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.
Lockout II - Moderated: Talk about your plenty, Talk about your ills...
The sentiment is valid, imo; the next commissioner position should be one that puts the league's best interests to the forefront. The commissioner's responsibilities should include overseeing the best interests of both the owners AND the players. The Owners should be represented by a group, and the players represented by a group, with the commissioner as a go-between. His salary and the costs to operate HQ shared by the PA and the Owners group. Then perhaps we will have labor harmony going forward. I say perhaps, yes.
Yes, but that would mean that both the players and the owners should pay his salary, wouldn't it? Don't see a problem with that, but as it stands isn't Bettman's salary primarily paid by the owners? Actually, that's a good question (at least for me to know)... Where does Bettman's salary come from? If it is in fact from the owners, then logically he's going to be serving their purposes first.
I think though that the Commissioner should be in charge of what's best for the game, and that means both the integrity of the game and also the maintenance and growth of its fanbase (that alone can often be a balancing act)... and not allowing the biases nor actions of either side (owners or players) to unduly harm the health of the sport. Who then would he answer to,... yes, both sides, but not necessarily always with the objective of satisfying either. If the game stays healthy, and both sides aren't significantly losing (financially), then he's doing his job well.
ELS deals are max 3 years in length, and have limits as to salary, bonuses (in the 2005 CBA).
Where some owners/GMs do not seem to be able to exercise any control is in the second contract (after the ELS) and other pre-UFA deals. There's been some discussion of putting a $$ limit and/or term limit on the 2nd contract in the new CBA.
What I meant was if the player has signed the three years entry deal first, then sign for 5 years, he won't be RFA after this no matter what since it would put the whole thing at 8 years, right. What's the disadvantage from the player's perspective if he sign a 5 year deal in his second contract instead of 7 or 10 years? He gets to be UFA, right.
The sentiment is valid, imo; the next commissioner position should be one that puts the league's best interests to the forefront. The commissioner's responsibilities should include overseeing the best interests of both the owners AND the players. The Owners should be represented by a group, and the players represented by a group, with the commissioner as a go-between. His salary and the costs to operate HQ shared by the PA and the Owners group. Then perhaps we will have labor harmony going forward. I say perhaps, yes.
That's my feeling as well. One guy represents the owners, one guy represents the players and the commish who is a guy both clans have decided upon to lead the league.
I don't think anybody's pulling the wool over anyone's eyes, but it's always been clear that the owners are losing more money in the cancelling of games than they're fighting for. And I'm not sure someone has necessarily made this clear to them.
Yeah, I'd have presumed this was common knowledge around here, but you can't just go substituting in "owners" for "players" in that comparison. Players make 1.9B, and owners make around $250M. Owners could go a long time before they lose as much as they're fighting for. That's why this was always going to be an owner's victory. They simply have more incentive to cancel games. Players have far too good of a deal to let this happen over such small differences in the proposals.
Yes, but that would mean that both the players and the owners should pay his salary, wouldn't it? Don't see a problem with that, but as it stands isn't Bettman's salary primarily paid by the owners? Actually, that's a good question (at least for me to know)... Where does Bettman's salary come from? If it is in fact from the owners, then logically he's going to be serving their purposes first.
I think though that the Commissioner should be in charge of what's best for the game, and that means both the integrity of the game and also the maintenance and growth of its fanbase (that alone can often be a balancing act)... and not allowing the biases nor actions of either side (owners or players) to unduly harm the health of the sport. Who then would he answer to,... yes, both sides, but not necessarily always with the objective of satisfying either. If the game stays healthy, and both sides aren't significantly losing (financially), then he's doing his job well.
That's my feeling as well. One guy represents the owners, one guy represents the players and the commish who is a guy both clans have decided upon to lead the league.
This kind of ignores the centrality of the owners-players conflict. They're the ones with money on the line, and they'll still be the interests that dictate what happens when/if a lockout rolls around. Appointing a neutral commissioner is just like paying a full-time mediator. He can talk and talk and cajole or whatever, but he's not going to unilaterally lead anyone anywhere without the will of the same two groups that are fighting now.
Like the NBA did a year ago, we will wake up Christmas day to NHL action that kicks off the 2012-2013 regular season.
And, yes, you will ALL come back, and gladly so.
Frankly, the feeling in my gut when I hear that they're coming back so far has been revulsion. So we'll see.
I feel like I've been posting so much on here in part because it's fascinating to watch something you used to love turn into something so abhorrent. It's like watching a bad ex ruin themselves. You're not going back to them, but you can't not watch.
This kind of ignores the centrality of the owners-players conflict. They're the ones with money on the line, and they'll still be the interests that dictate what happens when/if a lockout rolls around. Appointing a neutral commissioner is just like paying a full-time mediator. He can talk and talk and cajole or whatever, but he's not going to unilaterally lead anyone anywhere without the will of the same two groups that are fighting now.
I was going to post something similar to this. The idea sounds good but in practice, it doesn't work out so well (unless you can find creative ways to go about it). If there was a separate guy for the owners that leaves the commissioner completely helpless to the decisions made by either party which means that he can't effectively do his job or implement his vision because the power to have any meaningful say in negotiations has been taken from him.
Newsflash: commissioners are always the owners picks. They answer to the owners.
Hence why Kinnesaw Mountain Landis was a genius for demanding a lifetime contract when he was recruited to be MLB's commish.. "Only way it will work. Man worried about his job is bound to play favorites..."
@cotsonika: Players told owners they'd have something for them this morning. They didn't because they didn't want to rush it. Sides had brief contact.
Looks like pa will present a proposal
Lets just hope its a real proposal and not a guaranteed raises proposal. If it is a real linked deal, we could have a deal done today. If it is de-linked, we are looking at a season cancelled sentiment.
Lets just hope its a real proposal and not a guaranteed raises proposal. If it is a real linked deal, we could have a deal done today. If it is de-linked, we are looking at a season cancelled sentiment.
Unless somehow the PA spent twelve hours yesterday explaining how their hybrid, creative, quasi linking system is really just a great idea for all involved.
Lets just hope its a real proposal and not a guaranteed raises proposal. If it is a real linked deal, we could have a deal done today. If it is de-linked, we are looking at a season cancelled sentiment.
I'm still of the belief that the NHL needs a de-linked cap. What happens if revenues at the top continue to increase at a faster rate than at the bottom? All of a sudden 50/50 no longer works as you'll have teams at the bottom seriously in the red again. In a league where the revenue gap is this wide, a micro level cost that's based on macro level revenues doesn't work.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
I think there was a deal worked out before this meeting yesterday. I think the Boston reporter had it right. This meeting yesterday and today is a show trying to save the players faces for the upcoming season so fans do not hold a grudge to the players. You can hate Bettman and Fehr (they don't care anyway, they get paid no matter what) but this way it makes it like the players have saved the NHL.
I totally agree and had that thought as soon as I heard the report out of Boston. It's working pretty well if you read through all of the posts on here. Suddenly everyone loves Crosby and the owners.
Honestly, as long as I get hockey back, I don't care. I'd prefer NOT to dislike anyone at the end of this.
Today's going to be a very big day as it relates to these negotiations. I think if things continue to go good today we might have a deal by next week. If not I expect more games to be cancelled soon.
__________________
Kudos to the Ottawa Senators for the great season despite injuries to their 3 best players.
What I meant was if the player has signed the three years entry deal first, then sign for 5 years, he won't be RFA after this no matter what since it would put the whole thing at 8 years, right. What's the disadvantage from the player's perspective if he sign a 5 year deal in his second contract instead of 7 or 10 years? He gets to be UFA, right.
One of the changes the league asked for was that ELC's would be changed. My understanding of it, was that it would be a hybrid 2-4 year contract, in that the player had to play 2 full NHL seasons (I think 41+ games counts as a season), or 4 years in the minors for it to expire. In that scenario (with the FA change they asked for), the player would have 7 years in, and still be a RFA.
However it's possible they won't be able to get that this time around. So instead of swinging for the fences, get the 5 yr contract limit, and get the 50% and drop the puck. Then next time around evaluate where things stand. If there's a chance to chip away at something else (ELCs?) then do so. If not, and everyone's making money, then leave it as is.
__________________ "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."
I'm still of the belief that the NHL needs a de-linked cap. What happens if revenues at the top continue to increase at a faster rate than at the bottom? All of a sudden 50/50 no longer works as you'll have teams at the bottom seriously in the red again. In a league where the revenue gap is this wide, a micro level cost that's based on macro level revenues doesn't work.
The union's idea to support the high cap floor is through revenue sharing. Let the few high revenue teams heavily support the 4-5 teams who truly cannot afford to ice a team otherwise.
It also helps the union secure more guaranteed money by inflating the minimum salary requirements league-wide.
Edit: I also had wanted to mention that scaling for revenue sharing would have to be increased through the life of the agreement to keep pace with revenue growth. The same way that teams like the Pirates are able to turn a profit in baseball (as controversial an idea as that may be).
