now most teams spend nearly to the cap if they can afford to or not....then cry because they are losing $5M a season.
Yes, they got cost certainty, but the only reason cost certainty was valuable was because costs were too high. So they got the certainty of unmanageably high costs. That doesn't fix the problem.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:53 PM
  #328
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with the revenue they generate.

When was the last time Sidney Crosby helped pull a two year old out of a burning house?
Ok...lets start paying Firefighters $2.5M a year....even though they don't generate revenue. We'll then start paying athletes, actors, rock stars, etc. $65,000 a year even though they generate billions of $'s in revenues.

Movie makers, concert promoters and sports Owners will love you.....for a while. When every single city in the continent goes into bankruptcy in a matter of hours and anarchy ensues....not many people will be going to arenas or theatres.

Voters, via elected officials, determine the value of emergency services and then allocate funds for those services in their budgets and charge taxes accordingly.
Owners determine the value of players and then allocate funds for those players in their budgets and charge fans, tv networks, sponsors, etc. accordingly.

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:54 PM
  #329
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: FIRE THERRIEN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
I started out on the PAs side, especially with that stupid first offer from the owners. But as far as I'm concerned the players have worked overtime to wizz away that good will.
Why do people keep bringing up the first offer?

It was basically a statement from the league on how the players were willing to play under the old CBA because to them that was fair.

Except when the owners reversed the percentages, it became an unfair type of deal. Those percentages didnt jive with the players when the percentages were not in there favor.

All it did was show the world that the last CBA didnt work, that the players refusal showed it was unfair for the owners to accept those percentages and the players were being hypocritical.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:55 PM
  #330
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 16,278
vCash: 500
So with November cancelled no sense of urgency to start talking again. Watch them wait until the next deadline to throw a meaningless proposal out there. Still stupid these two sides can't get in a room and negotiate.

HawksFan74 is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:55 PM
  #331
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Yes, they got cost certainty, but the only reason cost certainty was valuable was because costs were too high. So they got the certainty of unmanageably high costs. That doesn't fix the problem.
They sacrificed a year to get the certainty of unmanageably high costs? Pretty foolish of them wouldn't ya say?

Way to 'break the Union'!

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:57 PM
  #332
TCsmyth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I see what you're saying, but I'm assuming the owners are rationally self-interested. That means I assume some basic things: (1) If owners could make enough money off the game by taking the PA's last offer to make it worth it for them, they would just do it. Nobody throws money away for nothing (except, apparently, the players, but that's another matter). (2) If teams are losing money, de facto, players are overpaid. They're not overpaying the popcorn vendors, they're not turning away ticket buyers, it is what it is. So the whole negotiation is framed around "how much do the players have to give up to make it worth it for owners to open the doors?" As soon as they give up that much, the doors open. The owners, see, have a comparable option to the PA on the table: rather than give away money to keep your team afloat, why not just keep your doors closed? You make out just as well, if not better. Players don't have a comparable option. For them if they don't like a 12% pay cut, their next best deal is a 75% pay cut in another league. So owners have all the leverage, they can afford to wait forever, and as soon as the players give them enough that a rationally self-interested person would rather open the doors than close them, the doors will open.

Put that all in the context that all the figures we are privy to - how much other leagues pay their players, how much the NHL makes and loses, how much the NHL doesn't make on TV, etc - and you don't even have to assume. It's a pretty consistent story.
Stop all the logical talk!

Why don't the players take the NHL seriously when they say they want a deal that pays players less? They are not saying that this CBA is going to make the players lives better (they actually said that last time - the players felt that they had lost everything).

Just negotiate linkage, and get the absolute best deal you can carve out.

TCsmyth is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:58 PM
  #333
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Why do people keep bringing up the first offer?

It was basically a statement from the league on how the players were willing to play under the old CBA because to them that was fair.

Except when the owners reversed the percentages, it became an unfair type of deal. Those percentages didnt jive with the players when the percentages were not in there favor.

All it did was show the world that the last CBA didnt work, that the players refusal showed it was unfair for the owners to accept those percentages and the players were being hypocritical.
It showed no union worth their salt would accept a 14% cut after taking a 24% cut 6 years ago.

The NHLPA was willing to play under the current CBA....they weren't going to walk out on strike. This is typical of any labour disruption, one side usually says they will carry on with the current setup and the other side refuses. That's how we determine if it is a lockout or strike.

It's not like the NHLPA said "Let's extend the current CBA another 6 years!". They said they'd keep using it while negotiating....pretty standard thing for a Union to do.

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:00 PM
  #334
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAX View Post
But mostly Fehr, it's not by coincedence the majority of posters here see through the PA's B.S.
It's funny because I find a lot of the posts made on this topic tend to resemble those made by various NHL players on Twitter, except backwards.

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:02 PM
  #335
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
They sacrificed a year to get the certainty of unmanageably high costs? Pretty foolish of them wouldn't ya say?

Way to 'break the Union'!
Not necessarily, because they didn't break the union. The union fought them hard, and they only got a cap because they agreed to a 57% figure that was the highest in NA pro sports. This is the unfinished work of 05.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:03 PM
  #336
TCsmyth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scelaton View Post
Arriving late from the Jets board, where I've done my posting...
The least helpful approach in all of this, IMO,has been to make it an issue of principle-right vs wrong, good vs evil, generosity vs avarice. While it animates these boards and makes for good press, this polarization is completely damaging to the players' interests. It simply throws more testosterone-laced fuel on the fire and deludes them into thinking this is some sort of game they can win. Unfortunately, that is the position their leadership has taken.
Let's assume the players are NOT stupid, selfish and entitled. Instead, let's characterize them as naive, young and innocent, sort of like children with a huge inheritance. That places an enormous responsibility on those entrusted to manage their affairs, ie, the Union and their individual agents. It is simply incomprehensible to me that those guardians of their affairs are not protecting their financial interests by concluding a deal ASAP. As has been pointed out ad nauseum by many knowledgeable posters here, the difference in the two positions is negligible relative to the losses they are incurring. For the lower/older tier of players, lifetime earnings are even more magnified. These kids are simply getting bad advice.
For the lawyers here, is Fehr responsibly exercising his fiduciary responsibility to his clients, whose assets are huge and over whom he wields considerable intellectual, experiential and professional power? Ditto, with respect to their agents. I think not.
Very well said, I don't necessarily like the hand the owners are playing, but it is certainly clear to me who is going to lose more.

TCsmyth is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:05 PM
  #337
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: FIRE THERRIEN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
It showed no union worth their salt would accept a 14% cut after taking a 24% cut 6 years ago.

The NHLPA was willing to play under the current CBA....they weren't going to walk out on strike. This is typical of any labour disruption, one side usually says they will carry on with the current setup and the other side refuses. That's how we determine if it is a lockout or strike.

It's not like the NHLPA said "Let's extend the current CBA another 6 years!". They said they'd keep using it while negotiating....pretty standard thing for a Union to do.
some one obviously doesnt know Donald Fehr's history with negotiations.

of course they were willing to play under it, they were grossly overpaid. Except when the owners said the split wasnt fair, and reversed it, the players are crying how the owners arent being fair.

These players think they are worth more than any other of the major leagues who generate more revenue, better ratings, etc etc.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:06 PM
  #338
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Whoa whoa whoa.....who said if teams are losing money "de facto the players are overpaid"???

Didn't the NHL argue rather strongly that Moyes listed some expenses that could easily be cut in half?

You can make some pretty boneheaded decisions that cause your franchise to lose money that has nothing to do with what the players are paid or what money they are generating.

Debt is a prime example. Senators ended up in bankruptcy....they couldn't handle the debt load after building their own arena (no handouts). Had nothing to do with what the players were being paid.

Either way though....that isn't the fault of the players. If I pay you $10M a year and then lose $8M a year. Is that your fault??

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:06 PM
  #339
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
It showed no union worth their salt would accept a 14% cut after taking a 24% cut 6 years ago.

The NHLPA was willing to play under the current CBA....they weren't going to walk out on strike. This is typical of any labour disruption, one side usually says they will carry on with the current setup and the other side refuses. That's how we determine if it is a lockout or strike.

It's not like the NHLPA said "Let's extend the current CBA another 6 years!". They said they'd keep using it while negotiating....pretty standard thing for a Union to do.
It's not the standard thing to do when Fehr is the head of the PA.

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:06 PM
  #340
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Not necessarily, because they didn't break the union. The union fought them hard, and they only got a cap because they agreed to a 57% figure that was the highest in NA pro sports. This is the unfinished work of 05.
I imagine the next step for the PA is to ask for their metaphorical 57%.

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:08 PM
  #341
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: FIRE THERRIEN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
It's not the standard thing to do when Fehr is the head of the PA.
Thats correct. after what Fehr did in baseball, none of the major sports will play without a deal. EVER. All leagues know it gives the players 100% of the leverage in that they can hold the playoffs up with a strike.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:08 PM
  #342
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
It showed no union worth their salt would accept a 14% cut after taking a 24% cut 6 years ago.

The NHLPA was willing to play under the current CBA....they weren't going to walk out on strike. This is typical of any labour disruption, one side usually says they will carry on with the current setup and the other side refuses. That's how we determine if it is a lockout or strike.

It's not like the NHLPA said "Let's extend the current CBA another 6 years!". They said they'd keep using it while negotiating....pretty standard thing for a Union to do.
These cut gets so overdramatized, when the big picture is that player salaries basically doubled over those six years in spite of the cuts, while team profits stayed flat.

As for "let's play while negotiating," it makes no sense for the league. No PA is going to give the league anything if the default is just that the league lets them keep playing anyways. In fact, the league wanted to play while negotiating last year, and the PA refused to negotiate until summer. And if you were paying attention, you'd know that Donald Fehr has a reputation for striking just before the playoffs in order to get big concessions. The owners would be idiots if they let him do that after he already did it to baseball.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:09 PM
  #343
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
I imagine the next step for the PA is to ask for their metaphorical 57%.
Next step would realistically be beginning to splinter as the players who aren't making tons of money start feeling the pains of not having the money they are used to.

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:11 PM
  #344
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
some one obviously doesnt know Donald Fehr's history with negotiations.

of course they were willing to play under it, they were grossly overpaid. Except when the owners said the split wasnt fair, and reversed it, the players are crying how the owners arent being fair.

These players think they are worth more than any other of the major leagues who generate more revenue, better ratings, etc etc.
No.....they think "This is where we are now....we aren't moving too far from that."

The NHL was overjoyed they got the split in the last CBA. Well you got it....now you have to negotiate to get it changed.

That's how it works. We're at 10, they want us at 5. Ehhhhh....we'll dip to 8 but that's it. Now if you STARTED at 8...you'd dip to 6. So it isn't that anyone thinks they're worth 8...it has everything to do with the fact they're currently at 10. Knawmeen?

The NHL wanted to be where we are right now...so to move off of those numbers, it isn't going to be easy. Has nothing to do with what they think they are worth, it has everything to do with how far off from the status quo you can get the other side to go.

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:12 PM
  #345
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Next step would realistically be beginning to splinter as the players who aren't making tons of money start feeling the pains of not having the money they are used to.
This, the players can only put up this fight for so long. Owners can easily outlast the players.

I expected to see some splintering within the next couple weeks.

rdawg1234 is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:12 PM
  #346
mdobbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,437
vCash: 6335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Next step would realistically be beginning to splinter as the players who aren't making tons of money start feeling the pains of not having the money they are used to.
I think we might have to wait another several months for that to happen

mdobbs is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:13 PM
  #347
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
You're not reading carefully. You can quit doing hypotheticals because we have actual facts here.

Difference between players last offer and owners last offer: $500M.

What the players lose with the cancellation of ~25 games: $500M.

Ergo, if the league comes to them TOMORROW and accepts the PA's last offer, but they still lose 25 games on the season, the players would have been better off just taking the owners offer a week ago.

Of course, that's not going to happen. The owners are likely to go for 49% now, since they pulled 50% off the table. Even if the union gets 50% back on the table, they're not going to get 50% and a full season ever again. And it's axiomatic that the players are NEVER going to get more than their last offer was for, so as soon as the season loses 25 games (which many would argue has either happened already or is a foregone conclusion) it's impossible for the players to get as much money as they could've a week ago. Not unless the players retract their offers and somehow get the league to go higher. Not happening.

Now that there are real dollars coming off the table with the cancellation of games, yes, we can measure how much money the players are losing, and it's more than they stand to gain from getting their way. That's called losing.
I was reading through the past pages to see if anyone had posted something like this since it's pretty much the way I've been thinking about this situation. I found this and scrolled through the posts following it hoping to find a good response and there were none.

This is the math. The players have already lost.

Further, if the players have a logical argument for their case, why are they spouting fallacies like arguing that the owners are proposing to "not honor contracts," and talking about revenue as if it's profit? Either the players realize that these things don't make sense are they're trying to dupe the fans or Fehr is preaching this garbage to the PA and they don't realize that it's illogical.

haveandare is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:13 PM
  #348
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: FIRE THERRIEN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Next step would realistically be beginning to splinter as the players who aren't making tons of money start feeling the pains of not having the money they are used to.
hopefully some of the agents, heck even the wives of players start talking some sense into these lower tier players who make up the majority of the league.

At some point, someone will convince them that the talking heads for Fehr, the Crosbys and Toews of the world who are set for life already, are the only ones this lockout is helping and is preventing them from making a living. The agents will start to guide these fringe players in time.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:13 PM
  #349
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
Whoa whoa whoa.....who said if teams are losing money "de facto the players are overpaid"???

Didn't the NHL argue rather strongly that Moyes listed some expenses that could easily be cut in half?

You can make some pretty boneheaded decisions that cause your franchise to lose money that has nothing to do with what the players are paid or what money they are generating.

Debt is a prime example. Senators ended up in bankruptcy....they couldn't handle the debt load after building their own arena (no handouts). Had nothing to do with what the players were being paid.

Either way though....that isn't the fault of the players. If I pay you $10M a year and then lose $8M a year. Is that your fault??
I said it. If you have any other model to explain what costs should be cut, put it forward. The fact that a team didn't get enough taxpayer giveaways is hardly a good model. Teams shouldn't rely on handouts to begin with.

And it's not the player's "fault" in a spiritual sense. But if you're losing $8 so that you can pay me $10, I damn well expect you to ask me to take less. And if no other employer on earth would pay me even half of 10, then I'd better take it.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 04:14 PM
  #350
JS19
Four Kicks
 
JS19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Shark Tank
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
It showed no union worth their salt would accept a 14% cut after taking a 24% cut 6 years ago.

The NHLPA was willing to play under the current CBA....they weren't going to walk out on strike. This is typical of any labour disruption, one side usually says they will carry on with the current setup and the other side refuses. That's how we determine if it is a lockout or strike.

It's not like the NHLPA said "Let's extend the current CBA another 6 years!". They said they'd keep using it while negotiating....pretty standard thing for a Union to do.
So when Fehr finds something wrong during negotiations while playing under old CBA, he can use the strike as leverage to get what he/players want.

That's potential BS waiting to happen especially with the 1994 MLB season being cancelled for this very reason.

JS19 is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:22 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.