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, and NHL revenues.

Always Give Your Opponent An Honorable Way Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2012, 05:26 PM
  #1
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 910
vCash: 500
Always Give Your Opponent An Honorable Way Out

Not sure if this was posted earlier, but interesting article from CBC sports at http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...rt-of-war.html on why the NHL and NHLPA are where they are today

moosehead81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:45 PM
  #2
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,453
vCash: 500
This is a great article and very true.

Bettman and Fehr don't strike as being the types, however, who could pull this off. Daly and Steve Fehr maybe...

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:51 PM
  #3
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,126
vCash: 500
Fehr has tried to make a way for the owners to declare victory. That's the point of his whole 50% that isn't really 50% offer.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:58 PM
  #4
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,673
vCash: 500
They already tried that. It didn't work.

--Gary and friends offer absolutely ridiculous offer.

*** Allow for time to enrage and marinate the NHLPA***

***Allow for time for the NHLPA to begin realizing the true economic impacts of a season without hockey***

--Then, when all hope for a season seems lost, offer a very reasonable offer that allows Fehr to say "Look, we couldn't get what we wanted, but this is close enough, and we get the entire season!!".

Either Fehr or the players (or both) didn't bite. They decided to stay and fight.

In addition, the author is very vague on what he means by "offering an honorable way out." Does he mean that the NHL should give in to the players? He basically says that someone else should come up with the solution.

Finlandia WOAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:09 PM
  #5
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
They already tried that. It didn't work.

--Gary and friends offer absolutely ridiculous offer.

*** Allow for time to enrage and marinate the NHLPA***

***Allow for time for the NHLPA to begin realizing the true economic impacts of a season without hockey***

--Then, when all hope for a season seems lost, offer a very reasonable offer that allows Fehr to say "Look, we couldn't get what we wanted, but this is close enough, and we get the entire season!!".

Either Fehr or the players (or both) didn't bite. They decided to stay and fight.

In addition, the author is very vague on what he means by "offering an honorable way out." Does he mean that the NHL should give in to the players? He basically says that someone else should come up with the solution.
I think what the writer is trying to say is that both sides, but particularly the NHL, should have foreseen that they'd be in the current impasse if they continually gave the players no option but to resist. It's the old never paint yourself into a corner which I think both sides have done. And, with the egos involved, there's no easy way out. Basically: "The biggest single problem? The players simply cannot accept the owners’ offer.

To do so this time would ultimately mean the end of the NHLPA. To accept the offer would clearly demonstrate that in the future — and forever — the owners need simply to threaten to lock the doors to get the deal they want."

moosehead81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:15 PM
  #6
Freudian
Deja vu again?
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 32,170
vCash: 804
I think NHL actually has planned to give NHLPA wins when it comes to the contractual stuff but since the negotiations haven't gotten close when it comes to economics, there hasn't been any opportunity to get to that.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:15 PM
  #7
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,982
vCash: 500
To me, an "honorable way out" for the NHLPA would be:

Yielding to the NHL's last proposal provided:
-- No rollback/change to current contracts
-- Two expansion teams creating more jobs.
-- a small percentage of expansion fees (for two new teams and all future expansions) goes to the NHLPA pension fund.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:42 PM
  #8
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,607
vCash: 500
It worked the last time....... sacrifice a season to get exaclty what you want.....salary cap.

plan A worked last time ........ esp with the fans coming back in droves...a few changes to the game to make it even more exciting(redline change ,reffing changes to obstruction- particuilarliry calling the obstruction.... shootouts)

do the same plan to get exactly what we want..... prepared to sit a year to get exactly what you want....... players should have learned there lesson from last time...so no missed season.


ooooooooopppppppsssss slight miscalculation.....


article clearly states what has been said for awhile that if the NHLPA accepts as is 50/50 with no benifits for players(beyond fans expectation that they accept to get season going)...the NHLPA is done


big miscalculations that a year off means the players will cave and you start hockey on day one year two.....thats the scary part.

crazyforhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 06:51 PM
  #9
vyktor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 854
vCash: 500
NHLPA says our #1 priority is pay what you owe on existing contracts!!!

NHL comes up with the Make whole idea, even though thru escrow in the old CBA contracts were not always paid in full.

Sounds like a pretty honorable way out.

vyktor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:00 PM
  #10
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosehead81 View Post
I think what the writer is trying to say is that both sides, but particularly the NHL, should have foreseen that they'd be in the current impasse if they continually gave the players no option but to resist. It's the old never paint yourself into a corner which I think both sides have done. And, with the egos involved, there's no easy way out. Basically: "The biggest single problem? The players simply cannot accept the owners’ offer.

To do so this time would ultimately mean the end of the NHLPA. To accept the offer would clearly demonstrate that in the future — and forever — the owners need simply to threaten to lock the doors to get the deal they want."
So, you think if the players accepted a 50/50 split, similar to what the NBA has in place and 3% better than in the NFL, it would be the "end of the NHLPA?"


NHL player services are a commodity, and like any commodity they are only worth what someone will pay for them. That the NHL owners are willing to lockout the players shows that they are not worth what they are being paid. Realize the fact that over half of the nhl owners were losing money last year, and even overall NHL profits were only about 5% of revenue. These owners are all very savvy businessmen: they understand the fact that they will make more money locking out the players than they would signing a bad deal and saving the season.

Signing a deal now does not mean that the NHLPA would continue to lose ground indefinitely in future negotiations. If total NHL profit increased to 15%-20% or more, and the majority of nhl owners were making a profit, the pressure would now move to Bettman to get a season going, because the owners would be losing a lot of money locking out the players.

This is economics 101. If NHL players were poorer I might feel sympathy for them...as it is they are all members of the 1%. My message to them: stop crying and play.

The reasons there is a lockout right now are the following:

1. NHL owners are, to a man, good at business and math.
2. NHL players are, on average, not good at either.
3. Fehr does not care foremost about the wellbeing of his players. Foremost for him is his ego and "winning" whatever the cost.

CpatainCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:06 PM
  #11
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,704
vCash: 500
I haven't seen either side give the other an honorable way out.

For the owners to offer an honorable way out, they would at least need to give the players a way all of the new contracts signed over the summer are paid.


For the players to offer an honorable way out, they would need to offer the teams a way to keep player costs in line across the board. Perhaps offering a lowering of the cap floor.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:29 PM
  #12
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
So, you think if the players accepted a 50/50 split, similar to what the NBA has in place and 3% better than in the NFL, it would be the "end of the NHLPA?"


NHL player services are a commodity, and like any commodity they are only worth what someone will pay for them. That the NHL owners are willing to lockout the players shows that they are not worth what they are being paid. Realize the fact that over half of the nhl owners were losing money last year, and even overall NHL profits were only about 5% of revenue. These owners are all very savvy businessmen: they understand the fact that they will make more money locking out the players than they would signing a bad deal and saving the season.

Signing a deal now does not mean that the NHLPA would continue to lose ground indefinitely in future negotiations. If total NHL profit increased to 15%-20% or more, and the majority of nhl owners were making a profit, the pressure would now move to Bettman to get a season going, because the owners would be losing a lot of money locking out the players.

This is economics 101. If NHL players were poorer I might feel sympathy for them...as it is they are all members of the 1%. My message to them: stop crying and play.

The reasons there is a lockout right now are the following:

1. NHL owners are, to a man, good at business and math.
2. NHL players are, on average, not good at either.
3. Fehr does not care foremost about the wellbeing of his players. Foremost for him is his ego and "winning" whatever the cost.
Thsi is something I really have a hard time understanding and a lot of people continue to voice this viewpoint. Yes players are a commodity who are highly paid, in general, for the entertainment they provide. But the players don't pay the players, the owners, who are, as you say, good at business and math, do. Somehow, I find it a contradiction that if the owners feel that the players are not worth what they're paid to the extent, as you say, that they're willing to lock them out, then why the heck do they continue to sign them to big contracts, right up to 10 minutes before the lock-out. Doesn't make much sense to me.

And yes, I do agree with the CBC journalist's opinion that if you continually cave to the owners every time they threaten or do a lock-out, you might as well not have a bargaining union. Just take what they want to pay you and be done with it.

moosehead81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:31 PM
  #13
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
So, you think if the players accepted a 50/50 split, similar to what the NBA has in place and 3% better than in the NFL, it would be the "end of the NHLPA?"


NHL player services are a commodity, and like any commodity they are only worth what someone will pay for them. That the NHL owners are willing to lockout the players shows that they are not worth what they are being paid. Realize the fact that over half of the nhl owners were losing money last year, and even overall NHL profits were only about 5% of revenue. These owners are all very savvy businessmen: they understand the fact that they will make more money locking out the players than they would signing a bad deal and saving the season.

Signing a deal now does not mean that the NHLPA would continue to lose ground indefinitely in future negotiations. If total NHL profit increased to 15%-20% or more, and the majority of nhl owners were making a profit, the pressure would now move to Bettman to get a season going, because the owners would be losing a lot of money locking out the players.

This is economics 101. If NHL players were poorer I might feel sympathy for them...as it is they are all members of the 1%. My message to them: stop crying and play.

The reasons there is a lockout right now are the following:

1. NHL owners are, to a man, good at business and math.
2. NHL players are, on average, not good at either.
3. Fehr does not care foremost about the wellbeing of his players. Foremost for him is his ego and "winning" whatever the cost.
PS Please review economics 101- it has nothing to do with the relative worth of anybody, richer or poorer.

moosehead81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:33 PM
  #14
Urban Explorer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West T.dot
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
To me, an "honorable way out" for the NHLPA would be:

Yielding to the NHL's last proposal provided:
-- No rollback/change to current contracts
-- Two expansion teams creating more jobs.
-- a small percentage of expansion fees (for two new teams and all future expansions) goes to the NHLPA pension fund.
Expansion? Are you crazy? The league is water downed enough as it is. They should be talking contraction if anything! If we didn't have the bottom feeder teams, we wouldn't be in this mess every 8 years!

Urban Explorer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:47 PM
  #15
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosehead81 View Post
Thsi is something I really have a hard time understanding and a lot of people continue to voice this viewpoint. Yes players are a commodity who are highly paid, in general, for the entertainment they provide. But the players don't pay the players, the owners, who are, as you say, good at business and math, do. Somehow, I find it a contradiction that if the owners feel that the players are not worth what they're paid to the extent, as you say, that they're willing to lock them out, then why the heck do they continue to sign them to big contracts, right up to 10 minutes before the lock-out. Doesn't make much sense to me.

And yes, I do agree with the CBC journalist's opinion that if you continually cave to the owners every time they threaten or do a lock-out, you might as well not have a bargaining union. Just take what they want to pay you and be done with it.
Why do owners sign the big contracts?

1. Under the last CBA the cap floor was only 16 million below the cap ceiling...all teams are forced to have a fairly high payroll no matter what.

2. Team revenue is closely linked to team success, and team success is closely linked to team payroll (the ability of teams to sign free agents and retain their star players). A team could very well make more money paying to retain a star player due to team success and and merchandise sales than by losing him.

3. Any attempts by owners to suppress the competition for player services in the nhl would be collusion, illegal and punishable.

4. Most nhl owners are fans too, and want their team to do well even if it is poor for their pocketbook.

CpatainCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:49 PM
  #16
Legionnaire11
Registered User
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hendersonville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Explorer View Post
Expansion? Are you crazy? The league is water downed enough as it is. They should be talking contraction if anything! If we didn't have the bottom feeder teams, we wouldn't be in this mess every 8 years!
So which teams need to go? If contraction is the answer, then we can only keep teams who have never been in financial trouble. So the NHL is now Toronto, Philly and the Rangers. I wonder how long that will work...

Legionnaire11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:56 PM
  #17
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosehead81 View Post
PS Please review economics 101- it has nothing to do with the relative worth of anybody, richer or poorer.
What are you talking about? This?

Quote:
If NHL players were poorer I might feel sympathy for them...as it is they are all members of the 1%. My message to them: stop crying and play.
This is not a statement on economics. If we were talking about a union of working or middle class people who were locked out from their business because it was losing money, I would feel bad for them. Their loss in wages might significantly affect their well-being and access to what we (at least in the west) consider fundamentals of life.

However the NHLPA signing a 50/50 agreement might mean that some of them have to settle for the purchase of a BMW instead of a Ferrari for the 3rd car in their garage. For some reason I feel no sympathy for that.

CpatainCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:11 PM
  #18
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Explorer View Post
Expansion? Are you crazy? The league is water downed enough as it is. They should be talking contraction if anything! If we didn't have the bottom feeder teams, we wouldn't be in this mess every 8 years!
Reply will be in the "Expansion as part of CBA" thread:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1277151&page=4

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:15 PM
  #19
LSnow
Registered User
 
LSnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,210
vCash: 500
Basic principles of war. Always give your opponent a escape route, unless you really want to find out how hard they are willing to fight.

LSnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:18 PM
  #20
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
So which teams need to go? If contraction is the answer, then we can only keep teams who have never been in financial trouble. So the NHL is now Toronto, Philly and the Rangers. I wonder how long that will work...
Just imagine the rosters they could put together add in the Habs, wings and Boston and the Hawks. What more would any fan want? The super Seven, one better than the O six.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:28 PM
  #21
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosehead81 View Post
Thsi is something I really have a hard time understanding and a lot of people continue to voice this viewpoint. Yes players are a commodity who are highly paid, in general, for the entertainment they provide. But the players don't pay the players, the owners, who are, as you say, good at business and math, do. Somehow, I find it a contradiction that if the owners feel that the players are not worth what they're paid to the extent, as you say, that they're willing to lock them out, then why the heck do they continue to sign them to big contracts, right up to 10 minutes before the lock-out. Doesn't make much sense to me.

And yes, I do agree with the CBC journalist's opinion that if you continually cave to the owners every time they threaten or do a lock-out, you might as well not have a bargaining union. Just take what they want to pay you and be done with it.
Somewhere people have the idea that paying the players 50% of revenue, which, factoring in other owner expenses would see the nhl overall make a profit of around 12-15%, is an incredibly owner-friendly deal.

That's inline with other sports leagues (NBA +NFL) and outside of sports and entertainment there is no other business in the world that gives their employes anywhere close to 50% of revenue.

CpatainCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:53 PM
  #22
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
Somewhere people have the idea that paying the players 50% of revenue, which, factoring in other owner expenses would see the nhl overall make a profit of around 12-15%, is an incredibly owner-friendly deal.

That's inline with other sports leagues (NBA +NFL) and outside of sports and entertainment there is no other business in the world that gives their employes anywhere close to 50% of revenue.
Canada Post and probably the U S postal service.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:54 PM
  #23
LSnow
Registered User
 
LSnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
Somewhere people have the idea that paying the players 50% of revenue, which, factoring in other owner expenses would see the nhl overall make a profit of around 12-15%, is an incredibly owner-friendly deal.

That's inline with other sports leagues (NBA +NFL) and outside of sports and entertainment there is no other business in the world that gives their employes anywhere close to 50% of revenue.
If you know in advance that you are getting kicked in the nuts and there is little you can do about it, why not punch them in the face and they will think little harder next time.

LSnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:04 PM
  #24
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Canada Post and probably the U S postal service.
Government programs and services are quite a different matter. Take the public school system for instance.

CpatainCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:06 PM
  #25
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSnow View Post
If you know in advance that you are getting kicked in the nuts and there is little you can do about it, why not punch them in the face and they will think little harder next time.
I'm a little unsure of what your analogy is exactly...perhaps it is lost in translation. However you can be sure I would pay big bucks to see Bettman and Fehr in a boxing ring no holds barred.

CpatainCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:22 AM.

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.