The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Mark Recchi's advice to players is to sign CBA now
I've enjoyed reading your post, but this is extremely disingenuous.
If the PA knew that the NHL was going to go after 50%, and the players were willing to go to that mark as well, then why wouldn't they have made that offer as early as February. The PA used non-negotiation as a tactic, I don't know why you won't admit that. This lockout is entirely equal between the two parties.
They ~probably~ knew what the NHL was targeting. In between all the bluster, the NHL transferred 75K pages of financial records. After the PA reviewed those records, there was no denial from their side that "a handful of teams" indeed needed an economic re-set.
Fine. That isn't what's being disputed. What IS being disputed is how much of that help should come from the players. The NHL's proposals appeared to put it all on the players' side. The PA countered with a much more aggressive RS plan and their growth fund. Please note-- the teams who would contribute to that RS are the ones who will benefit the most by the reduction in players' share. I don't think it's ridiculous for the PA to say that if they take a cut why shouldn't the teams that get the greatest financial benefit-- the ones that do NOT need any help -- also contribute?
Isn't that reasonable-- to have the rich and the PA give some money back to save the flailing franchises?
In addition to all the economic items, the NHL also wants to revamp contractual rights. The only one where I can discern there may be legitimacy in managing the economic system is the cap circumvention aspect. That can be targeted directly via variance.
It's not just about the economic issues. The league wants more than that.
No, you participate in something as a member. A strike action is directed at employers.
A lockout is directed at employees by employers.
To paint it as equivalent, which is your implication is what ignores not only context, but the actual meaning of the words.
Sure! Let's!
The NHL hired a man with a history of locking out players, the only man to lose an entire professional league season, who also came from the very firm that seems to have made a name for itself in managing lockouts.
This is his third lockout if you're keeping track.
What you're saying would hold a little bit of weight if the PA was interested in negotiating before the final buzzer. They weren't, so it doesn't. No one is going to operate ever again without a CBA after the MLB debacle, and who was working for that union at that time?
I find it actually amazing we haven't heard more outcry from their members when you look at the numbers. It seems as though it's a small group of wealthy higher end earning players who are controlling the PA's direction. I would have a serious issue with this if I was part of that majority who don't have multi-millions in the bank to snuggle up to during this "extended" holiday.
I wouldn't say they are controlling but rather buying in hook line and sinker and drinking Fehr's kool-aid. But that's because they are the only ones who can hope to benifit if this drags on. Players late in their careers and bubble players will only lose money no matter what happens. That's the best case senario. If it goes a year or more many will pay the price with their careers. If they were bright enough they would realize this is not about them they are just along for the ride.
Help me understand why the players have to accept 50%?
I don't believe for one moment that the current players are negotiating with a thought towards the next generation of players. I believe they are negotiating for their own benefit.
I think so as well. If the you consider the way the contract restrictions/status are set up, the peak years and certainly only years for a majority of players, will be spent under rookie and RFA contracts. Perhaps only two contracts.
Consider that the last CBA also didn't see most players reach UFA status (27 yrs or 7 yrs of service). The average NHL career is what, 5-ish years? The average NHL'er plays fewer than 200 games, or was it 100?
Who is being targeted then? I can only infer that the owners want to restrict what the best and longest serving players can make. The best players, if they make it to UFA status, have to wait to cash in after their best years are behind them. There are two elements of risk here.
1) The player has to make it that far. He's deferring his earnings to some future point in time where there is no guarantee he'll reach that point.
2) If he manages to get that far, he has to assume that a team will pay him for his earlier achievements, not what he's likely to contribute going forward. That's not a bet I'd personally make. They can pull out thousands of man-games and charts that will show the average decline rate by age. In other words--- his lifetime earnings are very repressed as compared to actual contribution.
Why should players accept further individual 'caps' if there's already a maximum individual rate payable (never reached, btw) and a cap on collective pay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease
Fugu, saying the owners are responsible for the lockout is like saying Burr is responsible for shooting Hamilton.
If the players had decided a strike action was necessary, at whom would you direct the blame?
It amazes me how quick players flip sides once they retire. Makes me think that all the genuine loyalty goes towards the $$$ no matter what supposed "character" the good ol' Canadian boys have
No "flipping" - these guys are just getting older and wiser.
What you're saying would hold a little bit of weight if the PA was interested in negotiating before the final buzzer. They weren't, so it doesn't. No one is going to operate ever again without a CBA after the MLB debacle, and who was working for that union at that time?
Why has the MLB had no lockouts or strikes?
Did you the financial data transfer and suggestions make any impression on you?
If the players had decided a strike action was necessary, at whom would you direct the blame?
Well in the current moment its easy for me to say both parties, but I see where you're getting at.
I think what we have here is a classic prisoner's dilemma situation. Eat or potentially be eaten. It's hard for me to soley fault the owners for pulling the trigger on the lockout, especially because given the NHLPA's (lack of) actions the NHLPA appeared to be up for it as well.
Who in the PA is demonizing Recchi for his comments?
You'd heve to ask Damien Cox who he was referring to , but he does say
the NHLPA and its messengers. I heard Nick Kypreos , who would have to count as one of their messengers, rip him pretty good today and there have been plenty of others.
Did you the financial data transfer and suggestions make any impression on you?
Because there no way that 1994 could be painted as a gain, for anyone? So maybe they learned? Although they went right up to the wall in 2002. MLB also has an in-season renewal date, so a lockout is impossible in the first place as you would have to lockout IN a CBA, as opposed to when it renews.
What do I care about the financial data transfer, the CBA is over and it's up to the sides to negotiate a new deal? Market value has been set for sports related revenue split, it should be a fairly painless negotiation, or maybe you believe the NHL is healthier than the NFL/NBA and should be paid at a higher %.
If one party doesn't want to come to the table until right before the final buzzer, and then chooses to whine about a lockout because of it, am I supposed to be supportive of them? Seems to me they wanted the lockout just as bad as the owners did.
Otherwise they would have pressed the issue instead of delaying because Fehr was busy "learning". Just like he's busy getting water or forgetting where his paperwork is.
Did you the financial data transfer and suggestions make any impression on you?
MLB drove, I mean drove a ton of fans away back in the mid 90's They have had to learn the hard way...I know people who haven't watched a game since then... I also know that a ton of MLB stadiums are far from full in 2012 and they are lucky to not be a gate driven league, and have TV money to bail them out....MLB had a ton of labour disputes under Fehr's watch...just none recently, but most people all too well remember no World Series in 94 thanks to the Don...
Fugu, saying the owners are responsible for the lockout is like saying Burr is responsible for shooting Hamilton.
The owners are responsible for the lockout. Either they decided they needed a lockout for leverage or they needed a lockout to avert a potential strike.
Please note I stressed potential.
Kind of reminds me of a story of a kid in Cincinnati who reached into his pocket to get his ID, but someone thought he was going for a gun- and shot him. Hey- it could have been a gun.
The players might have chosen to strike and yet they might not have. We will never know. The League made it's choice, and I'll not pretend this was forced upon them.
I personally believe it was a tactic to gain leverage.
Did you the financial data transfer and suggestions make any impression on you?
Because each and every owner in MLB makes more than enough profit to make having a lockout a silly idea. I love that you keep bringing baseball a sport that was the clear number one sport before Fehr but has now dropped below the NFL. Plus they just set a record for the lowest television rated World Series ever. It is a league that is dying a slow death and that what you want for the NHL? As people have asked you are you really a fan of the NHL?
The owners are responsible for the lockout. Either they decided they needed a lockout for leverage or they needed a lockout to avert a potential strike.
Please note I stressed potential.
Kind of reminds me of a story of a kid in Cincinnati who reached into his pocket to get his ID, but someone thought he was going for a gun- and shot him. Hey- it could have been a gun.
The players might have chosen to strike and yet they might not have. We will never know. The League made it's choice, and I'll not pretend this was forced upon them.
I personally believe it was a tactic to gain leverage.
Fehr did what he did in 1994 to MLB and there was no World Series...do you honestly think he wouldn't have done it in 2012 to a sport he doesn't even care for, just to get his clients leverage??
Owners in pro sports will never ever again give a PA a chance to play and earn money, while no CBA, thanks to the Don...
Did you the financial data transfer and suggestions make any impression on you?
I dunno. I hate their structure though. The Yankees take in $350 million in media rights annually. Texas, another "big market team" reaps $60 million annually from media rights. Talk about disparity. What do teams like Pittsburgh, Oakland and Toronto take in, like $10-$15 million?
Fehr did what he did in 1994 to MLB and there was no World Series...do you honestly think he wouldn't have done it in 2012 to a sport he doesn't even care for, just to get his clients leverage??
Owners in pro sports will never ever again give a PA a chance to play and earn money, while no CBA, thanks to the Don...
You just shouldn't operate without a CBA. It's stupid. In this case if they operated without a CBA, there's really no reason to believe the players would strike. Okay, then what? Do you operate off the former terms FOREVER because obviously whatever was bargained would be worse than them, thus the players have no reason to go the table.
They knew what would happen if they didn't go to the table.
Fehr did what he did in 1994 to MLB and there was no World Series...do you honestly think he wouldn't have done it in 2012 to a sport he doesn't even care for, just to get his clients leverage??
Owners in pro sports will never ever again give a PA a chance to play and earn money, while no CBA, thanks to the Don...
So if you've done something once, it's guaranteed you'll do it every time?
I'm not saying there would have been no strike, I'm saying we will never know.
You just shouldn't operate without a CBA. It's stupid. In this case if they operated without a CBA, there's really no reason to believe the players would strike. Okay, then what? Do you operate off the former terms FOREVER because obviously whatever was bargained would be worse than them, thus the players have no reason to go the table.
They knew what would happen if they didn't go to the table.
Well, I have negotiated several union contracts on behalf of management. In several cases we mutually agreed to work without a CBA with a condition that the newly agreed upon terms would be retroactive to when the previous agreement expired.
So if you've done something once, it's guaranteed you'll do it every time?
I'm not saying there would have been no strike, I'm saying we will never know.
Fehr knows no league will ever put themselves in a position to allow the players to walk out before the playoffs. So all the talk about the owners lockout is pure nonsense. If there is no CBA in place when the last one expires means it's a lockout.
Well, I have negotiated several union contracts on behalf of management. In several cases we mutually agreed to work without a CBA with a condition that the newly agreed upon terms would be retroactive to when the previous agreement expired.
It's a rather common practice.
Yes, for people who make 20.00 or 30.00 bucks an hour...makes sense, but for millionaires? Not likely...
The owners are responsible for the lockout. Either they decided they needed a lockout for leverage or they needed a lockout to avert a potential strike.
Please note I stressed potential.
Kind of reminds me of a story of a kid in Cincinnati who reached into his pocket to get his ID, but someone thought he was going for a gun- and shot him. Hey- it could have been a gun.
The players might have chosen to strike and yet they might not have. We will never know. The League made it's choice, and I'll not pretend this was forced upon them.
I personally believe it was a tactic to gain leverage.
And by most first-hand accounts, Hamilton wasted his shot. And Burr hit him anyway. Some say on purpose, some say in self-defense.
Fehr knows no league will ever put themselves in a position to allow the players to walk out before the playoffs. So all the talk about the owners lockout is pure nonsense. If there is no CBA in place when the last one expires means it's a lockout.
Everything else is media fluff.
I don't think you should pursue a career negotiating labor agreements. It's way more complex than your posts indicate.
And by the way, I've negotiated as management, not labor.
Well, I have negotiated several union contracts on behalf of management. In several cases we mutually agreed to work without a CBA with a condition that the newly agreed upon terms would be retroactive to when the previous agreement expired.
It's a rather common practice.
So, if the players were going to take a 8-10% haircut, what incentive would they have to go to the table? Thus they can work under the old terms for as long as they want to, until they're eventually locked out. Or, if they really wanted to be *******s, they can strike the last day of the regular season.
