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.
Owner-Player meeting only, no Bettman or Fehr (UPD: 12/4 in NYC)
How do you know this is what he means when his words suggest otherwise?
Using the history of his posts and his general mindset to infer a certain position?
edit: Plus, his post simply refers to the fact that the owners have a moral responsibility to help the struggling lower revenue franchises after accepting those 100 million dollar expansion fees by paying for it themselves.
It was my post that refers to the revenue sharing in that they're not just pocketing the revenue but redistributing it.
The owners are fighting the players over who gets to pay for their poor management decisions and poor market selection & support/development. Of course, being very astute businessmen, they're going to try to make the players pay for most of it.
Walking down a two way street there.
Without those decisions some of these players wouldn't have jobs and they certainly wouldn't be making as much money.
Using the history of his posts and his general mindset to infer a certain position?
edit: Plus, his post simply refers to the fact that the owners have a moral responsibility to help the struggling lower revenue franchises after accepting those 100 million dollar expansion fees by paying for it themselves.
It was my post that refers to the revenue sharing in that they're not just pocketing the revenue but redistributing it.
yes, understood. Now. How do we know that the recipients in some cases havent cooked their books in order to qualify, as has been reported in several notorious cases through creative means & measures in actually purchasing tickets themselves, shuffling paper around, pocketing RS proceeds and or as was the case with Moyes in Phoenix, using it to prop up external business operations?
Without those decisions some of these players wouldn't have jobs and they certainly wouldn't be making as much money.
I understand that some might not have jobs, but that still doesn't make it a good business decision. As for how much the remaining players would make, you'd still have a fixed number of roster spots with teams competing for their services. The remainder might not take much of hit, if any.
The owners are fighting the players over who gets to pay for their poor management decisions and poor market selection & support/development. Of course, being very astute businessmen, they're going to try to make the players pay for most of it.
Every employee of every business on the planet pays for the mistakes of management. Why should NHL players be different?
Every employee of every business on the planet pays for the mistakes of management. Why should NHL players be different?
Because they are the business, and the main reason people watch. The NHL doesn't exist without them; the McDonald's around the corner does and will exist without the top 700 chefs/ cashiers in the world.
This is according to Bettman. Fehr would argue Bettman didn't table a "real" offer until last October proving he had not interest in "negotiating". Both can claim the same thing. I think with the demands of the owners, this was destined for a lockout regardless.
Its not about when the first offer came in, the league invited the players to the bargaining table basically a full year ago. The fact is, and I say fact because this is truth and not speculation, is the players showed absolutely zero interest in beginning negotiations on a new CBA until after they were locked out.
Agreed 100%. Bottom line is.. owners own, players play. The owners are the owners because they know business. They know how to make it run and they know how to make themselves rich. Greedy you say? Sure that's fine and obviously that is a reality. But they also bring tons of revenue for a city, not to mention they employ plenty of people and help them make end meet. The players play because that's what they are good at. So why don't the two sides just do what they do best?
Players need to just gave reality and accept how the owners view the business and economics. If they did that, guaranteed they would concede on contract stuff. Im no professional negotiator, but seems to me all along the NHL has been very obvious and up front about what they want. Fehr and PA don't seem to have a clue.
yet the owners insist on a structure whereby the players (who have absolutely no say in how the business is run) are forced to have their salary attached to the revenue associated with how the business runs.
i 100% agree that the owners are the best ones to decide how to run their own businesses. let's dump the cap and let the brilliant owners show their acumen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu
Because normal businesses get rid of failing units. The NHL wishes to perpetuate them, but have the players foot that particular bill.
Lose/lose.
to say the least.
not only that...but the NHL has insisted on a structure (that i'm sure the 3 teams tossing out the mass majority of the $ don't love) and now expect the players to pay back % to deal with the "system failure"
Because normal businesses get rid of failing units. The NHL wishes to perpetuate them, but have the players foot that particular bill.
Lose/lose.
Wrong on all accounts. Who benefits the most from non-hockey markets possessing teams? The players: they get an enormous portion of the revenue those markets create. As 50/50 seems to be the way most north american leagues are going, removing the small market teams from the nhl simply gives the players the same percentage of a smaller pie.
Because normal businesses get rid of failing units. The NHL wishes to perpetuate them, but have the players foot that particular bill.
Lose/lose.
That makes no sense.
If NHL was a normal business, 1-3 teams would be contracted and PA would lose 25-75 members. NHLPA members made 1.89B last season, if 3 teams shut down, NHLPA members would be getting ~90M LESS (rough estimate based on 60M average revenue of those 3 teams).
So how exactly do the players foot the bill for "NHL wishes to perpetuate them"?
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?
Well dealing with their guy hasn't had very good results to date now has it (simply based on the fact that no CBA has been signed)? Also, if the players refuse to meet with the owners without Fehr, how's that going to look when they try and dissolve?
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Show me where the PA has accepted 50/50. Or are you going to show me where the PA has offered to take increases of X% until revenues grow enough that it will equal 50% of HRR. Or they will take 50/50 but with make whole it will actually be a lot more than that and the dollar amount at that percent can't go down.
As far as what the owners have given in these negotations, I'm glad you asked.
The PA has given up........7% of HRR moving forward after 2-3 years.....maybe
PA's latest offer had 50% within 5 years (the 4th year was 50.03%). That's assuming the NHL accepts their offer with no changes. The offer was 50%+182m, 50%+128m, 50%+72m and 50%+11m. The issue with the offer was A the amount of make whole, and the stipulation that their share cannot drop below what it is in year 1. While I don't think it would happen, it's still a non-starter. The league is looking to protect itself (which is why it wants salaries tied to revenues). There were some other minor issues (buyouts, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
This is the line of thinking that is why we're not watching hockey right now.
This is a negotiation, you don't just GET because you asked for it. I agree with the owners in getting salaries down, I'm all for it. I want a good league and a competitive league just like everyone else. I don't see why the owners should get everything right now though. honor the contracts you have signed and move along.
The contracts signed were always subject to escrow. Yet somehow the players are suddenly demanding 100% of their contracts !? Something that wasn't even guaranteed under the old CBA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones
No and the players have shown they are willing to give back, the owners want to give where?
As long as they get their raises, and their share can't decrease, and and and...
Oh and what have the players ASKED for from the owners? Everyone's like what will the owners give up to get this... well if the players are looking for something from the owners... then go and ask for it. The owners are under no obligation to give free handouts to the players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan
All of these proposals are not just take it or leave it regardless of the idiotic commentary that mentions that. Every aspect of the proposal so far put by the NHL was designed to towards an endgame that people here and in the media have seen in various forms since August. Seriously, if it isn't make whole negotiated with contract rights, it's a small drop to 50/50 in exchange for increased revenue sharing.
But ever since the beginning it's been the same god damn thing from the PA and that's de-linkage versus everything. They are still refusing to accept something that they accepted (or forced to accept depending on your point of view) 7 years ago. The NHL does not expect to get both of those nor do I think they think they need it. But it's designed to negotiate it down to maybe one or the other or both but less restrictive, I don't know.
People are pissed here because of the lack of actual negotiating from the PA. It was the same thing in 04. People said once they accept the cap and linkage everything is up for negotiating. Well apparently we've gone back in time since it's the same damn argument.
The PA's last offer came pretty damn close to accepting this. The additional money was pretty much on par with what the league offered for the "make whole" - which is something the league offered first. So if you look at the leagues last offer, and the PA's last offer, they are (finally) speaking the same language when it comes to the cap. Now if only the PA could have done this in Sept, things may have moved along a bit faster.
While there were some major issues with the PA's last offer (the fact their share can't decrease, buyouts, long term deals, etc), this really should have been something the NHL could have attempted to discuss with the PA. Also, the NHL can't realistically expect to get everything they want in 1 shot. Get the split to 50/50, and get some rules in regarding long term deals (ideally a max contract length, however if that's not possible, then get rules in regarding variance and how those contracts are handled if a player retires early). Leave FA, ELCs and arbitration alone for another CBA.
Wrong on all accounts. Who benefits the most from non-hockey markets possessing teams? The players: they get an enormous portion of the revenue those markets create. As 50/50 seems to be the way most north american leagues are going, removing the small market teams from the nhl simply gives the players the same percentage of a smaller pie.
Right on all accounts.
See-- you're turn now. If you declare it, must be right.
What some of you cannot keep straight is that some people aren't arguing what's best for the players or a union, but perhaps disagreeing with the general management of the NHL, their systemic issues. I honestly do not care that 100 player jobs might disappear. If those jobs are a result of propping up failing businesses, they need to go.
Let's say the weakest six teams cannot bring in more than $60 MM per year. (And yes, most of that $60 MM goes to players due to where the cap range is sitting at the moment.)
That's $360 MM of the NHL's $3.4 billion-- or 10%.
Revenue transfer, while not all going to just the six, was about 42% of that figure, just shy of $150 MM.
$360 MM - 150 (or soon to be $200MM) = $210 MM lost (or $160 MM if you use the new RS figure)
You work for a big company. Overall, your company makes money.
But you've got some departments struggling. Do you cut everyone's pay so all departments are profitable.
Most companies wouldn't make such a demand. They would decide whether or not it was worth financing the money-losing departments.
And if it was worth it for the long term growth of the company, they'd accept lower profits to invest.
I don't know how giving someone the opportunity to earn 2.3 million on average can be described as a lose for that person.
If you ignore reality that it will be less than they were earning, while losing substantial contracting rights, yes, then it would be a win/lose.
Noting that the NHL's business model is still crap which has been the catalyst for all the economic woes. Hence the "lose" on the NHL side if they perpetuate the same model.
Just what do you think Bettman's proposal was intended to do if not divide the players?
Does everything have to be spelled out in big bold letters?
Cheers,
Dan-o
You make it seem like the PA are deers in the headlights and can't do anything about it. If they want some control, they need to get off their ass and do something more then nothing.
