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.
The retired NHLer and former NHLPA ombudsman wasn’t overly optimistic when asked to give his opinion during a break in the action at the Mike Keane Celebrity Hockey Classic on Thursday afternoon.
“Mine is going to differ from someone on the owner’s side, that’s for sure,” said Lindros, who retired in November of 2007 following a career that was cut short by injuries. “There’s nothing the players are getting out of this (prospective) agreement. They’re giving. It’s just how much are they going to give. I’m a bit frustrated with it.”
Lindros can’t believe that after getting a salary cap and significant rollback in 2005 that the owners are asking players to take less money once again, especially after watching record revenues grow $1 billion since the last lockout.
“The players are willing to go to 50% (of hockey related revenues), but they want their contracts honoured,” Lindros said. “If someone signs a deal, stick with the deal. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. I hope they can get it fixed. We miss hockey.”
In speaking to a handful of players on Thursday at the MTS Iceplex, it’s clear everyone is worried about the potential harm another lost season might have on the sport.
how ironic that the roots of 2012-13 NHL lockout can be traced back to Lindros and his henchmen sacking paul kelly which opened up the opportunity to allow donald fehr assume head of the PA...
The union named Penny as the interim executive director, and a search has begun for a full-time replacement. Sources close to the situation told NESN.com that former NHLPA associate counsel Ian Pulver, Penny and Pink are the leading candidates to take over as executive director.
Former ombudsman Eric Lindros, who is rumored to be the driving force behind Kelly’s ouster (because Kelly reportedly forced Lindros to resign in February), is also expected to come back into the fold as well.
Hargrove, Penny, Pink, Pulver and Lindros represent the old guard of the NHLPA, one that was confrontational, hard-lined and more concerned with money than the overall well-being of the union and the game. They come from a time when chaos and greed ruled the players’ association and still believe the union conceded too much after the 2004-05 lockout.
“The players are willing to go to 50% (of hockey related revenues), but they want their contracts honoured,” Lindros said. “If someone signs a deal, stick with the deal. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. I hope they can get it fixed. We miss hockey.”
I guess he's not aware of the whole Make Whole thing.
how ironic that the roots of 2012-13 NHL lockout can be traced back to Lindros and his henchmen sacking paul kelly which opened up the opportunity to allow donald fehr assume head of the PA...
I think the roots of the lockout lie with Proskauer and Rose. This lockout is also an attempt to fix the problems created by the last CBA, also forced on players.
Or are you trying to say that Lindros is responsible for the lockout? I thought NHL teams were bleeding to death, in spite of record revenues.
Really? Workers don't have a right to be paid for their services? Guess they should just be slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackStevens
Ummmm....
What?
Where is it said that they have "gain" anything out of this CBA?
Why do they need incentive to sign a CBA? Isn't being paid a ****ing paycheck enough incentive?
NHL has put what I believe is a fair offer on the table. PA keeps throwing up their BS de-linked proposal..
Link the revenues then we'll talk about contract rights, but IMO the NHL should get the contract rights they want too. Outside of the contract length limit. Its still fair.
Nowhere i've read says that a player who signed a 20 million dollar deal isn't going to get his whole 20 million. I've understood it to mean that he might get $3mil this year, 4 next 5 after that etc. But he'd get all his money.
Is there somewhere it says the owners aren't paying them the whole amount of their contract?
Where is it said that they have "gain" anything out of this CBA?
Why do they need incentive to sign a CBA? Isn't being paid a ****ing paycheck enough incentive?
NHL has put what I believe is a fair offer on the table. PA keeps throwing up their BS de-linked proposal..
Link the revenues then we'll talk about contract rights, but IMO the NHL should get the contract rights they want too. Outside of the contract length limit. Its still fair.
Why do they need a union if there is no gain or protection of their contracting rights?
Why doesn't the NHL just make it 20% of HRR. That indeed would guarantee that every single team would be 'profitable' plus they could completely dispense with revenue sharing. Come now, this is the best proposal yet. Why haven't they made it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick
Considering Lindros was partly responsible for Kelly's ousting and Fehr coming in, wouldn't expect anything less from thim.
Lindros wasn't part of the committee reviewing the PA candidates.
Nowhere i've read says that a player who signed a 20 million dollar deal isn't going to get his whole 20 million. I've understood it to mean that he might get $3mil this year, 4 next 5 after that etc. But he'd get all his money.
Is there somewhere it says the owners aren't paying them the whole amount of their contract?
As J Wellington Wimpy articulated once upon a time, quite astutely, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
Time value of money and the risk to revenue by owner-sponsored work stoppages notwithstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion
... you betcha. all the Hipsters are doin it nowadays. Best you go
get yourself some skinny jeans and get with the program Foogs.
The frustrating thing for me is the sense of entitlement on the part of the players. They are "giving back" things that they shouldn't have gotten in the first place IMO. (And I realize it was part of the last CBA negotiation - but speaking from a high level perspective).
The owners provided the audited financial statements for all the organizations. The NHLPA has had plenty of time to have their experts go through them, and if they found any "creative" accounting, it would be a serious discussion point for these CBA negotiations. Because we haven't heard anythying, I'll assume that it is true that most teams (saw reports of 18) are either losing or aren't making money.
IMO - when service company's don't make net profits, the employee's (who are typically the biggest cost) either make less or are let go. As someone who has been laid off in my past - I totally realize it sucks, but that's the way this works. And when players have seen huge growth in their average salary (and for the most part have no other real options), I don't understand why they're not negotiating. (And playing for 10% of their NHL salary in Europe isn't a real long term option. Except for the super-star in the KHL, the only change for being set for life for most NHL'ers is playing in the NHL.)
I just find it odd that the players have always known that they are not guaranteed to get the entire contract amount, based on total player compensation compared to league revenues. I totally get their anger at changing the HRR % behind the scenes to force the pay-cut through the escrow process - but then negotiate around the make-whole (or make partial if you'd rather), and be part of the process.
As I see it, the players aren't willing to give ANYTHING back at this point, except a portion of future growth in the league. In every offer they've made (AFAIK), they have asking for guaranteed raises (de-linkage), which is another HUGE issue from the owners perspective.
I'm personally pised at both parties. It just seems like the players aren't willing to pony up future growth, which IMO they weren't entitled to based on the financial performance for the league as a whole.
Why do they need a union if there is no gain or protection of their contracting rights?
Why doesn't the NHL just make it 20% of HRR. That indeed would guarantee that every single team would be 'profitable' plus they could completely dispense with revenue sharing. Come now, this is the best proposal yet. Why haven't they made it?
The Union is suppose to get the best possible deal for the players. Whether that includes GAINS for the players or managing how bad the loss is depends on the factors involved. The NHL is a league that is not big in the US, teams losing money, etc etc etc we've all been through this 1000 times..
What if Fehr keeps this BS up and they lose a season? Revenue projections go down. The offers get worse. Are the players gunna keep asking to GAIN then? If so, we may never see hockey again.
The sense of entitlement by the players is sickening.
It'll be interesting to see if there's the same backlash agaisnt this ex-player offering up his opinion as there was against other ex-players who weren't so behind the PA.
