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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-15-2012, 11:45 AM
  #751
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
I am very angry with the players. Even if the players accepted Bettman's last offer, they win. ****** You NHLPA


see how that works?
Except they players don't win with the owners' last offer.

Facts:
Players offer --- Players lose in every meaningful area.
Owners offer -- Players lose + more in every meaningful area.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:47 AM
  #752
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model62 View Post
This cuts both ways. Small Market clubs would be crushed.

It's nuclear brinkmanship, from both sides.
Crushed? Honestly, at that point there is nothing stopping a team from hiring 15 players each, paying them 30K each, travel by bus, stay 4 to a room in flea bag hotels. Sure they get zero fans, but many teams have local TV deals and arena deals that pay quite handsome sums.

ottawah is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:48 AM
  #753
19Yzerman19
Registered User
 
19Yzerman19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4 View Post
How would players be worse off in a freer market? They were getting 74% of revenues in the freer market of the early 2000s.

Getting rid of the cap and getting their percentage back up there makes the court fight well worthwhile.
try no more guarenteed(sp) contracts for starters, follow that up with about 33% of them having no place to work.

19Yzerman19 is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:50 AM
  #754
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Crushed? Honestly, at that point there is nothing stopping a team from hiring 15 players each, paying them 30K each, travel by bus, stay 4 to a room in flea bag hotels. Sure they get zero fans, but many teams have local TV deals and arena deals that pay quite handsome sums.

If we returned to a free market, there would be two options.

1) Real revenue sharing... sharing the gate, sharing the local TV revenue
Or
2) Contraction.

And then we'd see how serious the owners are about "expanding" into non-hockey markets or support small-market teams.

It's all well and good while the PA's concessions are paying for it.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:50 AM
  #755
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4 View Post
How would players be worse off in a freer market? They were getting 74% of revenues in the freer market of the early 2000s.

Getting rid of the cap and getting their percentage back up there makes the court fight well worthwhile.
It was a freer market, but not a free market. Thats entirely different. No minimum number of players, no minimum salary, the ability to lay off a player paying them one weeks severance per year of service.

Why not a longer season? Play 200 games, year round.

Everything is up in the air, the only comparison we have is pretty much 50's hockey, and if you think the players made out better then ...... Although agreed it would never go back to that level.

ottawah is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:51 AM
  #756
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
try no more guarenteed(sp) contracts for starters, follow that up with about 33% of them having no place to work.
A free market would destroy guaranteed contracts? How?

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:52 AM
  #757
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Except they players don't win with the owners' last offer.

Facts:
Players offer --- Players lose in every meaningful area.
Nope, its already been pointed out that the owners have made concessions.

for example, the previous contracts go from non guaranteed money to guaranteed money. Big difference for the players.

ottawah is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:53 AM
  #758
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
A free market would destroy guaranteed contracts? How?
Not for the top 10%, but for the rest yes.

Look, go to any job outside of hockey where its a free market. How many have guaranteed contracts? .0000001% maybe. And even then they are never 100%, you can always fire with cause.

ottawah is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:53 AM
  #759
19Yzerman19
Registered User
 
19Yzerman19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
A free market would destroy guaranteed contracts? How?
you don't think that would be the first thing to go if all contracts get declared null and void?

19Yzerman19 is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:01 PM
  #760
Actual Thought*
Blashill Blows
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
The owners told the PA back in November 2011: we need to talk, this CBA is not working for us.
The players said no and waited until the very last minute to start the talks.

The players are to blame for not taking the opportunity to avoid something the League told them was going to happen, and told them almost a year before it happened.
The players took a bath in the last lockout and the league has claimed for the last 8 years that everything was great now that they have parity and a cap. Of course when negotiations began that all changed. I am firmly in the player"s corner.

Actual Thought* is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:02 PM
  #761
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Crushed? Honestly, at that point there is nothing stopping a team from hiring 15 players each, paying them 30K each, travel by bus, stay 4 to a room in flea bag hotels. Sure they get zero fans, but many teams have local TV deals and arena deals that pay quite handsome sums.
Heh. That's a pretty good description of "crushed".

Also crushed? The League's dream of fat National Television contracts and rising franchise values.

Model62 is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:04 PM
  #762
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 35,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Nope, its already been pointed out that the owners have made concessions.

for example, the previous contracts go from non guaranteed money to guaranteed money. Big difference for the players.
Pointed out by whom?

The players were owed that money regardless, and HRR wasn't going to tank if there had been no lockout. The ~only~ reason the owners are 'giving up' on it is to GAIN on the linkage area, plus whatever else they can carve out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
you don't think that would be the first thing to go if all contracts get declared null and void?
The NHL is asking a court to rule on contract law in the context of collective labor bargaining. I'm not convinced that a court would negate contracts just because a union decertified. The collective items will be removed from future contracts, but seeing that they [current contracts] were negotiated and signed in good faith (with risks to both sides) under the agreement in existence at the time, I don't see how you build a legal case for voiding guaranteed contracts.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:04 PM
  #763
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Nope, its already been pointed out that the owners have made concessions.
The owners have conceded nothing throughout this entire process.

In some areas, they've agreed to take less.

Model62 is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:06 PM
  #764
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Nope, its already been pointed out that the owners have made concessions.

for example, the previous contracts go from non guaranteed money to guaranteed money. Big difference for the players.
I said meaningful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
you don't think that would be the first thing to go if all contracts get declared null and void?
I really don't know.
If contracts were declared null in void, wouldn't all the players become UFAs?

And then, couldn't each player NEGOTIATE a guaranteed contract?

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:08 PM
  #765
Actual Thought*
Blashill Blows
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
you don't think that would be the first thing to go if all contracts get declared null and void?
Players would negotiate guaranteed contracts as individuals and some owners would agree to them. It would go back to the good franchises being able to maintain quality. I am all for it.

Actual Thought* is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:09 PM
  #766
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Nope, its already been pointed out that the owners have made concessions.

for example, the previous contracts go from non guaranteed money to guaranteed money. Big difference for the players.
It isn't a concession when you go from a negotiation point heavily in your favor to one slightly less in your favor. An example of a concession would be lowering the UFA age

Tawnos is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:09 PM
  #767
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Not for the top 10%, but for the rest yes.

Look, go to any job outside of hockey where its a free market. How many have guaranteed contracts? .0000001% maybe. And even then they are never 100%, you can always fire with cause.
Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong.

But you don't know, and neither do I.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:18 PM
  #768
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
The players took a bath in the last lockout
They did not. They got the best revenue split in North American pro sports in a system that saw their salaries double over the life of the deal. They got a cap floor put in place that forces teams to spend more than they can afford on players. Even for those few teams that are held back by the cap, they got a system put in place that allows for massive cap circumvention. The mere existence of a cap doesn't mean anything unless it actually holds player salaries down below a sustainable level. This didn't. Period.

Quote:
and the league has claimed for the last 8 years that everything was great now that they have parity and a cap.
They did not. Some lazy media may have spun it that way, but the league said nothing about this last CBA being the one that fixed all their problems. What happened was they had a deal on the table that was just good enough that it wasn't worth blowing another entire season to keep fighting.

Quote:
Of course when negotiations began that all changed.
Look at the league's financials and compare what they pay their players to the NFL, the NBA OR MLB. Every single one of those comparisons makes the NHL's players look like they're making out like bandits.

Quote:
I am firmly in the player"s corner.
No wonder.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:19 PM
  #769
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,987
vCash: 500
In the end though we, the people who are responsible for providing the interest and a large portion of the revenue for the business that is the NHL want to see the best hockey in the world played in front of us for our money.

Without our money there isn't any reason for the league to exist and as such no TV merch etc revenues either.

Regardless of the outcome of all of this posturing there either will be a CBA that works for both parties or their won't be an NHL. I think that both sides wanted this to end up in the courts like the NBA and NFL did and for the same reasons.

The players can't be allowed to negotiate everything on their own because there are aspects of the game that must be decided that affect every player on the same level that would require them all to come to agreement on how these things should be handled.

You can argue that the NHL and its individual teams could determine these things on their own but then if the players determine that they are being treated unfairly they will simply organize and walk out again causing the vicious cycle to repeat itself again.

In the end a fair and reasoned agreement between the two entities is the only thing that can work for each of them. Let the courts decide? Sure, why not.

etherialone is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:26 PM
  #770
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,986
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4 View Post
How would players be worse off in a freer market? They were getting 74% of revenues in the freer market of the early 2000s.

Getting rid of the cap and getting their percentage back up there makes the court fight well worthwhile.
Would you rather have 74% of $500 million or 50% of $3 billion?

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:27 PM
  #771
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,982
vCash: 500
I've read in a couple of places that the NHL players had the best revenue split in NA sports. It isn't really true. The NBA players were making 57% as well until last year. Which means that the NHL was right in line with the industry in revenue split.

And anytime you go from 70%+ in share to 54% (initially), you're getting taken to the cleaners in the negotiation, no matter how necessary it may have been.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:28 PM
  #772
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Not for the top 10%, but for the rest yes.

Look, go to any job outside of hockey where its a free market. How many have guaranteed contracts? .0000001% maybe. And even then they are never 100%, you can always fire with cause.
Sure, but you can quit on two weeks notice and go work for the other guy across the street.

If an employer wants an employment contract that limits the employee's right to quit and go work somewhere else at any time, it might have guarantee something or pay damages if it let's the employee go. It won't be what it is now (in the CBA), but I don't think the employee would have no rights whatsoever.

In any event, this is merely tilting at windmills. I don't think the NHL can function without the restrictions on player movement that only a CBA provides in the first place. This is not 1958, when a sports league could simply impose its own terms without restraint.

Mork is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:28 PM
  #773
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 9,423
vCash: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model62 View Post
The owners have conceded nothing throughout this entire process.

In some areas, they've agreed to take less.
They are the owners of the business. Owners of a business are allowed to set the terms of how they run their businesses within the pertinent legal boundaries. They don't need to concede anything to their employees that they don't wish to concede. Some of the supporters of the players seem to conveniently ignore those unpleasant facts. At the end of the day the owners aren't exactly asking these guys to work in sweatshops; they are conversely offering them 50% of league revenues in exchange for the opportunity to play a game for a living.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:35 PM
  #774
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I've read in a couple of places that the NHL players had the best revenue split in NA sports. It isn't really true. The NBA players were making 57% as well until last year.
And now they make 50%, without any extra money thrown at them outside the cap to pay out current contracts (they basically have a "make whole" provision like the NHL earlier suggested where the cap drops to 46% or so later in the deal to pay out what was owed). Meanwhile the NFL takes 47%, and MLB paid out around 42% last year.

Either way, tied for the best is still the best. And all the more so when you consider the NHL is paying all of its fixed costs on a much smaller revenue stream than any of these leagues.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:41 PM
  #775
CrazyJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
It was a freer market, but not a free market. Thats entirely different. No minimum number of players, no minimum salary, the ability to lay off a player paying them one weeks severance per year of service.

Why not a longer season? Play 200 games, year round.

Everything is up in the air, the only comparison we have is pretty much 50's hockey, and if you think the players made out better then ...... Although agreed it would never go back to that level.

Without the CBA the players would also be able to sue the owners when they get injured for providing an unsafe work environment....

CrazyJ 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 11:30 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.