HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Owner-Player meeting only, no Bettman or Fehr (UPD: 12/4 in NYC)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2012, 11:23 AM
  #251
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Number of people on each side doesn't matter because the split will be the same under any agreement. What the side gains will be split the same, what they lose will be split the same.

***

Players should have said enough on October 26th when it was clear that by allowing any games to be cancelled, they would inevitably make less money than if they took the deal (sure, they should have fought for the contracting stuff in the time they had and seen what they could have gotten, but that was secondary). That reality for them is compounded by the fact now that future HRR is probably going to take some hit as a result of this.

***

Will the pie need resplit in 6-8 years? We'll see. But that shouldn't have any bearing on what happens in this negotiation. The fact is, about half the owners in the league are hurting right now while players are doing better than ever. No other sports league in NA was paying more than 50% of revenue. The objective of both sides in every negotiation should be "how do we allocate our resources to have the healthiest, fastest growing product we can?" Scaring the other side into not asking for concessions from you has nothing to do with helping achieve that goal.

So if in 6 years teams are failing, you see what you can do to fix it. Players get half their jobs from owners who pay out of their own pocket just to keep their teams afloat. If players aren't interested in helping those folks, they don't know their own self-interest.

***

If I'm a small market owner, I don't believe decertification is going to move past the "look at us we're really gonna do it" stage. The players will never go through with it. They'll be endangering 100% of what they make to fight for something like 5% for only a couple years.
I differ on a couple of things here.

1) HRR will take a hit, but this is a loss to both sides, some people really only focus on the players losing money. I read somewhere the leafs and Habs made almost $400M between them in the past 3 years (sure they're the 2 biggest but they're losing a boatload)

2) The pie being split again is a huge deal. A significant number of players will be a part of the next one too. Although the league argues the last CBA is over and you don't use it in negotiations. Next CBA they will try to cut from 50/50 (or whatever they agree to), if it were 60/40, it would be worked off that number. These percentages never really disappear for this reason, not that I believe it's worth losing a season for.

3) Decertification - do I think it will ever come to be? no. That being said, I think it helps the players more than the owners. They're used to paying medical/travel/hotels etc... so why would they stop if they want to be competitive? Just let your team fail? The issue is the owners are screwing the owners here. if i'm a mid range player 20g-30a-50pts and I want $X guaranteed with benefits, you think Vancouver, LA (b/c of their success), Philly, Pitts etc.. won't give me whatever I want? (Ask Minnesota) The small markets have to try to compete with the big markets. The big markets, I believe don't care about this CBA and want to play b/c they're making money regardless. Do the big markets want higher profits? Absolutely, but have no interest in protecting the small teams. They'll destroy them if they had the chance.

Suggestion to the players to protect another lockout, every contract should ask for signing bonuses to be handed out 1-2 months after the next CBA ends.

Steve is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:46 PM
  #252
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I differ on a couple of things here.

1) HRR will take a hit, but this is a loss to both sides, some people really only focus on the players losing money. I read somewhere the leafs and Habs made almost $400M between them in the past 3 years (sure they're the 2 biggest but they're losing a boatload)

2) The pie being split again is a huge deal. A significant number of players will be a part of the next one too. Although the league argues the last CBA is over and you don't use it in negotiations. Next CBA they will try to cut from 50/50 (or whatever they agree to), if it were 60/40, it would be worked off that number. These percentages never really disappear for this reason, not that I believe it's worth losing a season for.

3) Decertification - do I think it will ever come to be? no. That being said, I think it helps the players more than the owners. They're used to paying medical/travel/hotels etc... so why would they stop if they want to be competitive? Just let your team fail? The issue is the owners are screwing the owners here. if i'm a mid range player 20g-30a-50pts and I want $X guaranteed with benefits, you think Vancouver, LA (b/c of their success), Philly, Pitts etc.. won't give me whatever I want? (Ask Minnesota) The small markets have to try to compete with the big markets. The big markets, I believe don't care about this CBA and want to play b/c they're making money regardless. Do the big markets want higher profits? Absolutely, but have no interest in protecting the small teams. They'll destroy them if they had the chance.

Suggestion to the players to protect another lockout, every contract should ask for signing bonuses to be handed out 1-2 months after the next CBA ends.
(1) Both sides lose, but players lose more because they make more. Period. When both sides are fighting over $5, and one side loses $1 by fighting and the other side loses $10 by fighting, the side that should cave is the side that will lose more than $5 by fighting.

(2) Not quite sure what you're trying to contradict here.

(3) You're right that players will have an upper hand in bidding wars when there's no union, but my point was that the league will basically have to contract if it's just Wild West rules on who gets paid what. It doesn't matter who that hurts more at that point - what matters is whether the union will be better off than if they just take the deal on the table now. I think a no CBA league will be a disaster for all parties involved at that point. Sports leagues work because they seldom resort to pure economic competition - they're a quasi-free market manipulated to the extent necessary to keep 30 competitive teams on board. Get rid of collective bargaining, and I think you see the gulf between that haves and the have-nots take control to the extent that a number of teams become unviable - first competitively, and then economically.


Last edited by haseoke39: 12-01-2012 at 01:07 PM.
haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 02:40 PM
  #253
UsernameWasTaken
HFBoards Sponsor
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,310
vCash: 500
Sabres players not interested in meeting owners

http://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/sab...eeting-owners/

Quote:
“I’m not going to be there,” defenseman Jordan Leopold, the Sabres’ union representative, said after skating inside the Northtown Center. “I don’t want any part of it.”

He added: “I think it’s funny we have Don Fehr on our side. After two years, he seems to get under the owners’ skin. They want to remove one for one. I don’t know where this will lead us. It’s an interesting concept.”

Sabres winger Thomas Vanek said the potential meeting’s a PR sham.

“I don’t know what that would help,” Vanek said. “They have a guy in place in Gary. They pay him. We have a guy in place in Don. That should be good enough. I think just another PR stunt to show that they’re trying to do anything.

“But once it really comes down to (it), it’s just a lack of respect (for) our contracting rights and stuff. It’s beyond me that they’re even talking about that stuff.”

Sabres captain Jason Pominville, who’s leaving to play with the DEL’s Mannheim Eagles in Germany, doesn’t like the idea much, although he’d try it.

“Gary’s been there for 18 years,” Pominville said. “Now we have Don who’s a solid representative. He knows what he’s doing, and we’ve worked hard to get him to where we’re at now. I mean, why would we want to meet without him there?

“I’m not totally for it. But if it can help, might as well try it. But I don’t know if it’s the best way to do it.”

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 02:45 PM
  #254
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So you're saying that players are not able to make smart decisions in the NHLPA negotiations?

Why do you think players have agents and a union leader?

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 02:46 PM
  #255
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,251
vCash: 500
NHL will like those quotes. When they are in the court fighting NHLPA's decertifying...

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:30 PM
  #256
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Without a doubt.

I'm sure all the owners want more money, but some should be rewarded for refusing to hand out those stupid contracts. I can't believe only 7 people need to agree to lock people out, seems unbelieveable to me.

I'm also sure there are a decent amount of players who want to play, I'm sure they all want to limit their losses but want to play with a "fair" deal (not great deal)

Small market owners have had their chance and no luck, let the big market owners get it solved with a combination of players - maybe some GM's too??
Well you have to add in Gary. That's why the lockout is all on him and not the owners. If Gary likes the deal and accepts he just needs 7 to agree with him and it may not be the seven he has onside now. Anybody who says the lockout is not Gary's doing doesn't understand he has the power not the owners.

Confucius is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:30 PM
  #257
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post

Why do you think players have agents and a union leader?
Agreed, and the owners would be unable to compete in a professional hockey game. This is why the players play and the owners work with the PA leaders.

Steve is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:35 PM
  #258
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 5,848
vCash: 500
So, in case i missed it-have the players given a response to the NHL yet about this idea?

Tinalera is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:37 PM
  #259
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
So, in case i missed it-have the players given a response to the NHL yet about this idea?
Nope. Typical nhlpa.

Crows* is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:39 PM
  #260
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 5,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Nope. Typical nhlpa.
Thanks-my gut says they end up saying no thanks-or they say "yea, but NHL doesn't get to pick the players AND NHL reps, players get to pick NHL reps"

to which the NHL will say no IMO.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:43 PM
  #261
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Well you have to add in Gary. That's why the lockout is all on him and not the owners. If Gary likes the deal and accepts he just needs 7 to agree with him and it may not be the seven he has onside now. Anybody who says the lockout is not Gary's doing doesn't understand he has the power not the owners.
If a person believes that Gary Bettman would agree to lockout players while ownership disagrees by a 23-7 vote, and that's what you presume is happening, I don't even know if we should bother debating anything with that person.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:43 PM
  #262
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
Thanks-my gut says they end up saying no thanks-or they say "yea, but NHL doesn't get to pick the players AND NHL reps, players get to pick NHL reps"

to which the NHL will say no IMO.
Just shows how arrogant the league is. Basically saying we don't want to deal with your representative. We want to deal with you players directly. Not only that we want to deal with this guy and this guy and this guy. So what do you say?

Here kitty kitty kitty, nice kitty....

Confucius is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:43 PM
  #263
UsernameWasTaken
HFBoards Sponsor
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Nope. Typical nhlpa.
they've probably decided...but fehr's has been on his coffee break for the past few hours and hasn't had time to call gary.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:47 PM
  #264
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Nope. Typical nhlpa.
FYI, according to Dregger, they have been in contact this afternoon.

Steve is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 03:47 PM
  #265
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Just shows how arrogant the league is. Basically saying we don't want to deal with your representative. We want to deal with you players directly. Not only that we want to deal with this guy and this guy and this guy. So what do you say?

Here kitty kitty kitty, nice kitty....
Wait, has the league told anything about which players to want to meet with or are you just making stuff up? Bettman suggested that the OWNERS and the PLAYERS should meet, without Bettman, Daly or Fehr brothers.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:08 PM
  #266
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Well you have to add in Gary. That's why the lockout is all on him and not the owners. If Gary likes the deal and accepts he just needs 7 to agree with him and it may not be the seven he has onside now. Anybody who says the lockout is not Gary's doing doesn't understand he has the power not the owners.
He needs a majority to agree to accept. He needs 7 to reject. Big difference.

He clearly does not have the power as the owners hold the stick. He can be fired by a simple majority. If he only had 7 owners in support, I am pretty sure dismissal would be on the table. It would make no sense for him to be carrying the banner for a small minority.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:10 PM
  #267
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Nope. Typical nhlpa.
700 players all over the world that want a say and to be filled in on what this means, and what their strategy should be. Takes time.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:11 PM
  #268
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 14,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Well you have to add in Gary. That's why the lockout is all on him and not the owners. If Gary likes the deal and accepts he just needs 7 to agree with him and it may not be the seven he has onside now. Anybody who says the lockout is not Gary's doing doesn't understand he has the power not the owners.
You do know that all 30 owners voted in favor of this lock-out, right?

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:11 PM
  #269
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
He needs a majority to agree to accept. He needs 7 to reject. Big difference.

He clearly does not have the power as the owners hold the stick. He can be fired by a simple majority. If he only had 7 owners in support, I am pretty sure dismissal would be on the table. It would make no sense for him to be carrying the banner for a small minority.
A lot of absentee owners in the NHL.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:14 PM
  #270
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
A lot of absentee owners in the NHL.
Not really. They may not be active in labor negotiations but most are active in one way or another in the operation of their teams and in communication with the league on a regular basis.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:22 PM
  #271
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
They may not be active in labor negotiations
That's what I'm getting at. It makes it pretty easy for the 8 hardliners that show up for all these meetings when there are only 4 other people in the room.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:55 PM
  #272
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 5,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Wait, has the league told anything about which players to want to meet with or are you just making stuff up? Bettman suggested that the OWNERS and the PLAYERS should meet, without Bettman, Daly or Fehr brothers.
Have to see if I can find the link, but I thought last night when this was mentioned, that the NHL owners wanted to pick both the players AND their own representatives. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT: It may have been a blurb that appeared briefly as speculation, and I interpreted it as "fact"-can't find anything on TSN that says owners want to pick reps for both sides.

So apologies for possible misinformation on that part.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 04:58 PM
  #273
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
That's what I'm getting at. It makes it pretty easy for the 8 hardliners that show up for all these meetings when there are only 4 other people in the room.
With the headlines the lockout is receiving, you can bet that every owner on the sidelines is very well aware of what is going on, even if they don't agree. When they voted to lockout, there weren't any absentees either. At this point, I don't assume all owners are in agreement, but I do assume that the majority still support a lockout. Possibly a narrow majority but still a majority. If slightly more than a narrow majority were opposed, there would be a big push on both Bettman and Jacobs.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:08 PM
  #274
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
With the headlines the lockout is receiving, you can bet that every owner on the sidelines is very well aware of what is going on, even if they don't agree. When they voted to lockout, there weren't any absentees either. At this point, I don't assume all owners are in agreement, but I do assume that the majority still support a lockout. Possibly a narrow majority but still a majority. If slightly more than a narrow majority were opposed, there would be a big push on both Bettman and Jacobs.
Owners have said that neither the hardliners nor the moderates could rally the numbers necessary to make a deal. Owners have said the BOG was deadlocked.

What that means:
The camp Bettman supports, doesn't have 16 owners.
The camp Bettman doesn't support, doesn't have 23 owners.

Erik Estrada is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 05:16 PM
  #275
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
Owners have said that neither the hardliners nor the moderates could rally the numbers necessary to make a deal. Owners have said the BOG was deadlocked.

What that means:
The camp Bettman supports, doesn't have 16 owners.
The camp Bettman doesn't support, doesn't have 23 owners.
Link?

SJeasy is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:48 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.