HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Players Starting to Ask Uncomfortable Questions of NHLPA Leadership

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 09:48 PM
  #76
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
So what. Just stating record revenues is misleading when there are also record expenses.
I believe both sides have acknowledged the record revenue, while both ignoring expenses.

Non Issue.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:51 PM
  #77
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
But when you are in a union you DO NOT go public with concerns or differences of oppinion. You become involved in the process and make your oppinions heard while with your union brothers(and sisters) but not infront of management and in the media.

Fehr has said everyone is welcome, and I am sure all these guys can afford a plane ticket and a few nights in a hotel room, so why aren't they there?

If they aren't going to get involved then they have no right to step outside the union and ***** and whine to the media. As far as I am concerned they should have forfeited their union status as soon as they came out in public. BUt I am a bit of a hardass when it comes to this stuff.

Owners get fined for speaking about the lockout, and the PA should hold it's members to a similar standard.
So in the beginning, there's 31 players on the negotiating committee. Several players ask to be on it, however as there can't be 700 players on the committee, some are obviously left out. Or perhaps they cared, but trusted those on the committee. Now say that at first, most of the players supported the PA. They didn't like the NHL's offer and trusted Fehr and the PA to get a better deal.

Now 4-5 months later, it looks like the deal is more or less there. There might be some small differences, but the NHL isn't going to suddenly drop contract terms. Now the players have seen what the NHL has offered, and has listened to what Fehr and the PA executive have to say regarding those offers. Now their faith is shaken. Perhaps they don't feel that what little gains they might get is actually worth missing more games. Or that Fehr and the NC is fighting a dangerous game for the top 12% of the league.

I'm not sure exactly how much say a player who's not on the negotiating committee actually has. Perhaps many have *****ed... and the NC just doesn't care. They're still committed to Fehr's plan to fight as long as possible for every single right - regardless of the cost to retain those rights.

Basically, who's to say that players haven't been speaking up internally? I'm almost certain they have been. However if the response that Hamrlik received (a vet who's been here 3 times now), what incentive do others have to really speak their minds?

As for the NHL fining teams for speaking out, I fully support that. I'd have no issues if the PA put a gag order on it's players - however I don't think that's very realistic. There's 700+ players... someone would (as they are now) speak to reporters anomalously.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:55 PM
  #78
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
Plenty of other unions out there that can pay big money aside from major league sports. Or vice versa, he can represent management whenever he wants to as well, he isn't bound to the union side.
He is a labour negotiator. You are right he could get many different jobs around the world.

He actually spoke to the CAW(Canadian Auto Workers) today. So it isn't like he is going to go down another step and start negotiating local soccer contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixgunsdad View Post
That's what I'm not understanding. What can he get now for the players that makes it better for them over the offer to play 82 games. Why aren't the players asking these questions? Why do you only here from a few players asking questions? I just am not seeing an effort to end this.
The players have issues more important to them then 1 82 game season.

If they didn't right now we would be arguing when the LEafs were going to collapse and finish last again.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:57 PM
  #79
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
This is why I believe a lot of this stuff from the media is planted by the owners so other players hear it and start to believe this malarky. Just look at the foaming of the mouth the owner groupies had when Bettman made that oscar winning speech.
Complete crap. There's 700+ players. Expecting all 700 to be 100% on the same page after missing 3 months of work is completely unrealistic. There's absolutely going to be decent in the ranks. Especially when the two sides are not really that far apart - despite what they say.

Agreement - on money and pensions. Agreement that contract lengths are needed (5 yrs vs 8).

Yes there's still major things to sort out, but if both sides really wanted to get a deal done, it's not unrealistic for it to happen in short order.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:59 PM
  #80
Nanabijou
Drop the puck
 
Nanabijou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
There are and will be cracks in the union and the NHL. It's part of any CBA, the owners are not allowed to discuss it - to the benefit of the NHL. I believe the 10yr CBA doesn't matter, he's just holding that card to leverage it for one of the 5yr term or pay variance.
Handing over the NHLPA lead to his baby brother at the end of this won't be as good if the CBA is signed for 10 years. There won't be much for Steve to do to make a name for himself without a good fight for another next decade.

When I was typing this, I was being facetious. Now that I think of it more, I'm not so sure...

Nanabijou is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:03 PM
  #81
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanabijou View Post
Handing over the NHLPA lead to his baby brother at the end of this won't be as good if the CBA is signed for 10 years. There won't be much for Steve to do to make a name for himself without a good fight for another next decade.

When I was typing this, I was being facetious. Now that I think of it more, I'm not so sure...
It does make you wonder when he's telling players that it's for future generations to have a say... when even a 6-8 year deal doesn't accomplish that.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:04 PM
  #82
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
So in the beginning, there's 31 players on the negotiating committee. Several players ask to be on it, however as there can't be 700 players on the committee, some are obviously left out. Or perhaps they cared, but trusted those on the committee. Now say that at first, most of the players supported the PA. They didn't like the NHL's offer and trusted Fehr and the PA to get a better deal.

Now 4-5 months later, it looks like the deal is more or less there. There might be some small differences, but the NHL isn't going to suddenly drop contract terms. Now the players have seen what the NHL has offered, and has listened to what Fehr and the PA executive have to say regarding those offers. Now their faith is shaken. Perhaps they don't feel that what little gains they might get is actually worth missing more games. Or that Fehr and the NC is fighting a dangerous game for the top 12% of the league.

I'm not sure exactly how much say a player who's not on the negotiating committee actually has. Perhaps many have *****ed... and the NC just doesn't care. They're still committed to Fehr's plan to fight as long as possible for every single right - regardless of the cost to retain those rights.

Basically, who's to say that players haven't been speaking up internally? I'm almost certain they have been. However if the response that Hamrlik received (a vet who's been here 3 times now), what incentive do others have to really speak their minds?

As for the NHL fining teams for speaking out, I fully support that. I'd have no issues if the PA put a gag order on it's players - however I don't think that's very realistic. There's 700+ players... someone would (as they are now) speak to reporters anomalously.
I thought there was upwards of 50 players in on the early meetings? Fehr has said all along anyone who wants to be in the room can be there.

Now maybe they might not all be on the negotiating committee but they had the opportunity to have their voices heard if they took the effort to go to the meetings.

Ofcourse these guy have been speaking out internally. But you have to get together with like minded people to become a large enough force within the union to be a major force. One or two guys beaking off about this and that is quickly ignored. Get 150 players who feel the same way and you might get some respect when you walk into the meeting room.

The players have put their trust in a union and they have to work within the union and allow the union to do the job it was formed to do. Going outside to the media to contradict the union is just wrong.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:12 PM
  #83
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
So what. Just stating record revenues is misleading when there are also record expenses.
You open yourself to that criticism if you parade around your record revenues in the middle of recessions and choose not to give the whole story. The point was that the last CBA - was by the owners' own admission - foolproof. 8 years later, they still have most of the same markets in dire straits, but it's still the players that are the problem. He also doesn't talk much during the CBA talks that they've owned one team for 4 years because no one wants to own it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
Plenty of other unions out there that can pay big money aside from major league sports. Or vice versa, he can represent management whenever he wants to as well, he isn't bound to the union side.
Having been an executive director for the union of a major pro sports league is enough of a resume for any other union he'd want to ever work for.

Which is why NHL players hired him.

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:16 PM
  #84
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Not according to Capgeek he's not. http://capgeek.com/rangers/

He's on their AHL roster. Perhaps I should word it differently.
Capgeek is just guessing who will eventually be on the Rangers roster when the regular season starts. Redden wasn't sent to the AHL, you can verify he's not on the AHL Connecticut Whale roster here:

http://theahl.com/stats/roster.php?s...=0&team_id=307

Think about it: why would the Rangers send him to the AHL? They'd have to pay him then. While he's on the NHL roster during the lockout they don't have to pay a dime of his contract. btw, there are other players listed as on the NYR NHL roster by capgeek that are currently in the NHL such as Kreider.


Last edited by mouser: 12-08-2012 at 10:25 PM.
mouser is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:17 PM
  #85
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
I believe both sides have acknowledged the record revenue, while both ignoring expenses.

Non Issue.
Non issue? Is that why they want to lower cap share from 57 to 50 and PA is resisting? Wow. Im speechless here. Non issue? It is THE issue at the heart of this lockout. Rapidly rising expenses in markets where revenues dont match.

DuklaNation is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:20 PM
  #86
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post


Everyday I read posts that say completely contrary things. Yesterday, I read a dozen posts from different people saying that the players won in the last CBA, today posts that the owners won; everyday it's the same, just as many people arguing one side as the other. If WE here can't even agree on who "won" (assuming there was a "winner") in the last CBA (after 7 years of seeing the results), then how in the **** are we anywhere near qualified to know who's winning in this one. haha.
the players won in the last round of negotiations. their salaries are way up but a lot of teams are still losing money. maybe for the rangers and the maple leafs they won because they can't spend as much as they would without a cap but other teams didn't win.

atomic is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:27 PM
  #87
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
Just heard an interesting interview with Howard Bloom (Sports Business News). He was questioning why the NHLPA is so stuck on contract length beyond five years term, since given that only 12% of their membership is signed to deals beyond that length, it seems the balance of the league are being held out to protect only those most privileged few.

His view is that as many as 6 teams are on the brink of folding if no season is played this year, and he names them. Claims contraction is more likely to come versus relocation, followed eventually by the issuance of expansion franchises to QC & GTA.

https://soundcloud.com/thecharlesadl...est-on-the-nhl

12 minutes in length; the interview with Bloom begins at roughly the 1 minute mark. Click the play button located at the top left of the page - beside the headline. It gets really interesting just past the 10 minute mark.
that makes no sense at all. why would contract teams and then expand? this guy must be a complete moron. If a team goes bankrupt they can get out of leases and move wherever they want. what is gta? grand theft auto?

atomic is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:30 PM
  #88
welcomebackwinnipeg
Registered User
 
welcomebackwinnipeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,119
vCash: 500
If the union decertifies, can the NHL not then let scabs play games for them? Or would this still be against the law?

welcomebackwinnipeg is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:32 PM
  #89
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
You open yourself to that criticism if you parade around your record revenues in the middle of recessions and choose not to give the whole story.
So doing good PR for the league and talking about how much the game is growing should be held against them in labor talks? How about we rely on the appropriate facts instead?

Quote:
The point was that the last CBA - was by the owners' own admission - foolproof.
I don't recall any such admission by anyone. It was the deal that enough people on both sides thought was good enough at the time that it wasn't worth cancelling a second season. If you were only reading the headlines, getting a cap sounded good for the owners. Getting a cap at 57%, plus a cap floor, really indicates that the players negotiated hard and got a very good deal for themselves.

Quote:
8 years later, they still have most of the same markets in dire straits, but it's still the players that are the problem.
Here's the thing about the bad markets v high salaries argument: you might be right that moving a bunch of teams to Canada would fix all the problems (although history suggests a mixed outcome at best), or even espouse contraction, but it's not relevant. The NHL has clearly made its mission to expand into the US and compete with football, baseball and basketball. It's never going to do that with 14 teams in the Northeast. And, like it or not, that expansion probably a big part of the reason why demand for the product has grown so high - even in good markets like NY and Boston, people are more likely to pay top dollar to see a league that's viewed as being on par with the NFL. That perception matters.

So if you're saying that players shouldn't be held to about the same salary structure as other leagues because a simpler solution would be massive relocation/contraction, you're advocating something that neither side in this negotiation wants. Neither the players nor the owners want to shift over to a league that isn't even trying to compete with the big US leagues, because that competition has helped fuel them to record revenues that make them all better off. Maybe you, as a fan, would rather cheer for a purer, more small-time game, but I don't see why that should influence your view of the lockout.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:35 PM
  #90
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
Non issue? Is that why they want to lower cap share from 57 to 50 and PA is resisting? Wow. Im speechless here. Non issue? It is THE issue at the heart of this lockout. Rapidly rising expenses in markets where revenues dont match.
Neither side has brought up expenses, out side the players %.

It is a non issue. OK well it may be your issue but the NHL nor the NHLPA seem to care about it.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:39 PM
  #91
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
So, he's just doing this because he hates owners and wants to make their lives miserable just because he can.
I don't know that he hates them or wants to make them miserable. He wants to be known as the man who beat them into submission.

Quote:
It may be your personal opinion, but it doesn't mean that you're not an irrational hater.
Hmmm. It's my personal belief that when someone resorts to name calling (which I thought wasn't allowed in this forum) it's because they know they're losing an argument and are trying to steer the attention elsewhere.

I will say, however, that I do not hate Donald Fehr, rationally or irrationally. I have never met the man so I have no personal feelings about him whatsoever. I do have a very low opinion of his negotiating tactics, which are completely removed from the man as a human being.

Quote:
But, it's a sport that's 'nearly destroyed.'
Another hmmmm. Let me quote myself: " it still hasn't fully recovered to its state of popularity prior to Fehr, and it may never."

That said, we're not going to sway each other's opinions. Since I make it a rule not to debate with people who use name calling as a tactic, I'll just agree to disagree and be done with it.


Last edited by Boltsfan2029: 12-08-2012 at 10:52 PM.
Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:41 PM
  #92
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
the players won in the last round of negotiations. their salaries are way up but a lot of teams are still losing money. maybe for the rangers and the maple leafs they won because they can't spend as much as they would without a cap but other teams didn't win.
Why would the Leafs want a cap?

Sure I know it was an instant extra 30M in the ownership pockets, but they lose that by not being competetive.

No cap and the Leafs still make money spending 100M on players. If they make the post season they makes several millions per home game. IF they ever won the Cup, the merchandising alone would pay for 3 or 4 season of hockey.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:49 PM
  #93
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
Why would the Leafs want a cap?

Sure I know it was an instant extra 30M in the ownership pockets, but they lose that by not being competetive.

No cap and the Leafs still make money spending 100M on players. If they make the post season they makes several millions per home game. IF they ever won the Cup, the merchandising alone would pay for 3 or 4 season of hockey.
the leafs haven't even been to the finals since 1967. so even when they were spending a ton of money they weren't making it. rangers not since 1994. they weren't winning when there wasn't a cap they were just driving up the prices other teams had to pay for players.

atomic is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:00 PM
  #94
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
Neither side has brought up expenses, out side the players %.

It is a non issue. OK well it may be your issue but the NHL nor the NHLPA seem to care about it.
Salaries are an expense, last time I checked.

DuklaNation is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:02 PM
  #95
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
Neither side has brought up expenses, out side the players %.

It is a non issue. OK well it may be your issue but the NHL nor the NHLPA seem to care about it.
There's a reason why they're demanding the players share gets reduced - and it's not so that the majority of the league can put more profits into their bank accounts.

You're looking at the players share, and ignoring the underlying reason behind the demand to have it reduced.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:04 PM
  #96
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
the leafs haven't even been to the finals since 1967. so even when they were spending a ton of money they weren't making it. rangers not since 1994. they weren't winning when there wasn't a cap they were just driving up the prices other teams had to pay for players.
I would bet that the 4 times the Leafs made the Confernce finals they made a fair bit more than the 30 million they got the last 7 years from having a cap in place. And that is in 1990's and early 2000's dollars not todays.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:10 PM
  #97
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
Salaries are an expense, last time I checked.
YOu said record expenses. Teams aren't spending more now on players salries than they were in 2004. There was 73% of revenue that went to players salaries in 2003-04.

So when you were talking about record expenses I naturally figured you were talking about travel, hotels, and other related expense which are easily well above the 2004 level.

MY last post clarified I was not talking about players salaries as part of the record expenses you were bringing up.

These other expenses if they were an issue with either side would have been brought up. They haven't. ergo Non issue.

Better things to talk about than this little battle of semantics.

edit:

And as for the players salaries the players agreed to 50/50 so again non issue.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:12 PM
  #98
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
the leafs haven't even been to the finals since 1967. so even when they were spending a ton of money they weren't making it. rangers not since 1994. they weren't winning when there wasn't a cap they were just driving up the prices other teams had to pay for players.
So what? They haven't won in the cap era either. Sports is a business. Too bad your team doesn't try to win.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:13 PM
  #99
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
How many players are in the NHLPA and how many have spoken out.


There are roughly 700 in the NHLPA and this guy says he has heard from about a dozen. In other words, a meaningless total. And if those dozen players want to know what is going on they are welcome to attend any bargaining session at the union's expense. If they choose not to do so, they shouldn't be whinging about it.

colchar is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:13 PM
  #100
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
There's a reason why they're demanding the players share gets reduced - and it's not so that the majority of the league can put more profits into their bank accounts.

You're looking at the players share, and ignoring the underlying reason behind the demand to have it reduced.
I already dealt with this above. 50/50 has been agreed to.

Where's the issue?

charliolemieux 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 01:50 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.