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.
Does Anybody Here Remember Vera Lynn? (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XXVIII
He found a way to implement a cap
system and UFA without losing a game and had labor peace through out his term.
Bettman is on 1800 lost games or more and still can't get it right.
IT ENDED UP IN COURT. The players struck because the "current agreement" at that time was favorable to the league. The strike failed, the union nuked itself, there were 75,000 court cases and *individual players* won court cases that forced an agreement where the league got a cap and the players got FA. And the reason there was labor peace was that the union pretty much obliterated itself in this process.
This was hardly peace, what happened in the NFL in the late 80's is the worst case scenario for any NHL lockout. The only difference is that the prior terms are favorable to the players, instead of the league, which it was in the NFL debacle.
The sound of the real world passing by must make quite a whoosh.
(1) The NHL will have disappeared long before it gets to the point where you "couldn't give teams away." Go into any corporate boardroom in America after a couple quarters in the red and ask if you can buy the company for your pocket change. It doesn't happen. Any asset that can generate a hundred million dollars in revenue every year is worth hundreds of millions at least, on the principle that its costs can be cut and it can be made into a profitable venture. You want to know what is happening right now? The costs are being cut.
(2) The owners have perks and are doing fine? Go back to fantasy land. The median owner is losing money every year. The average franchise makes just $1.5M more than the average player, and after you split that between several owners, probably less per owner than the average player. The TV deal, the arena rights, etc. - these are all just part of the revenue stream that still adds up to a net loss. You want to know what is happening, by definition, when a company is making a net loss? Some factor of production costs more than it's economically worth to the consumers. Unless you have some great evidence that the popcorn guy is making more than he deserves, I'm gonna say it's the millionaires who make 57% of the company's total revenue.
So, Gary makes around as much as 2 or 3 NHL franchises? Not bad for just one individual.
You realize what happened before Tagliabue took office, right? Wait, why am I saying that, if you don't know why there was very little labor strife in the NFL for YEARS, you don't...
Ya there was no labor issues before PT, except the 72, 74, 82 and 87 strikes.
Does it have something to do with more NFL players coming from families that are less well off than NHL players?
NHL players have grown up in wealth, for the most part. They have that sense of entitlement that NFL players don't.
I know I'm generalizing, but I think its true for the most part.
No, it has to do with the union cracking in the 80's. It was so weak that players were doing side deals and licensing agreements. Remember the NFL QB Club?
There were players that weren't even part of the union and had their own licensing.
The NFLPA was basically non-existant for years, so the league does the dictating. Last time was the first time there was a fight since that.
He found a way to implement a cap
system and UFA without losing a game and had labor peace through out his term.
Bettman is on 1800 lost games or more and still can't get it right.
And? They are in different situations with vastly different revenues. Unless you think he could convince the owners to make a deal they arent comfortable with, or able to work magic on the PA and get them to agree to something they wont now, then they cant really be compared.
IT ENDED UP IN COURT. The players struck because the "current agreement" at that time was favorable to the league. The strike failed, the union nuked itself, there were 75,000 court cases and *individual players* won court cases that forced an agreement where the league got a cap and the players got FA. And the reason there was labor peace was that the union pretty much obliterated itself in this process.
This was hardly peace, what happened in the NFL in the late 80's is the worst case scenario for any NHL lockout. The only difference is that the prior terms are favorable to the players, instead of the league, which it was in the NFL debacle.
I already covered the litigation angle from the NFLPA and how PT bridged the gap to bring labor peace to the NFL.
I already covered the litigation angle from the NFLPA and how PT bridged the gap to bring labor peace to the NFL.
There was no gap bridged. The NFL lost a court case and it was dangerous to continue down that path.
There was no CBA from the 87 strike until the McNeil case verdict in 89. You are making this out to be some kind of peaceful resolution when it is a worst case scenario in labor negotiations.
The major difference was that the original terms favored the owners so they continued to play under them. That's it.
Making 2 years of bickering and litigation and the utter destruction of a players union into a peaceful scenario, I am not quite sure how you can do that.
Read the post I wrote above. There was nothing "all good" about that at all, and the 87 issue lasted all the way to 1989.
The issues began in 74 and were never fully resolved until PT finally mended fences on both sides and negotiated a deal that was renewed several times.
The issues began in 74 and were never fully resolved until PT finally mended fences on both sides and negotiated a deal that was renewed several times.
Because the union was destroyed. Not that it was strong in the first place. It's easy to make deals when there is no other party to make them with. You can't tell me that the QB's can go make their own licensing agreement, would be the sign of a very strong union.
I think NFL players being less greedy (or maybe pushovers) is more of the reason for labor peace in the NFL
Its pretty crazy the most successful, by far, sport in America has the players getting the worst CBA out of the major sports.
Is that a credit to the commish? Or is it because the NFL players aren't so greedy?
They barely have a three year career on average. They can't afford to lose 33%-50% of career earnings on 'principle' like the NHLPA apparently can.
Also, the NFL got it's league-wide revenue sharing and non-guaranteed contracts under very unique circumstances where teams were constantly folding so any leadership that owuld keep the league stable was welcome. The hard cap was added in the 90's with after a massive fight (actually I thought it wasn't that bad, I defer to guyincognito on this because I'm not a lifelong NFL fan).
The NFL also removes operating expenses from the total revenue before sharing it with the players. The players get certain shares of different revenues...for example they get 55% of TV/radio, 45% of licensed mechandising, but only 40% of local revenues.
It all adds up to a 48% of the football revenue. Compared to this the NHL players would be getting a deal at 50/50, however they spin it.
So to summarize:
-NFL makes more money than the NHL
-NHL players get more % of the money
-NHL players get guaranteed contracts, NFL does not
-NHL pension is better
-NHL career is longer
Last edited by mossey3535: 11-14-2012 at 09:16 PM.
Reason: corrected on cap implementation
If you go by Botta's tweet, they'd cancel up to December 15 first, then the season if there's nothing by December 15. That's a hard deadline to me.
Again, nobody including the NHLPA is going to take a December 15 deadline seriously when the '95 deadline was mid-January basically, and the '04 drop dead date was mid-February. I'd like to see the NHL try it just to see Fehr pontificate about artificial deadlines one more time
There was no gap bridged. The NFL lost a court case and it was dangerous to continue down that path.
There was no CBA from the 87 strike until the McNeil case verdict in 89. You are making this out to be some kind of peaceful resolution when it is a worst case scenario in labor negotiations.
The major difference was that the original terms favored the owners so they continued to play under them. That's it.
Making 2 years of bickering and litigation and the utter destruction of a players union into a peaceful scenario, I am not quite sure how you can do that.
Plan B was deemed illegal, but as I already covered, it was White's case that brought both sides back to the bargaining table. This is when PT negotiated the deal that FINALLY brought labor peace to the NFL and was renewed up to 2008.
The problem with this approach is that the "real" deadline is when it becomes impractical to have a partial season. We're still a long ways before reaching that point.
Any attempts by the NHL to create an artificial deadline will be justifiably recognized as such by the PA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26
Again, nobody including the NHLPA is going to take a December 15 deadline seriously when the '95 deadline was mid-January basically, and the '04 drop dead date was mid-February. I'd like to see the NHL try it just to see Fehr pontificate about artificial deadlines one more time
The thing with that is that once the NHL says there's to be no season, there's to be no season. Bettman would simply tell the arenas that there wouldn't be any games this year and to fill the dates as need be; following that, there wouldn't be enough room on or flexibility in the arenas' schedules to fit any sort of season in.
I don't expect to hear about any official meetings until the next batch of games are cancelled. We'll likely see negotiations start again a few days after that, as has been the norm so far. I would think both sides know the drop-dead date is coming and are meeting internally to figure out which parts of their platforms are must-haves and which ones can be given up as concessions.
But your post did so say "so no team loses money", not all teams except Pheonix. Also I think the NHL has already gone past what a lot of teams are comfortable with and probably has only slightly raised the bar on teams being profitable.
Contract rights will only impact a small % of current players anyways so why does the NHLPA want to hang their hat on it at the risk of a season that will effect all players.
Look, I am not taking either side but if you, or anyone for that matter thinks that the NHL is on the up and up and the Union is completely at fault, you are wrong.
Both sides are at fault and the NHL needs to make the best offer they can possibly make where teams are profitable, players take the most minimal hit possible, and put out the ultimatum that it's either this, or no season.
I know the NHL can do better and so can the Union. The time for posturing is over. Time to crap or get off the pot.
I thought they would have a deal in October, than I thought early November, but now I'm thinking the season is pretty much done. Good job players, good job following a guy that has some how drilled it into your head that you lost the last CBA. For following a leader that doesn't "crunch the numbers" on a proposal he gives to the league. To me, that's a red flag to take a step back and say, "Wait a second. This guy is leading us?". Way to follow a guy that consistently shows up to important negotiations late. For following a guy who puts a proposal on the table that includes 5% growth, but scoffs at the league when they put 5% growth for the make whole. Thanks for following a guy that is putting a black eye on the sport. Good job. What a bunch of sheep.
It's because the union is too weak to do anything about anything.
It's this type of metality that is going to lead hockey players over a cliff. If baseball players are so strong willed during CBA talks why are they receiving the least % of the big 4? Nonsense.
well, arent you just stereotyping 
