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.

Mark Recchi's advice to players is to sign CBA now

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-13-2012, 08:39 PM
  #126
Freudian
Deja vu again?
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 31,478
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
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.
Since the World Series strike in 94, how many situations in major North American sports where the owners had the choice between lockout and no lockout has the owners chosen no lockout?

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 08:43 PM
  #127
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
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.
Why do they have to take a haircut at all?

I'm really confused by all of the posters who state as a matter of fact the players have to accept 50% of HRR, so they should just accept it and move on.

Great negotiators find a way for both sides to win.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 08:45 PM
  #128
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
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.
The NHL would be risking a collusion charge if it operated without a CBA. Once they gave notice they were no longer willing to operate under the old CBA there was only 2 options get a deal done or lockout.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 08:47 PM
  #129
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
Why do they have to take a haircut at all?

I'm really confused by all of the posters who state as a matter of fact the players have to accept 50% of HRR, so they should just accept it and move on.

Great negotiators find a way for both sides to win.
They're getting more than 50% in the end. That's where market value is. If they think they are worth more than the NBA players/NFL players, then I don't know what to tell you/them.

But you didn't answer my question, if the terms were carried over and there was no lockout, why exactly should the players go to the table? What incentive do they have to negotiate? They are not going to get the same deal they have now, any deal is going to be worse, at least as the % goes.

You brought up the example where there were retroactive give-backs based on what the results of the negotiations were. How do you execute this with such large amounts of money, when one of the parties is adverse to escrow and feels like they are not getting paid the full value of their deals?

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:02 PM
  #130
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
What history is being ignored? Since 1994 and intervention of the courts, MLB has had no lockouts or strikes.

The NHL is on it's third lockout. One strike.

The NFL and NBA just had their own lockout.

Recent years--- more lockouts, no strikes.

If the common argument that the MLB strike led to all the lockouts were true, why hasn't MLB had any lockouts?
Because the baseball owners have completely surrendered to the union. They raised the white flag in 2002 and haven't been willing to improve the league since.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:08 PM
  #131
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,835
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
The NHL would be risking a collusion charge if it operated without a CBA. Once they gave notice they were no longer willing to operate under the old CBA there was only 2 options get a deal done or lockout.
Do you think avoiding charges of collusion is also the reason why the owners want to get the contractual issues in the CBA given Fehr's penchant for bringing these charges in the past?

It seems to me I remember that being argued somewhere but I don't recall where.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:10 PM
  #132
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Bettman and the NHL should lift the lockout NOW and impose their plan unilateraly.

Wait and see how many players are gonna come back.

Then, in a couple of weeks, if only a minority (or very few, or none) of players have shown up, go back to lock out and cancel the rest of the season.

Habtchum* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:15 PM
  #133
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Since the World Series strike in 94, how many situations in major North American sports where the owners had the choice between lockout and no lockout has the owners chosen no lockout?
2002 in baseball. They could have locked the players out, but couldn't afford to miss any games after the 94-95 debacle. Fehr held the world series hostage again in August and the owners caved to every single player demand about 6 hours before the strike was to begin. Since then the owners have simply given up. Baseball is run more by the union than ownership at this point.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:26 PM
  #134
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
Bettman and the NHL should lift the lockout NOW and impose their plan unilateraly.

Wait and see how many players are gonna come back.

Then, in a couple of weeks, if only a minority (or very few, or none) of players have shown up, go back to lock out and cancel the rest of the season.
Interesting idea. This would require the NHL to establish that an impasse exists. That is no easy task.

If the NHL, at any point in negotiations, has indicated that its position on a contentious issue is flexible and can be traded off for other concessions, there may be no impasse. Also, if recent meetings resulted in settlement or movement on certain issues, its unlikely that an impasse can be proved.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:27 PM
  #135
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Yeah, impasse is WAY down the road from here.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:30 PM
  #136
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Do you think avoiding charges of collusion is also the reason why the owners want to get the contractual issues in the CBA given Fehr's penchant for bringing these charges in the past?

It seems to me I remember that being argued somewhere but I don't recall where.

It might be part of the reason. What I believe is that Bettman wants it all because if any loopholes are found he will be blamed. So he wants a deal that he believes will be loophole proof. I also think it has to do with the owners being more comfortable with playing their more experienced player more money.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:33 PM
  #137
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie

Just asking, but wonder how much extra $ Mark Recchi earned because of Goodenow's work in 94/95 lockout?

Chris Botta ‏@ChrisBottaNHL

@NYP_Brooksie Mentioned this last night. Recchi was with NHLPA from 1986-2011, and NOW he speaks up and has all the answers?

Damien Cox ‏@DamoSpin

Guess Bettman gets the day off as NHLPA and it's messengers demonize Recchi today. These guys NEVER look in the mirror.

Damien Cox ‏@DamoSpin

Maybe instead of attacking Recchi the PA should ask guys like Ference, Stajan and Hamhuis hard questions about how Fehr hijacked the union.

Greg Wyshynski ‏@wyshynski

Recchi and Jagr. Two NHL greats that veer to the owners' side of the CBA debate. And, not coincidentally, two owners.

Jack Todd ‏@jacktodd46

Very disappointed in our old friend Mark Recchi. He's basically telling players to fold. NHL will take this as a sign players will give up.

Adam Proteau ‏@Proteautype

Mark Recchi believes the CBA offers from owners will only get worse for NHL players? Interesting theory, but demonstrably untrue.
__________________

MISC* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:34 PM
  #138
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
“My advice,’’ mused Recchi, part owner of the Kamloops Blazers junior squad in the Western Hockey League, “is that the longer it goes, the worse [the offer] is going to get [for the players]. Hey, I’m an owner, too, so I see both sides. We lose money on our team, and obviously that’s not the same, the money’s not nearly as significant as in the NHL, but the business dynamics are similar. We’ve lost money every year we’ve owned it.’’
Here we go.

MISC* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:40 PM
  #139
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Not sure why Proteau thinks the offers are going to get better after a relatively short window.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:48 PM
  #140
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,835
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Who in the PA is demonizing Recchi for his comments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISC View Post
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie

Just asking, but wonder how much extra $ Mark Recchi earned because of Goodenow's work in 94/95 lockout?

Chris Botta ‏@ChrisBottaNHL

@NYP_Brooksie Mentioned this last night. Recchi was with NHLPA from 1986-2011, and NOW he speaks up and has all the answers?
.................................................. ......
Greg Wyshynski ‏@wyshynski

Recchi and Jagr. Two NHL greats that veer to the owners' side of the CBA debate. And, not coincidentally, two owners.

Jack Todd ‏@jacktodd46

Very disappointed in our old friend Mark Recchi. He's basically telling players to fold. NHL will take this as a sign players will give up.

Adam Proteau ‏@Proteautype

Mark Recchi believes the CBA offers from owners will only get worse for NHL players? Interesting theory, but demonstrably untrue.
__________________
There's a pretty good selection of the PA "messengers" right there-along with Nick Kyperos and various of the players and others who have been ranting on Recchi.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:27 PM
  #141
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
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.
So then how do you argue with the players and pro-PA stance that the union needs to fight otherwise these lockouts will continue to happen and the owners continue to ask for more each time? This point has been huge for the PA camp yet their premise is based on the potential of something happening and not any known reality of it happening. 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.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:29 PM
  #142
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
There's a pretty good selection of the PA "messengers" right there-along with Nick Kyperos and various of the players and others who have been ranting on Recchi.
I was actually more interested in players that might have said something about his comments. I more or less expected the PA media types to be all over him. I'm already guessing that Allen Walsh has probably retweeted and made his own comments that don't reflect kindly on Recchi.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:40 PM
  #143
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 26,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISC View Post

Adam Proteau ‏@Proteautype

Mark Recchi believes the CBA offers from owners will only get worse for NHL players? Interesting theory, but demonstrably untrue.
__________________
I'm genuinely curious about this because I'll admit I don't know but what exactly did the players get in return for losing the 04-05 season?

They ended up accepting the cap + linkage obviously. Is there anything they got that they wouldn't have gotten had they accepted a deal for a partial 04-05 season?

Soundwave is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:41 PM
  #144
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
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?

I am a fan of the NHL and hockey. That doesn't mean I am a fan of its commissioner or how it's run. I've been an NHL fan longer than most of these names running it have been around. However, this isn't about me, as the thread title should suggest.

Each and every owner in the NFL and most of the NBA (I think they have a couple problem children) also makes more money than the NHL. Yet--- they had lockouts too. That's incredibly silly!

(And Fehr wasn't the reason the NFL overtook MLB, that was inevitable.)


Do you not see any contradictions in your post? I underlined them.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:47 PM
  #145
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
I'm genuinely curious about this because I'll admit I don't know but what exactly did the players get in return for losing the 04-05 season?

They ended up accepting the cap + linkage obviously. Is there anything they got that they wouldn't have gotten had they accepted a deal for a partial 04-05 season?

I think he's referring to the 24% rollback.

That said, the reason the players ended up doing better than even they imagined, and certainly the league hadn't imagined it would go that well for them, is due to the Canadian led growth, resurgence in Chicago, and the new generational talents leading the Pens and Washington. The big guys all got bigger and healthier. Players went from 54% to 57% due to the revenue growth.

In fact, the players who came back and stayed for the duration of the last CBA probably made more money than what they lost in that lockout because of linkage, something they had resisted but which obviously worked out much better for them.

I think the players who 'lost' a lot of money, which they could never hope to recoup were the Tkachuks, Hatchers, Lidstroms, Fedorovs, and Sakics of the league (highly compensated UFAs in their mid and upper 30s).

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:56 PM
  #146
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
The NHL would be risking a collusion charge if it operated without a CBA. Once they gave notice they were no longer willing to operate under the old CBA there was only 2 options get a deal done or lockout.
Nope. The League could have operated under the terms of the expired CBA - albeit with the risk of a players strike - but there would have been no collusion or other anti trust issues. The terms of an expired CBA are deemed to continue to be in force until replaced by a new CBA (or the union decertifies). That is why the NHL was able to operate in '91-'92 (and MLB in '94) under expired CBAs. Courts have held that the Non Statutory Labor Exemption to anti trust law still applies to the terms of an expired CBA.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:57 PM
  #147
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISC View Post
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie

Just asking, but wonder how much extra $ Mark Recchi earned because of Goodenow's work in 94/95 lockout?

Chris Botta ‏@ChrisBottaNHL

@NYP_Brooksie Mentioned this last night. Recchi was with NHLPA from 1986-2011, and NOW he speaks up and has all the answers?

Damien Cox ‏@DamoSpin

Guess Bettman gets the day off as NHLPA and it's messengers demonize Recchi today. These guys NEVER look in the mirror.

Damien Cox ‏@DamoSpin

Maybe instead of attacking Recchi the PA should ask guys like Ference, Stajan and Hamhuis hard questions about how Fehr hijacked the union.

Greg Wyshynski ‏@wyshynski

Recchi and Jagr. Two NHL greats that veer to the owners' side of the CBA debate. And, not coincidentally, two owners.

Jack Todd ‏@jacktodd46

Very disappointed in our old friend Mark Recchi. He's basically telling players to fold. NHL will take this as a sign players will give up.

Adam Proteau ‏@Proteautype

Mark Recchi believes the CBA offers from owners will only get worse for NHL players? Interesting theory, but demonstrably untrue.
__________________
Recchi started at a salary of $105K in 1989. 2 yrs. He got a 662% raise to $800K and 13% more to 900K the next year. Another bump of 72% to $1.55 MM by '93.

Strike.

100%, 14% and 12% raises to $2.1, 2.45, 2.75 MM consecutively.

64% and 11% raises to $4.5MM then $5 MM for the next five years.

Lockout.

$2.28 x 2 yrs, $1.75, 1.25, 1 and 1 MM to end his career.

Career earnings of $50.94 MM. 72% of those earnings came during the Goodenow led years.

It would appear though that Recchi had to put in a long run of cheap RFA years, then wait to get his 'due' once he became an UFA. Under a capped system and a lower UFA age, that money naturally migrated to younger and better players.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/search...earchdbdisplay

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:02 PM
  #148
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
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.

The NHLPA had decided they didn't mind the terms and conditions of the old CBA, for the most part, although one might say they could be convinced that some things (like the cap massaging) hurts the players equally as it does the teams.

Thus only one party wanted to change the CBA, and usually the guys who want to change the status quo are the ones who either strike or proceed with a lockout.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:07 PM
  #149
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
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?

Actually, the more I think about revenue sharing and any system that presupposes that competitive parity quickly follows economic evening, the more I dislike it. I thus conclude that all the pro leagues are realistically too big (excepting the NFL for the most part since all their TV money is national).


I once again revert to my contractionist mode and declare that an ideal league size is big enough to actually be considered 'national' in representation, while being small enough that all members compete all the members equally in number of appearances.

Edit: I should add that MLB has accepted a system where revenues are maximized in the biggest markets, thus overall, making that it's holy grail [apparently].

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:10 PM
  #150
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 9,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Recchi knows as much about economics as he does medicine apparently.
I bet he knows exactly how much salary he lost in the last lockout.

And he knows that he NEVER got that money back, and like he said, the money is always there, the players are going to get it. (but only if the play ya see...)

Butch 19 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 01:29 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.