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.

How will Fehr explain a missed season (if that happens)?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 10:47 AM
  #51
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
This is to get more money for the players. That's all. The NHL will even offer more make whole next time. And they keep the contract lengths as well. You'll be surprised.
So the players are going to throw away another $250+ million by losing more games (from 60 to 48) to get another $50 million on "make whole"? How is that more money for the players? Sounds lke more money for the owners. The "make whole" money has been growing much slower than the money being lost by the players.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 10:49 AM
  #52
alkurtz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mahopac, NY
Posts: 876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So what exactly is the PA fighting for? How does PA explain the lost 1.89B to it's members?

How does those "brothers" explain the fact they will lose 1.89B and most likely end up getting a worse deal than they are currently offered?
There is no guarantee that you are going to win. I know one thing; the players have never been in better hands than they are with Don Fehr. They have never been better informed: the Fehrs are known for communication and inclusiveness: the players knew what they were doing when they hired him. They were rolled and taken to the cleaners in 04-05 and wanted the very best there is to avoid the same scenario.

Management has spent months trying to undermine Fehr, sew dissension in the membership and create end-around plans to circumvent him. They thought the players would roll over just as last time. They underestimated him big time: a major part of the problem here. They didn't do their due diligence and realize that they were dealing with a man who learned from the great Marvin Miller and with roots in the American labor movement of the mid-20th Century.

Fehr will protect players rights to the bitter end. He is the best there is at what he does. Of course there are some players who disagree; in a union of 700+ players that is normal. At least the free speech of the players is not stifled. They can say what they want without worrying about million dollar fines.

Management must recognize that a deal will not be done without Don Fehr. Unless they come to terms with that and stop these end-arounds and attempts at undermining him, we will lose another season. It is only when they realize that they are not going to destroy the NHLPA (their underlying hope and desire from day one) and man up and face him as an equal, that we will get back to hockey. Until then, this sport is on the road to oblivion. I have been a hockey fan for over 50 years. I am a hardcore fan, an ex-season ticket holder for the Rangers, a hockey dad who got up at 3:30 on Sunday morning so my son could be on the ice at 5:30 AM. I go to minor league games and rarely miss a Ranger game on TV. As a kid growing up in the Bronx around 1960, I would strain to hear, if atmospheric conditions were right for my radio, Foster Hewitt from Toronto and Danny Gallivan from Montreal. I love this sport. To see what is happening is a physical and mental pain. This sport and league is in mortal danger. Management must realize this and treat the Fehrs as equal. They must rethink their failed policies before it is to late.

alkurtz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 10:50 AM
  #53
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
For this reason, for the most part, while I don't tear down most "non-traditional markets," any small market whose owners would rather sit out than play are welcome to go fly a kite and get out of our sport. Let the people who want to get serious, get serious.
Those owners tried and left "disillusioned".


I believe the CBA is still going to get done, but it will now only be for 48 games. The players will lose over $700 million in salary.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 10:55 AM
  #54
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,228
vCash: 5775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Those owners tried and left "disillusioned".
I'm not talking about CBA talks, I'm talking about the league. There's other prospective owners and markets out there that could greatly benefit the league. The league should be banging down Seattle's door.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 10:56 AM
  #55
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So you think PA will get a better deal if the whole season is missed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
So the players are going to throw away another $250+ million by losing more games (from 60 to 48) to get another $50 million on "make whole"? How is that more money for the players? Sounds lke more money for the owners. The "make whole" money has been growing much slower than the money being lost by the players.
You don't think the owners will lose anything if the season is missed? Once the entire season is gone everyone loses. That means time for a deal without the pressure of threats.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 10:57 AM
  #56
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by alkurtz View Post
Fehr will protect players rights to the bitter end. He is the best there is at what he does. Of course there are some players who disagree; in a union of 700+ players that is normal. At least the free speech of the players is not stifled. They can say what they want without worrying about million dollar fines.
What? He has the NHLPA already at 50/50 and has reduced their contracting rights to 8 years and 25% variance. He is moving much closer to the NHL's first offer and will lose over $700 million in player salary when the CBA is finally signed for 48 games.

When the final CBA is signed, it will be much closer to the NHL's first offer in July than the NHLPA's first offer to the NHL.

Why couldn't the NHLPA's last offer be what they countered the NHL with in July? Why not get a deal done in time to save 82 games? Grow the HRR to lessen the escrow damage in year 1. Instead they wanted a fight. That is why they hired Fehr. If they wanted a full season and a deal they would have kept Kelly.


The NHLPA deals with disagreement by publicly shaming them. Just ask Hamrlik how his opinion was received by the NHLPA leadership.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 10:58 AM
  #57
r1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
It's not a troll thread, it's a thread for pro-PA posters like you to explain what the PA is after

What is the so-called "greater good" for the players? Please explain that to me in detail.
Th PA is fighting so that they don't have to cave in every time the CBA expires.

Let's say the PA uses your logic to accept the deal: "We might lose a whole season of salary ($1.89B). Therefore, we will accept any cuts in future salaries as long as they are not greater than $1.89B". End result: PA accepts salary cuts.

Next time the CBA expires, the league threatens to cancel the season again. The PA compares the year of salary they might lose to the salary cuts demanded by owners. The PA accepts any salary cuts as long as they are not greater than the year of salary they might lose. End result: PA accepts salary cuts.

The league can simply repeat this strategy every time and get players to accept salary cuts.

r1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:01 AM
  #58
DrVanntastic
Registered User
 
DrVanntastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wentzville, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 1,857
vCash: 350
Backes spells out players' position


Article by Blues beat writer where David Backes explains why the players are giving up money for contract rights.

Quote:
But Backes explained the rationale, saying: “If (Sidney) Crosby is an unrestricted free agent and signs a five-year deal for $8-12 million (per year), then everyone is slotted under there. If Crosby gets five years, I’m lucky if I get two. If he’s making $12 million and doesn’t take term to have security in exchange for lower numbers at the end, then his salary-cap hit is that high number and you end up with a basketball system where you have LeBron (James), (Dwyane) Wade and (Chris Bosh) making all the money. Hockey is not like that. You can’t play five guys the whole game.”

DrVanntastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:01 AM
  #59
alkurtz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mahopac, NY
Posts: 876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
What? He has the NHLPA already at 50/50 and has reduced their contracting rights to 8 years and 25% variance. He is moving much closer to the NHL's first offer and will lose over $700 million in player salary when the CBA is finally signed for 48 games.

When the final CBA is signed, it will be much closer to the NHL's first offer in July than the NHLPA's first offer to the NHL.

Why couldn't the NHLPA's last offer be what they countered the NHL with in July? Why not get a deal done in time to save 82 games? Grow the HRR to lessen the escrow damage in year 1. Instead they wanted a fight. That is why they hired Fehr. If they wanted a full season and a deal they would have kept Kelly.


The NHLPA deals with disagreement by publicly shaming them. Just ask Hamrlik how his opinion was received by the NHLPA leadership.
Fehr recognized the new reality of sports as per the NFL and NBA. he knew 50/50 was fair and unavoidable. As for Hamrlik, that just proves my point. He expressed himself w/o fear.

alkurtz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:03 AM
  #60
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
You don't think the owners will lose anything if the season is missed? Once the entire season is gone everyone loses. That means time for a deal without the pressure of threats.
I agree that everyone is losing, but the owners can take a long view and recover the money lost in year 1 in the last few years of the CBA (which is why they have moved the CBA term to 8-10 years). The players have a limited career and can't make up the money lost by not playing.

Both sides are causing more damage to the game and HRR than was needed. Neither side is blameless and neither side is right or wrong.

The only way lockouts will stop in the NHL is when the cost of a lockout is more than playing. The best way for the NHL and NHLPA to learn their lesson is for the HRR to fall and not recover for 4-5 years. That is what happened to baseball and why they have labor peace. Nothing to do with the "brilliance" of Don Fehr.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:03 AM
  #61
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by r1234 View Post
Th PA is fighting so that they don't have to cave in every time the CBA expires.

Let's say the PA uses your logic to accept the deal: "We might lose a whole season of salary ($1.89B). Therefore, we will accept any cuts in future salaries as long as they are not greater than $1.89B". End result: PA accepts salary cuts.

Next time the CBA expires, the league threatens to cancel the season again. The PA compares the year of salary they might lose to the salary cuts demanded by owners. The PA accepts any salary cuts as long as they are not greater than the year of salary they might lose. End result: PA accepts salary cuts.

The league can simply repeat this strategy every time and get players to accept salary cuts.
There's a lot wrong with this. It ignores HRR, and the entire negotiation process in general.

If this is the reason the players are sitting out, their priorities are out of whack.

Seachd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:04 AM
  #62
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by alkurtz View Post
Fehr recognized the new reality of sports as per the NFL and NBA. he knew 50/50 was fair and unavoidable. As for Hamrlik, that just proves my point. He expressed himself w/o fear.
And showed the rest of the membership that they can't speak up against the NHLPA leadership. That is way more powerful than a fine.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:04 AM
  #63
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I agree that everyone is losing, but the owners can take a long view and recover the money lost in year 1 in the last few years of the CBA (which is why they have moved the CBA term to 8-10 years). The players have a limited career and can't make up the money lost by not playing.

Both sides are causing more damage to the game and HRR than was needed. Neither side is blameless and neither side is right or wrong.

The only way lockouts will stop in the NHL is when the cost of a lockout is more than playing. The best way for the NHL and NHLPA to learn their lesson is for the HRR to fall and not recover for 4-5 years. That is what happened to baseball and why they have labor peace. Nothing to do with the "brilliance" of Don Fehr.
I agree.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:09 AM
  #64
TheDeuce
Registered User
 
TheDeuce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 218
vCash: 115
Maybe it's the tin-foil hat I'm wearing but I'm getting suspicious.

Here's the conspiracy theory:


Donald Fehr never intended to make any agreement with the League. His goal was to decertify the NHLPA. Reason? It's been threatened and semi-carried out in other leagues but has never been fully implemented. Perhaps because of too many unknowns, fear of failure, who knows. Perhaps Fehr (on behalf of all the other unionites in professional sport) wanted to use the NHLPA as a guinea pig to see where a decertification of a major-league sports union would end up.

After all, if you're going to do an experiment like this, may as well do it to the least-popular and least-relevant major league sport in the USA.



m.

TheDeuce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:19 AM
  #65
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,228
vCash: 5775
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeuce View Post
Maybe it's the tin-foil hat I'm wearing but I'm getting suspicious.

Here's the conspiracy theory:


Donald Fehr never intended to make any agreement with the League. His goal was to decertify the NHLPA. Reason? It's been threatened and semi-carried out in other leagues but has never been fully implemented. Perhaps because of too many unknowns, fear of failure, who knows. Perhaps Fehr (on behalf of all the other unionites in professional sport) wanted to use the NHLPA as a guinea pig to see where a decertification of a major-league sports union would end up.

After all, if you're going to do an experiment like this, may as well do it to the least-popular and least-relevant major league sport in the USA.



m.
The NFLPA decertified last year, so it's been done before

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:19 AM
  #66
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noteman View Post
Backes spells out players' position


Article by Blues beat writer where David Backes explains why the players are giving up money for contract rights.
And he has zero evidence that this would happen. He uses the NBA as a model? You only need 3 stars to win a championship because they play 75% of the game. At the end of this quote. he even showed why the NHL owners would never give Crosby that high of a hit.

The Pittsburgh owner would never give Crosby $12 million cap hit. It would severly limit his options to build a championship team. Success is more about depth than having a few stars like the NBA. The NBA has a 15 man roster limit, but only 12 active players for each game. Why would the NBA pay players good money for only 5-8 minutes a night? That would be like the NHL paying 4th liners millions per season. 4th liners will never get $2+ million contracts. The middle class in the NHL may get $250k-500k less per season with 5 year limits.

Quote:
But Backes explained the rationale, saying: If (Sidney) Crosby is an unrestricted free agent and signs a five-year deal for $8-12 million (per year), then everyone is slotted under there. If Crosby gets five years, Im lucky if I get two. If hes making $12 million and doesnt take term to have security in exchange for lower numbers at the end, then his salary-cap hit is that high number and you end up with a basketball system where you have LeBron (James), (Dwyane) Wade and (Chris Bosh) making all the money. Hockey is not like that. You cant play five guys the whole game.
Why didn't this happen when the cap was introduced? Shouldn't the cap have prevented the "middle class" from growing since the superstar would take up 20% of the cap (max contracts)? Except this didn't happen in the NHL because you need depth to win. The superstars are the ones that lost the most with the last CBA, the "middle class" did the best for themselves. 5 year limits would hurt the top 5% and the "middle class" salaries will continue to grow the fastest.

How many superstars want to show how selfish they are by taking up 20% of the cap space? They will take less, like they have been for the past 7 years, to leave room for the "middle class".

Crosby could have demanded a max contract after his ELC ended and Pittsburgh would have payed it, but he didn't because he knew that there needed to be money available to build the team around him. Crosby will make way more money in endorsements than any "middle class" player ever could and it is outside the player's share of HRR. This is why Crosby will sacrifice for the team with this salary.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:23 AM
  #67
r1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd View Post
There's a lot wrong with this. It ignores HRR, and the entire negotiation process in general.

If this is the reason the players are sitting out, their priorities are out of whack.
I was explaining why the PA can't use the OP's logic to accept deals (comparing the potential loss of one year in salary vs future salary cuts). That logic leads to them caving in every single CBA negotiation.

I don't see how HRR affect the argument I was making. HRR is just the basis they use to calculate salaries. If they accept to reduce their share from 57% of HRR to 50%, they are accepting to reduce their future salaries. No matter what the future HRR is, 50% of future HRR is less than 57% of future HRR.

r1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:26 AM
  #68
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaffray15 View Post
So you don't think the players are responsible at all for taking advantage of those owners, using the last CBA?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
What? You mean the owners are allowed to negotiate a more favorable deal for themselves when the CBA expires?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaffray15 View Post
That isn't the point, it goes the same way in the real business world. They hire too much staff, pay their employees too much.

Regular business owners make mistakes too you know
They've screwed up three CBAs now necessitating three lockouts.

Why on god's green earth would we let them dictate any more CBAs?



Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
yeah i am sure the stars who are playing in europe are sharing their salaries with the third and fourth liners who can't find work.

The players are greedy. If they really cared about each other everyone would be paid the same amount.
Oh my. Why aren't the NHL owners sharing all their revenue with each other? Then every team would be financially healthy.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:29 AM
  #69
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
The NFLPA decertify last year, so it's been done before
At least the NFLPA did it before they were locked out and an appeal delayed the ruling in court against the lockout and they settled with the league before any paychecks were lost. There share is less than 50% and they have worse contracting rights than what the NHL just offered the NHLPA. The NFL CBA is also 10 years without any opt outs clauses.

Here are the important NBA CBA terms, agreed to after the NBPA started the process to decertify:

Quote:
Term of the contract is 10 years, with both the NBA and NBPA holding the ability to opt out after the sixth year.

Players and owners agreed to a 50/50 split of basketball-related income (BRI). However, depending on BRI, players can receive as high as 51% or as low as 49%.

The maximum length of a player contract will be reduced by one year, from six years for a team's own players and five years forother players, to five years and four years, respectively.

Salaries in new player contracts may increase by up to 7.5% per year for a team's own players and 4.5% per year for other free agents.
What does the NHLPA really hope to gain by decertifying?

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:29 AM
  #70
Heaton
Moderator
#disapointment
 
Heaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 16,875
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Heaton
Considering every CBA has been great for the players, I'd think they should let the owners just do whatever they want.

Heaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:29 AM
  #71
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
They've screwed up three CBAs now necessitating three lockouts.

Why on god's green earth would we let them dictate any more CBAs?
So the players should be ones to dictate new the CBA?


Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:29 AM
  #72
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd View Post
There's a lot wrong with this. It ignores HRR, and the entire negotiation process in general.

If this is the reason the players are sitting out, their priorities are out of whack.

No it doesn't. HRR & linkage are actually at the root of the "problems."

Revenue disparity.


Fehr would tell the players that the revenue disparity is so massive and that owners don't want to foot the bill for fixing their own mistakes (expansion, CBAs, bad contracts), so they just want to take it out of the players' share; while restricting player mobility to the point where the majority of them are locked in for the duration of their short careers.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:30 AM
  #73
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So the players should be ones to dictate new the CBA?


Exactly. We see how well the last one worked, right?

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:30 AM
  #74
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Oh my. Why aren't the NHL owners sharing all their revenue with each other? Then every team would be financially healthy.
Why arent't the players sharing their pay-checks with each other then?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 11:30 AM
  #75
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton View Post
Considering every CBA has been great for the players, I'd think they should let the owners just do whatever they want.

Now you sound like Duhatschek.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:36 PM.

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.