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
The league selected those markets and are asking the players to compensate the owners for poor league choices. I agree that reducing your biggest expense is the easiest way of fixing it but the league is exacerbating the problem with five year contract limits and the other player contracting issues. Those aren't necessary beyond what fixes cap circumvention. They're both talking revenue sharing now and it must be a linked 50-50, but the markets that the league has decided to put teams in has contributed to the league's financial position. And these additional CBA complications are demands by the league.
The league and the players both agreed to expand to markets to grow the game. One of the NHLPA members has actually been one of the most vocal individuals for keeping the team in Phoenix. The owners are also the ones covering the losses, either directly or through revenue sharing, to give players increased salary caused by revenue from these teams.
There are also good hockey markets that are still struggling, because of the system. Bringing down player expenses isn't just the easiest option. It's the only option, or we start talking about league contraction and player job loss.
The contract limits are there for a reason. The term limit is for insurance purposes. The variance limit is for cap circumvention. The shorter ELC is to better match production and salary in any given year, and it can even help the players.
UFA age could be argued, though it is supposed to be there to increase league parity, which has been a big part of increased revenues over the last CBA. So it is questionable whether it hurts or helps the players.
What a lot of players don't seem to realize is, the better off the owners and the league are, the better off the players are.
I did work on playoff performance. It did not go far back into the 90s, late 90s and later. The top performers at forward were very predominantly pre-27 and cup winners only. I am old, over 60. Some of the research to which I am referring was done as far back as the 50s and 60s. The reaction time stuff is from pinball type setups (eye/hand and eye/foot) that was related to measuring braking times/reaction in vehicles (I was one of many test subjects). It also studied the effect of alcohol on those times. I got it while studying psychology. It is not stuff that I grabbed off the internet.
I am aware of the background for what you present. It is stuff that is considered axiomatic from some GMs. I don't know all of the background, but the axioms spurred some of my own investigation which was in part aimed at the age composition of winning teams.
Another small piece for you is that there is a Finnish medical study stating that there is medical evidence for almost universal deterioration of groin and hip at age 31 for professional goalies. Tim Thomas is very much an outlier. I did check for the generational goalies and did find decline at that age despite their continuing play, Roy, Brodeur, etc.
I am not sure I trust research from the 50s and 60s done for other purposes, to evaluate hockey where updated research has said the opposite and the current facts don't support it.
Even if you did find this research about goalies at 31, and even if it is true, that is not 27, and that still doesn't mean they drop off a cliff. And what happened to only talking about forwards?
All of this is irrelevant anyway, because GMs have always paid for past performance. The only thing this data would mean if it was true, is that there is more reason to implement stricter contract rules, because players will not fulfill the long term contracts they sign.
The players will essentially get what they want, unless the marginal players are able to force them to settle.
If this goes into next season, the players will gain leverage. Yeah, most of them will be playing for less, but they'll still be making money. Meanwhile, the value of NHL franchises will be swirling around the bowl. "Hey, wanna buy my NHL franchise? We haven't actually played a game for a couple years... but it's a real good deal... just ask Uncle Gary! Uh, no we had to fire the staff... and not sure which of our players are coming back... yeah, merchandise sales are a little slow... don't worry about the lease agreement, we'll figure that out later."
Fehr ain't no dummy... and it wasn't the players pocketing franchise fees for a bunch of sun belt teams... or winning the battle during the last lockout, but still managing to lose the war.
Here's hoping for contraction, to get rid of some bad owners, marginal players (to the AHL), a better product and lessons learned all around.
I am not sure I trust research from the 50s and 60s done for other purposes, to evaluate hockey where updated research has said the opposite and the current facts don't support it.
Even if you did find this research about goalies at 31, and even if it is true, that is not 27, and that still doesn't mean they drop off a cliff. And what happened to only talking about forwards?
All of this is irrelevant anyway, because GMs have always paid for past performance. The only thing this data would mean if it was true, is that there is more reason to implement stricter contract rules, because players will not fulfill the long term contracts they sign.
Your loss.
I am trying to give you the benefit of info that I have acquired over time and through some research of my own. I even give points which support your conclusions rather than present a one-sided argument.
The one area where we part ways is that I incorporate a team performance metric into my analysis. I do not strictly go off points. And the team performance metric takes a very different slant.
A reminder on my stance, I would be all for a direct pay for performance system over the Rube Goldberg design that is pro-sports. Pro-sports compensation has become more and more about perception rather than performance as the years go by.
I am trying to give you the benefit of info that I have acquired over time and through some research of my own. I even give points which support your conclusions rather than present a one-sided argument.
The one area where we part ways is that I incorporate a team performance metric into my analysis. I do not strictly go off points. And the team performance metric takes a very different slant.
A reminder on my stance, I would be all for a direct pay for performance system over the Rube Goldberg design that is pro-sports. Pro-sports compensation has become more and more about perception rather than performance as the years go by.
Would be interested in these team metrics, though I still don't really think this research applies anymore. Nothing against you as an individual, it's just 60-year old research is bad enough as it is, but 60-year old research on an ever-changing sport is so much worse. And current observations contradict you.
Fehr was brought in as an adviser to the NHLPA late summer 2009 (possibly in August) after he left his position in the MLB . I do not believe there was an exact date, but he was there in Kelly's final months.
"It's difficult to predict who the next NHLPA executive director will be. The committee members seem to want former Major League Baseball players union boss Donald Fehr, who has been acting as an unpaid advisor for nearly a year."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu
Fehr retired in June of 2009.
The NHLPA brought him in in November of 2009 as an unpaid consultant:
Kelly was fired in August of 2009. Penny resigned Oct 31, 2009.
Fehr was announced as a consultant in Nov 2009. It has been stated however, that as early as Sept 10th 2009 Fehr's name surfaced
Quote:
However, sources say Fehr was conferenced in to a meeting in Chicago on Monday, following Paul Kelly's firing as executive director.
Sources say the PA's executive board, advisory board and interim executive director, Ian Penny wanted Fehr's advice on how the group should proceed in the search for Kelly's replacement.
FWIW (Take it as you will) this was from Damien Cox:
Quote:
First, former baseball union head Don Fehr, who was on the phone with members of the coup later in the same day that Kelly was fired, became a consultant for the NHLPA. He’d been denied a spot on the advisory committee on Kelly’s recommendation several months earlier.
I would ask where Cox got the info (three years later) on the timing of a phone call. It's pretty clear that he was invited in after Kelly was fired. Some like to imply he actually had some direct hand it, which would be odd seeing he was finishing up things with the MLBPA and taking a severance package of $11 million.
The infighting that existed with the NHLPA is well-documented so making it out as something nefarious from Fehr is stretching it a bit, bordering even on something worse.
I would ask where Cox got the info (three years later) on the timing of a phone call. It's pretty clear that he was invited in after Kelly was fired. Some like to imply he actually had some direct hand it, which would be odd seeing he was finishing up things with the MLBPA and taking a severance package of $11 million.
I think a lot of that speculation is because of where Ian Penny landed (MLBPA) after leaving the PA. Personally, and FTR I'm pro-Kelly, I don't believe or see any ill-reason that Fehr was behind any of it. If anything, Penny et al had their sights on Fehr as Paul Kelly's replacement prior to Aug 31 2009? Yes. Fehr actively playing a part in the process? No.
I think a lot of that speculation is because of where Ian Penny landed (MLBPA) after leaving the PA. Personally, and FTR I'm pro-Kelly, I don't believe or see any ill-reason that Fehr was behind any of it. If anything, Penny et al had their sights on Fehr as Paul Kelly's replacement prior to Aug 31 2009? Yes. Fehr actively playing a part in the process? No.
Someone with sports PA experience is probably most employable in another PA position. You see it on the other side, with Bettman coming over from the NBA. All of these people know each other as well (and their law firms).
Agreed. I think many have seized (on the surface) the irony in it. Like some and the machinations that Bettman will go back to the NBA after Stern leaves in 2014.
What a lot of players don't seem to realize is, the better off the owners and the league are, the better off the players are.
What you don't seem to realize is owners of businesses are responsible for running that business effectively in order to make money. The NHL has left so much money on the table because of poor business decisions, both the league and teams, that have cost the players a lot of money. The NHL let the play in the league deteriorate for 10+ years, to the point where one of its biggest stars ever retired because of it and even huge fans didn't want to watch it. How much money is that costing players right now?
How much more money would both sides make if they had built the arena in the right city in Arizona?
How much money would both sides make if Columbus could have hired one good hockey man to run that side of their business in their existence?
How much money could both sides have made if Florida had made the playoffs more than 3 of the 18 seasons they've played?
etc, etc, etc
It's not up to the players to make the NHL money, that's what the suits are for.
What you don't seem to realize is owners of businesses are responsible for running that business effectively in order to make money. The NHL has left so much money on the table because of poor business decisions, both the league and teams, that have cost the players a lot of money. The NHL let the play in the league deteriorate for 10+ years, to the point where one of its biggest stars ever retired because of it and even huge fans didn't want to watch it. How much money is that costing players right now?
How much more money would both sides make if they had built the arena in the right city in Arizona?
How much money would both sides make if Columbus could have hired one good hockey man to run that side of their business in their existence?
How much money could both sides have made if Florida had made the playoffs more than 3 of the 18 seasons they've played?
etc, etc, etc
It's not up to the players to make the NHL money, that's what the suits are for.
Casting blame is debatable and doesn't really answer any economic questions anyways. It doesn't matter how much money could be on the table if a different set of decisions were made. What matters is how you divide up the money that is on the table. The players don't get to claim a right to money the league could've made but didn't.
Casting blame is debatable and doesn't really answer any economic questions anyways. It doesn't matter how much money could be on the table if a different set of decisions were made. What matters is how you divide up the money that is on the table. The players don't get to claim a right to money the league could've made but didn't.
The only money the players are claiming a right to is there on their contracts, along with their owners signature.
The only money the players are claiming a right to is there on their contracts, along with their owners signature.
Since the end of the last lockout, contracted salary amounts have been subject to adjustment according to the percentage of revenue specified in the CBA.
Since the end of the last lockout, contracted salary amounts have been subject to adjustment according to the percentage of revenue specified in the CBA.
So because they agreed to that concession they should also be expected to take another pay cut? Do you really think they are the same thing?
But even on the old CBA they were not certain to get exactly what they signed for. That's why escrow was put in place.
I understand the system. It was put into place to give the owners cost certainty, not so they didn't have to honour those contracts. If they couldn't afford them at 57%, they shouldn't have signed them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest
Yes they are the same escrow is in place in order to guarantee the players get paid the correct amount.
Ultimately, a report was done on this shameful episode in NHLPA history, a report that has never seen the light of day or been made public.
Kelly’s dismissal set in motion a series of events.
First, former baseball union head Don Fehr, who was on the phone with members of the coup later in the same day that Kelly was fired, became a consultant for the NHLPA. He’d been denied a spot on the advisory committee on Kelly’s recommendation several months earlier.
A resounding majority of player reps voted last night by conference call to install a investigative panel of four veteran NHLers - Nicklas Lidstrom, Rob Blake, Mark Recchi and Chris Chelios - to look into the events of the past two months that have made the union the laughingstock of the hockey industry.
.................................................. ..................................
Penny.......... was asked to remove himself from last night's call and, after some discussion, he reluctantly did so. The players also declined to hear from baseball union boss Don Fehr, preferring instead to have a players only call.
I understand the system. It was put into place to give the owners cost certainty, not so they didn't have to honour those contracts. If they couldn't afford them at 57%, they shouldn't have signed them.
Yes, 57%. Anything less is a pay cut.
No changing the value of a players contract is a pay cut. Escrow does not change the value of the contract it only changes the amount that gets paid towards that contract in each year.
Plus I don't know why your arguing about something the NHL has agreed to cover. The PA keeps offering deals that need 7.2 growth to reach 50/50 and yet they are now worried there might not be 5% growth. They want to have guaranteed raises with no risk.
I understand the system. It was put into place to give the owners cost certainty, not so they didn't have to honour those contracts. If they couldn't afford them at 57%, they shouldn't have signed them.
Yes, 57%. Anything less is a pay cut.
Actually, if league revenues increased beyond $3.732 billion, 50% would be a pay increase.
You said: "The only money the players are claiming a right to is there on their contracts, along with their owners signature."
I was just pointing out that the dollar figure on their contracts have been subject to adjustment, up or down, for the past 7 seasons.
And just like the owners are well within their right to ask for more of HRR, the players are well within their right to try and rectify that situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney
Actually, if league revenues increased beyond $3.732 billion, 50% would be a pay increase.
You're right. And teams would still lose money and keep coming back to the players to make up for their own ineptitude.
No changing the value of a players contract is a pay cut. Escrow does not change the value of the contract it only changes the amount that gets paid towards that contract in each year.
Escrow is the fund the players pay into, HRR effects the money that players get paid on their contracts. Decreasing the players percentage of HRR would see them get paid significantly less money than they just signed for, in some cases days or months before the CBA expired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest
Plus I don't know why your arguing about something the NHL has agreed to cover. The PA keeps offering deals that need 7.2 growth to reach 50/50 and yet they are now worried there might not be 5% growth. They want to have guaranteed raises with no risk.
If you followed the conversation before you jumped in, I wasn't arguing about that at all. You've chosen to take me to task on a poorly worded, but easily understood comment.
And just like the owners are well within their right to ask for more of HRR, the players are well within their right to try and rectify that situation.
You're right.
Problem being one side is trying to keep a sports league healthy and the other is just being greedy and trying to tell us it about principle.
