If they cancel the entire season they will lose tonnes of fans, I won't be one because I'm a die hard Habs fan, but there are many new fans in the states (hello LA) that will lose interest. This has been handled horribly from all sides.
Michael Russo @Russostrib: Sources: #NHL perplexed #NHLPA did not inform players they are willing to go 50/50 and "Make Whole" every cent + interest by Year 3
If they cancel the entire season they will lose tonnes of fans, I won't be one because I'm a die hard Habs fan, but there are many new fans in the states (hello LA) that will lose interest. This has been handled horribly from all sides.
Losing fans and some teams in the non-hockey markets in the US wouldn't exactly be a bad thing IMHO. You take a few steps back to make a leap forward sort to speak. This is why I think this lockout will be long. There are advantages to it long term.
Katie Strang @KatieStrangESPN
#CBA NHLPA wanted to discuss structure of deal with league first, then deal with effects of shortened season afterwards.
Fehr is clearly going into full defense mode, adding new details that were never mentioned in last night's memo to the players.
Katie Strang @KatieStrangESPN
#CBA NHLPA wanted to discuss structure of deal with league first, then deal with effects of shortened season afterwards.
Fehr is clearly going into full defense mode, adding new details that were never mentioned in last night's memo to the players.
Fehr is winning.
The NHL started off with a nonsensical 43% offer including five-year entry level contracts (WTF ???), and they've been sweetening slowly ever since.
He needs to be careful to sell at peak value. It's a difficult poker game for sure :-)
The explanation was weak and unsupported beyond anything other than some minor anecdotal evidence, though.
Not true.
The law firm example was indeed anecdotal, but for the Wall Street example I provided MSM references. Note that they got ~51% of revenue before costs were subtracted, whereas a lot of costs are subtracted before players get their 50%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest
Yes, SOME talent based businesses pay more than 50%of the revenue to their employees. There are plenty that don't, though. Look at the Film Industry, where talent gets lots of money but nowhere close to 50% of the revenue generated from a film. Just because SOME businesses give their employees a greater share of the pie doesn't mean all should, talent or otherwise.
Not sure if your claim for Hollywood is true. It might be if you include "actors" as part of talent but not directors, writers, producers, graphics effects artists. In the case of Hollywood, I'd say James Cameron is more talented than Tom Cruise; so it's not a great analogy to pro sports where nobody would say Michel Therrien is more talented than Carey Price.
As explained previously, but perhaps not properly explained, it's not about talent, it's about talent differences that are measurable.
e.g. Wall Street, you might be able to hire 20 traders and each of them is "talented", but if one them can make 50 million dollars more per year than the other, because he's differently talented, he's going to command a higher salary. The same is true of Evgeni Malkin versus Tyler Bozak. With the former, your team will have higher regular season attendance, better local TV deals, and get to play in more home playoff games; therefore he'll command a higher salary. This is not to say that Tyler Bozak isn't talented. He is, but there are more or comparably as many people talented like him than there are spots, and thus he is replaceable.
The differences also need to be "measurable". Wall Street traders can come back with numbers, as can pro athletes. In other fields where it's hard to measure the performance difference, salaries tend to be uniform. For example, in teaching, teacher's unions in the USA have resisted most teaching evaluations and competency bonuses, because most of the measurements of teacher competency are meaningless. In the absence of a competent way to measure differences in teacher performance, salaries tend to be more uniform.
Pretty soon the NHL wont need to link salaries to revenues. Fans wont come back and there wont be money to pay the players and owners will stop allowing their GMs to run free will.
Sources on both sides confirmed to ESPN.com that the league’s Make Whole offer -- an attempt to honor players’ existing contracts -- amounts to $211 million of guaranteed money ($149 million in Year 1 and $62 million in Year 2, both deferred in payment by one year and payable with interest). The league’s belief is that by Year 3 of the deal, revenues will have likely grown enough that at 50 percent of HRR the players shouldn’t face much if any salary erosion in escrow. At which one NHLPA source countered, what if the revenues don’t grow that much? Then what? The union says in that case players aren’t made whole on their contracts.
Listen, the league’ $211-million Make Whole offer is not anything to sniff at, it’s a tangible move on the league’s part. But it’s still nowhere close to where the NHLPA would be willing to sign off on. Try about $600 million or so. That might do it.
Keep in mind that's Lebrun's estimates but he can't be that far off. Am I the only one stunned?
From day one, I posted how Fehr was a ****ing ******* who brings nothing but destruction wherever he shows up. He screwed the MLB and now he is wreaking havoc on the NHL.
Glad to see more people are coming around to that reality regarding Fehr and how he does not give one **** about the League, the players or the fans.
Its all about him, Donald Fehr, the little dick that could.
Players will likely break at some point. Then come the next CBA agreement, Fehr will be the big enemy, and how they had to concede so much last time.
I really hope the NHL starts giving a true take it or leave it offer soon. Then basically say, as each month passes we will re-calculate the damage not playing is doing to the game and then re-adjust the offer down and keep doing that through out the year.
Players will likely break at some point. Then come the next CBA agreement, Fehr will be the big enemy, and how they had to concede so much last time.
I really hope the NHL starts giving a true take it or leave it offer soon. Then basically say, as each month passes we will re-calculate the damage not playing is doing to the game and then re-adjust the offer down and keep doing that through out the year.
The minimum length for a season is probably around 40 games, so the take it or leave it offer would be whatever is on the table in mid December.
I really hope the NHL starts giving a true take it or leave it offer soon. Then basically say, as each month passes we will re-calculate the damage not playing is doing to the game and then re-adjust the offer down and keep doing that through out the year.
That's such a bad idea. Eventually the offer would become beyond unreasonable and we'd be faced with cancelling a second season.
Keep doing what they're doing now and meet every day. I agree that if the players are going to move to 50-50 revenue split, they should at least be able to keep a few more of their contract bargaining rights.
That's such a bad idea. Eventually the offer would become beyond unreasonable and we'd be faced with cancelling a second season.
Keep doing what they're doing now and meet every day. I agree that if the players are going to move to 50-50 revenue split, they should at least be able to keep a few more of their contract bargaining rights.
The problem is the owners have to show that Fehrs tactics is causing the players money.
If the players want to give up another year of their short shelf life, then go for it. I bet they break first.
Fehrs posturing is hurting the games growth. Why would the owners offers be the same as the game gets more affected?
