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.

Lockout V: Take the Long Way Home

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-24-2012, 11:37 AM
  #801
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Mod...

If you want to have a politics debate, by all means. Send me the thread on the politics board and I'll see you there.

The NHL isn't a manufacturing facility competing against foreign leagues that pay pennies on the dollar and exporting their products.

The NHL is a league that made money last year and is asking their employees to take a paycut.
The NHL is a form of entertainment that has to compete with every other form of entertainment in North America. Other forms of entertainment are endless and include:
Other pro sports: NFL, NBA, MLB, MLS
Other hockey leagues: AHL, ECHL, OHL, QMJHL, WHL
College sports
Local high school sports
TV
Movies
Internet
I could go on and on but you get the pint (I hope)


And you know that your last statement isn't an honest representation of what's happening.


Last edited by Killion: 12-24-2012 at 11:45 AM.
Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 11:40 AM
  #802
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The owners can offer whatever they want but they need someone that will work for what they're willing to pay; that's done solely by the employee.

Mod...
The players would play under the last NHL's proposal. There were reports that the players wanted to vote on it and Fehr convince them that the league would give more.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 11:41 AM
  #803
Deathdealer
Registered User
 
Deathdealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Poughkeepsie
Country: United States
Posts: 161
vCash: 500
no hockey for 2 years, nhlpa de certs, players get 30% get er done

Deathdealer is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 11:48 AM
  #804
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathToAllButMetal View Post
This is why I don't understand how the NHLPA has stayed united so far. It doesn't make sense. The only thing I can think of is that Fehr and the few players in the inner circle have really brainwashed the rank and file into believing that the NHL is going to crack at the last minute and offer a great deal including big make whole provisions which includes full pay for this half-season.

Man, there are going to be some really, really angry players out there once Jan. 10 or so comes and the season is cancelled. At that point, say hello to the NHLPA's Night of the Long Knives.
I think the players see what happened to Hamrlik and won't dare speak out. They have the understanding that being united is what will bring them to the holy land. But the only thing it will do is have them all holding hands when they jump off the cliff together.

JAX is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 11:53 AM
  #805
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
The players would play under the last NHL's proposal. There were reports that the players wanted to vote on it and Fehr convince them that the league would give more.
You'll never see a players vote, Fehr will "council" them to hold the line.

JAX is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 11:56 AM
  #806
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,281
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob
Derek McKenzie has made good money in the NHL.

If he doesn't like how the union operates to help make sure players like him continue to get good money -- too ****ing bad.

He made $1.2M over the last two years. And when he gets back to work, he's got a $1M salary waiting for him.
I find this fascinating, because if someone deemed "pro-owner" points out the exact same thing, they're blasted because the players' careers are short, they can't be expected to plan ahead and save/invest that money to plan for their futures, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
And the players are trying to determine if the compensation offered is within the limits of what they will play for.

Mod...
At this point they would probably be better served trying to determine if the compensation they would play for elsewhere could begin to compare to what has been offered (salary, perks, facilities, travel, accommodations, per diem, pension, the whole package).

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 12:16 PM
  #807
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The owners can offer whatever they want but they need someone that will work for what they're willing to pay; that's done solely by the employee.

Mod...
Given time, you don't think there are players that will play for an average salary just north of $2M?

The talent pool of players is constantly replenished. Yet another economic reality that the NHLPA fails to recognize. There are not that many business people that want to own an NHL franchise.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:04 PM
  #808
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Then why does the NHL ask for the PA to make offers?
Interesting part to employer/employee negotiations. Usually one side or the other in the potential relationship makes an offer. Frequently the employer asks, and if the potential employee picks a number that is too high then the employer stops going forward. If the employer offers, there usually isn't a lot of room to go up and a potential employee can't request too much more. They can't back out so easily in this situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Given time, you don't think there are players that will play for an average salary just north of $2M?

The talent pool of players is constantly replenished. Yet another economic reality that the NHLPA fails to recognize. There are not that many business people that want to own an NHL franchise.
I read somewhere that were roughly 700 worldwide who had the wherewithal to be a single owner of an NHL team. It may be more, but I would like a current number. As I have calculated the minimums based on previous transactions, it takes $500mil of net worth to consider single ownership and that would be on a shoestring.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:06 PM
  #809
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,281
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I read somewhere that were roughly 700 worldwide who had the wherewithal to be a single owner of an NHL team. It may be more, but I would like a current number. As I have calculated the minimums based on previous transactions, it takes $500mil of net worth to consider single ownership and that would be on a shoestring.
"Wherewithal" doesn't equate to interest or willingness, however.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:36 PM
  #810
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
"Wherewithal" doesn't equate to interest or willingness, however.
Of course. I was trying to make the point that there is very limited set of people who can qualify for NHL ownership. We already know that the interest in the group, whatever size it is, is small enough that they have accepted group ownership beginning with the Oilers in the 90s. SJ, Calgary, Nashville and now even Carolina look like they are more group than single owners. Phoenix when settled is group and Minny looks pretty close to 50single/50group. Are there others? I do know that the big guys for Minny and SJ could go single at least as measured by net worth.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:58 PM
  #811
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
The players would play under the last NHL's proposal. There were reports that the players wanted to vote on it and Fehr convince them that the league would give more.
Those guys would play hockey for a lot less than that but that isn't the point. They have a right to bargain and that's what they're doing, listening to the guy they hired to do the bargaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
At this point they would probably be better served trying to determine if the compensation they would play for elsewhere could begin to compare to what has been offered (salary, perks, facilities, travel, accommodations, per diem, pension, the whole package).
That isn't the choice in front of them. They're a huge part of a multi-billion dollar business and should be compensated well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Given time, you don't think there are players that will play for an average salary just north of $2M?

The talent pool of players is constantly replenished. Yet another economic reality that the NHLPA fails to recognize. There are not that many business people that want to own an NHL franchise.
The players aren't arguing that they need to give. They are giving. How much is the question.

This is a league that is making money. 7% of HRR + revenue sharing should significantly help the league.


Last edited by Scurr: 12-24-2012 at 02:08 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:59 PM
  #812
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
The owners want a 10 year CBA and I firmly believe they are seeking such a term in relation to the NBC TV deal they have: a ten year CBA takes them to after it has been renewed or taken it's business elsewhere; I honestly feel that the 10 year CBA is a huge issue for the owners.
The owners also want a 10 year CBA because 10 years from now, the CBA's for the NFL and NBA will have expired and been replaced. The NHL and the PA settled (more or less) on a 50-50 split of HRR based on recent precedent set by the NBA and NFL -- basically, 50-50 can be considered the current industry standard. And unless I'm mistaken, the CBA's for both the NBA and NFL are 10 years in length. So if 8 or 9 years from now, the NBA and NFL renegotiate their CBA's and set the industry standard at... say, a 47-53 split in favor of the owners, the NHL is going to want to have this precedent already set when they go to the PA looking for their 53% too.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 02:14 PM
  #813
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,366
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The players aren't arguing that they need to give. They are giving. How much is the question.

This is a league that is making money. 7% of HRR + revenue sharing should significantly help the league.
And the answer is that they aren't giving all that much if you look at the big picture in fact I'd argue that they're getting more than they're giving up. Nor are they seemingly willing to give up much based on the number of poison pills they repeatedly put in their proposals to recieve money outside of the system. This all despite the rhetoric that they're giving up everything.

LPHabsFan is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 02:16 PM
  #814
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
And the answer is that they aren't giving all that much if you look at the big picture in fact I'd argue that they're getting more than they're giving up. Nor are they seemingly willing to give up much based on the number of poison pills they repeatedly put in their proposals to recieve money outside of the system. This all despite the rhetoric that they're giving up everything.
They're getting more than they're giving? I'm scared to ask.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 02:23 PM
  #815
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
The players are no further ahead with the make-whole money when one considers the salary lost during the same period. They are actually further behind when lost salary is included into the equation. They will never make that money back; the players should have come to a deal much earlier.
The players haven't "lossed" any salary: They are locked out and neither working, nor being paid.

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 02:25 PM
  #816
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
The players haven't "lossed" any salary: They are locked out and neither working, nor being paid.
This concept seems to be completely lost on people.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 02:50 PM
  #817
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,366
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
They're getting more than they're giving? I'm scared to ask.
Glad you asked Scurr. I did point out some of it in my last response to one of your posts but here's a more detailed outline of why and how. Enjoy the read.

So hereís the current deal as I understand it.

In terms of the percentage of the share HRR itís going to go from 57% to 50% immediately. However in doing so, they are proposing a cap of 70.2 (maybe itís changed) for the first year so that teams donít get screwed over in terms of the cap and players cap hits. However with that drop in the percentage, the inclusion of the make whole means that they are DEFERRING that 7% for the first year rather than cutting it. Which will actually mean when they are receiving the deferred payments they are getting more than 50%. So in essence, no loss of real dollars but rather 7% of future revenue which Iíll discuss later on.

In terms of contract rights, putting limits on contracts in terms of variance and length is something that both sides want and yes I do feel as if the 5/7 and 5% is too harsh but itís not far off. On top of that, everything to do with UFA, arbitration, ELC are staying the same. Where they are actually gaining is in terms of more rights for NMC/NTC, cap exemptions for emergency call ups, performance cushions in every year of the contract making it easier to go on waivers and eliminating the re-entry waiver system so itís now easier to go to another team if itís not working out. There are also provisions for counting certain contracts in the minors so that it makes it unfavorable to hide players in the minors. All of these are gains for the players and costs money except for the length and variance.

Can also trade cap space which makes it easier for player movement which is good for the players.

Revenue sharing is increasing to I believe 220 million per year and they have changed the way they are giving it out in that itís now going from top to bottom along with it being easier for the lower revenue teams to receive it. Something the players wanted and while you can argue that itís more beneficial to the health of the league itís still a concession from the owners.

In terms of player health and safety, there is a massive overhaul to the pension system which was a huge issue for the players. On top of that, there will be increased standards for visitors dressing rooms and ice conditions. More days off during the year and restrictions on days during training camps. Teams are going to cover the costs for external independent medical consultations. There will be less restrictions on teams paying for family days like where all the dads go see an away game. There will also be a 3rd party independent committee in charge of player discipline. Again all of these not only benefit the players in a huge way but also cost money and significant money at that.

What it all boils down to is that in terms of what the players are giving up, they arenít giving up that much, if any, in terms of real dollars, and are gaining tons. Even in terms of future dollars, about half of the % of HRR being given up is going directly to either revenue sharing or to programs that greatly increase the health, safety, and comfort of the players lives. If you want me to show you the math I can.

That is the last deal from the owners side based on the reports I read and from my perspective thatís a pretty good deal for the players. However they are still trying to make it so that there are minimum caps, compliance buyouts, other cap exemptions, and more ways of circumventing the cap. All of this means that the money actually spent on salaries will be greater than the 50% and could theoretically be greater than 57% however never going lower than 50%.

If Iím wrong on the facts, please show me where and provide links. And I can provide links for you on these details if anyone would like them.

Discuss

LPHabsFan is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 02:54 PM
  #818
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
They're getting more than they're giving? I'm scared to ask.
Before you pass around the collection plate for the players do you realize that their offers still give them guaranteed raises every year? It's hard to feel their pain and suffering while they talk about their "consessions" but yet can still get yearly raises.

JAX is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:04 PM
  #819
Tkachuk4MVP
22 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
The players haven't "lossed" any salary: They are locked out and neither working, nor being paid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
This concept seems to be completely lost on people.


C'mon, you guys know what is meant by that. You're arguing semantics. The fact is the players are losing out on money that they would've made had they been playing.

Tkachuk4MVP is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:09 PM
  #820
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,281
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
That isn't the choice in front of them. They're a huge part of a multi-billion dollar business and should be compensated well.
Of course it's a choice. They can go play somewhere else if they'd like. But when they're looking at the NHL "on principle," they need to compare it to what else is out there so they can have a realistic idea of the alternatives.

As for being compensated well... Surely you didn't direct that to me. I've never said they shouldn't be compensated well. Never.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
The players haven't "lossed" any salary: They are locked out and neither working, nor being paid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
This concept seems to be completely lost on people.
It's not lost on people - we simply disagree with you. We are allowed to do that, ya' know! The players have missed a half a year of playing hockey. They have not been paid for that half year. I guarantee you they don't look at it any way other than the fact that they've lost a half season of pay.

Would either of you feel the same way if you were locked out from your jobs for 3 months? Would you look at the balance in your checking account 100 days out and bemoan the fact that you've lost three months of pay, or would you just shrug it off and say you're locked out, not working, haven't lost any salary?

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:15 PM
  #821
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
In terms of contract rights, putting limits on contracts in terms of variance and length is something that both sides want
No, it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
Revenue sharing is increasing to I believe 220 million per year and they have changed the way they are giving it out in that itís now going from top to bottom along with it being easier for the lower revenue teams to receive it. Something the players wanted and while you can argue that itís more beneficial to the health of the league itís still a concession from the owners.
The players share is tied to HRR, this doesn't help the players in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
What it all boils down to is that in terms of what the players are giving up, they arenít giving up that much, if any, in terms of real dollars, and are gaining tons. Even in terms of future dollars, about half of the % of HRR being given up is going directly to either revenue sharing or to programs that greatly increase the health, safety, and comfort of the players lives. If you want me to show you the math I can.
You understand the money going from their 57% into revenue sharing is going from the players to the owners, right?

The players are gaining some health and safety but forfeiting hundreds of millions of dollars going forward. That's a net loss no matter how you look at it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
That is the last deal from the owners side based on the reports I read and from my perspective thatís a pretty good deal for the players. However they are still trying to make it so that there are minimum caps, compliance buyouts, other cap exemptions, and more ways of circumventing the cap. All of this means that the money actually spent on salaries will be greater than the 50% and could theoretically be greater than 57% however never going lower than 50%.
The players are fighting for their piece of the pie just like the owners are.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:17 PM
  #822
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,342
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
And the players are trying to determine if the compensation offered is within the limits of what they will play for.

Mod...
I think that is already established, Ahl, sel, Finnish league, Austrian, Czech, ahl.... the players are have stated they'll happily play for far, far less than the NHL is offering.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:25 PM
  #823
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Would either of you feel the same way if you were locked out from your jobs for 3 months? Would you look at the balance in your checking account 100 days out and bemoan the fact that you've lost three months of pay, or would you just shrug it off and say you're locked out, not working, haven't lost any salary?
You don't lose the salary, you lose the job. How do you lose something before you have it?

It really depends on your financial situation. I enjoy time off and spending time with my family and friends, I'm sure most players do too. They probably don't miss the wear and tear on their bodies or the travel either.


Last edited by Scurr: 12-24-2012 at 03:30 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:36 PM
  #824
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,366
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
No, it's not.
I did read somewhere that this was something the players thought would benefit them as well. Theoretically you can make the argument that while longer contracts provide job security it also lessens the amount you can make if your value then exceeds what you're being paid. Not a huge thing.

Quote:
The players share is tied to HRR, this doesn't help the players in any way.
Actually it does. More revenue sharing means more money that teams can spend on salaries. More money to speand on salaries can lead to a better on ice product which can lead to more fan support which means more ticket sales, merch sales, etc...

Quote:
You understand the money going from their 57% into revenue sharing is going from the players to the owners, right?
Yes however A - see above and B - the players didn't want it going to the higher revenue owners. They've changed that.

Quote:
The players are gaining some health and safety but forfeiting hundreds of millions of dollars going forward. That's a net loss no matter how you look at it.
Ya it's not just health and safety that their gaining but other contract rights that not only benefit the players but also cost a fair bit of money. So again, the money isn't necesarily going to owners.

Quote:
The players are fighting for their piece of the pie just like the owners are.
Yes but they're doing so poorly and ignoring what the big picture looks because the tactic that is being used is to make every single issue THE difference between a deal and no deal.

Again, the players are giving up money moving foward (little if any current or real money) and gaining tons in return.

LPHabsFan is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:37 PM
  #825
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,247
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
You don't lose the salary, you lose the job. How do you lose something before you have it?
What the? Well I guess then the players should probably just accept any rollbacks. You know, because they haven't lost anything yet, because they haven't gotten paid those sums yet.

Also earlier on, you were arguing about how much the players were 'giving'. They were giving 'everything' etc. etc. How do you give something before you have it?

The point is...it's silly to argue semantics.

Turbofan 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 05:57 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.