The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
#NHL player agent Andy Scott claims a "few trusty sources saying NHLPA - NHL deal will be announced tomorrow." We'll see...#NHLCBA
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalan2
Not according to Allan Walsh. Things went severely south today, from what he says.
Based on what I've read today from multiple sources, we had a slightly productive day where we took a step back, with HRR definition issues that were resolved, and are pissing off the players, the players don't want to file a disclaimer, the players do want to file a disclaimer, and the players WILL file a disclaimer.
The media has no idea what's going on at this point. They made that point emphatically clear today.
Oh yes it will all go well until the players ask for something new and the deal collapses.
Fehr is like one of those oxpecker birds, he keeps picking at a sore and never lets it heal. Sure, at the beginning he could seem like he's serving a good purpose, but then he just becomes a nuisance. Every offer, every concession the owners make (often to their own detriment, conceding to the point of appearing weak), Fehr comes back with a counter proposal asking for something more... every time, time and again. He'll be oxpecking down to the final blood drop that he can suck from the owners, in the final moment.
Fehr is like one of those oxpecker birds, he keeps picking at a sore and never lets it heal. Sure, at the beginning he could seem like he's serving a good purpose, but then he just becomes a nuisance. Every offer, every concession the owners make (often to their own detriment, conceding to the point of appearing weak), Fehr comes back with a counter proposal asking for something more... every time, time and again. He'll be oxpecking down to the final blood drop that he can suck from the owners, in the final moment.
It will still be 7% less than last season and they won't really make the old contract "whole" but partial. To make those contract whole would require 400 million at least. So Fehr is making the negotiation painful for the BoG but the PA is the one who will ultimatly be making the consessions not the other way around.
It will still be 7% less than last season and they won't really make the old contract "whole" but partial. To make those contract whole would require 400 million at least. So Fehr is making the negotiation painful for the BoG but the PA is the one who will ultimatly be making the consessions not the other way around.
What's the point of having a new CBA if the old one must still apply?
And what's the point of having a new CBA if the new numbers don't become real for 5 to 6 years?
What's the point of having a new CBA if the old one must still apply?
And what's the point of having a new CBA if the new numbers don't become real for 5 to 6 years?
What's the point of "fixing" a system that isn't broke? What's the point of keeping teams like Phoenix and Columbus in the league? Why not expand revenue sharing?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
Why must the players give something back when the owners have other option to fix their problems?
Better revenue sharing + getting rid of the teams that would still REALLY lose money after revenue sharing is implimented (Phoenix and Columbus, most likely) first, then, if MANY teams still struggle, fix the system. I understand why the players are reluctant to accept what the owners propose, they are doing all the giving back. The owners make "concessions" while negociating, but they are just dropping some demands they had earlier in the process. They never GAVE anything to the PA, it is just take, take, take. What do the players get for giving back 7% of their share? Nothing. The revenues keep growing, but the owners still need the players to make concessions? Who's greedy, tell me...
Last edited by JordanStaal#1Fan: 01-03-2013 at 11:27 PM.
What's the point of having a new CBA if the old one must still apply?
And what's the point of having a new CBA if the new numbers don't become real for 5 to 6 years?
Am fine with that but let not pretend the owners are the naive angels that get taken advantage off by the nasty PA rep. And off course you negotiate off the old CBA at least when you want to get a deal done fast.
What's the point of "fixing" a system that isn't broke? What's the point of keeping teams like Phoenix and Columbus in the league? Why not expand revenue sharing?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
Why must the players give something back when the owners have other option to fix their problems?
Better revenue sharing + getting rid of the teams would still REALLY lose money after revenue sharing is implimented (Phoenix and Columbus, most likely) first, then, if MANY teams still struggle, fix the system. I understand why the players are reluctant to accept what the owners propose, they are doing all the giving back. The owners make "concessions" while negociating, but they are just dropping some demands they had earlier in the process. They never GAVE anything to the PA, it is just take, take, take. What do the players get for giving back 7% of their share? Nothing. The revenues keep growing, but the owners still need the players to make concessions? Who's greedy, tell me...
Certainly wasn't broke for the players, that's for sure.
And could you be a bit more specific about what "better revenue sharing" could look like... Like you know, % $ values...??
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19
Am fine with that but let not pretend the owners are the naive angels that get taken advantage off by the nasty PA rep. And off course you negotiate off the old CBA at least when you want to get a deal done fast.
No,... when the old CBA gives you a better deal than the proposals for the new one.
Certainly wasn't broke for the players, that's for sure.
And could you be a bit more specific about what "better revenue sharing" could look like... Like you know, % $ values...??
I'd like to see a revenue sharing system similar to the one the MLB has - the big guys give a lot to the small guys. I'd also like to see a "softer" cap. Let's say you have a 60M$ cap, teams could go as high as 70M$ if they want, but you have to pay 2$ for every dollar you spend in a luxury tax that would directly go to the poorer teams.
The big-money-making teams should help out the struggling teams. It is not up to the players to save teams in "underdevelopped" markets. If you want to grow the game down south, and I think it has to be done for the league to really prosper, have their partners help them out thus giving them the time to build the market.
But no, I'm not expert, so I don't have any "numbers". But these are my "concepts", if you will.
The NFL is at 60%....how about more than 4.5% !!!!
Revenue sharing percentages mean Jack. What matters is revenue redistribution. The NBA deal shares 50% but only redistributes 180m out of 5b ie just 3.6%.
Better revenue sharing + getting rid of the teams that would still REALLY lose money after revenue sharing is implimented (Phoenix and Columbus, most likely) first, then, if MANY teams still struggle, fix the system. I understand why the players are reluctant to accept what the owners propose, they are doing all the giving back. The owners make "concessions" while negociating, but they are just dropping some demands they had earlier in the process. They never GAVE anything to the PA, it is just take, take, take. What do the players get for giving back 7% of their share?
um,... jobs that pay them $2.3m...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan
The revenues keep growing, but the owners still need the players to make concessions? Who's greedy, tell me...
Well, that's pure jealousy... The players should give back because they make a lot of money? THEY are the product. Without them, the owners WOULDN'T make money AT ALL! They deserve their fair share. I agree with 50/50 and I think that the player should be renumerated what the owners can pay them without losing money, but I also believe that there are other avenues to fixing the league's problem than to always cut into the players' share.
We are not talking about a factory that can replace pretty much all of their non-educated workers without even losing a dime. Hockey players have a rare skill and they are paid accordingly. Expecting them to give back 7% of their share because they make 2,3M$ on average is ludicrous. They shouldn't give in simply because they will still make millions. If they have to agree to some cuts, and I think they do, it is because the business is suffering, not because they are SOOOOO rich that it shouldn't matter to them...
They are the best 1% of the best 1% in their field, people who are the best 1% of the best 1% IN ANY FIELD are filthy rich. I can understand why people are mad at them because they are millionaire, but outside of pure envy, there is no rational reasons to. It is all emotional.
Well, that's pure jealousy... The players should give back because they make a lot of money? THEY are the product. Without them, the owners WOULDN'T make money AT ALL!
Bear in mind that without the hockey teams the owners provide the players would have to go out and get real jobs. It works both ways you know.
What's the point of "fixing" a system that isn't broke? What's the point of keeping teams like Phoenix and Columbus in the league? Why not expand revenue sharing?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
Why must the players give something back when the owners have other option to fix their problems?
Better revenue sharing + getting rid of the teams that would still REALLY lose money after revenue sharing is implimented (Phoenix and Columbus, most likely) first, then, if MANY teams still struggle, fix the system. I understand why the players are reluctant to accept what the owners propose, they are doing all the giving back. The owners make "concessions" while negociating, but they are just dropping some demands they had earlier in the process. They never GAVE anything to the PA, it is just take, take, take. What do the players get for giving back 7% of their share? Nothing. The revenues keep growing, but the owners still need the players to make concessions? Who's greedy, tell me...
Do you really think Billionaires are going to devalue their assets to the tune of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars?
Larry Brooks @NYP_Brooksie
Other day NHL would allow 7 yr contract to start at 10 and end at 4 per. Now would end at 6. Don't quite get what game theyre trying to play
Yepp, sounds like the NHL has changed what they are offering. As soon as the disclaimer deadline passed they decided to revert to less favourable terms.
Oh boy...This just goes to show 1) how big of a PA-shill Brooks is and 2) how clueless he's about the CBA talks.
What league proposed was 30% variance but 60% minimum (according to Friedman). So a contract with 10M first year could change 3M y-o-y but has minimum of 6M (no year can be less than 6M)
The effect of that? It makes escrow smaller. You know the same escrow that guys like Brooks but also the players have been whining about for years.
League proposed 20% variance with no minimum few days ago, that would mean heavier front-loading but it would mean also bigger escrows.
As long as PA accepts the 6/7 system, NHL probably has little issues with variance. The longer the contract limit, the bigger issue variance becomes.
Well, that's pure jealousy... The players should give back because they make a lot of money? THEY are the product. Without them, the owners WOULDN'T make money AT ALL! They deserve their fair share.
This has so many things wrong...
Players are NOT the product, they are PART OF THE PRODUCT.
Fans in Montreal don't go to games to watch Gomez, Kaberle, Subban or Price, they go to watch THE MONTREAL CANADIENS. Put current Habs players in a new, rival league team in Montreal and see how many fans will go their games and how much money the players would make. You'd be surprised.
Players come and go, teams stay (well, most of the time). Teams own the history, the arenas (or management rights), tv-contracts and The Stanley Cup.
And it's funny how you say owners wouldn't make any money at all.
Last season players made roughly 1.89B money (call it profit before taxes). Teams made 200-300M in profits collectively.
Now tell me again who's standing to lose more money if there's no NHL?
if there was a rival league that could compete money wise and market wise in USA/Canada (kinda like a better USFL in the 80s to the NFL) Where they challenged or even got the best players instead of the NHL, I could see fans converting.
Good hockey is good hockey and you can't tell me that Sidney Crosby hasn't helped the Pens sustain themselves.. or Ovechkin with the Caps..
OK, it turns out the players and their leader, Don Fehr, were in foul mood after they discovered the league might have tried to pull as fast one on HRR language in last week's offer.
You've got to be kidding me. Will Bettman never learn?
Looks like either the NHL backs off its current position or the union will disclaim.
NHL has already reverted back to the original HRR text. If Bettman was in foul mood after every stunt Fehr has pulled, he would have been in a bad mood ever since september.
Players are NOT the product, they are PART OF THE PRODUCT.
Fans in Montreal don't go to games to watch Gomez, Kaberle, Subban or Price, they go to watch THE MONTREAL CANADIENS. Put current Habs players in a new, rival league team in Montreal and see how many fans will go their games and how much money the players would make. You'd be surprised.
Players come and go, teams stay (well, most of the time). Teams own the history, the arenas (or management rights), tv-contracts and The Stanley Cup.
And it's funny how you say owners wouldn't make any money at all.
Last season players made roughly 1.89B money (call it profit before taxes). Teams made 200-300M in profits collectively.
Now tell me again who's standing to lose more money if there's no NHL?
The players are not the product? They are the skill, they are the people the fans pay money to come see. No fan in the history of the NHL has ever paid money to come see an owner or ownership group sit in their box.
The players are not the product? They are the skill, they are the people the fans pay money to come see. No fan in the history of the NHL has ever paid money to come see an owner or ownership group sit in their box.
Most fans cheer for the emblem on the front of the jersey not the name on the back. The team is the product, the players come and go.
The players are not the product? They are the skill, they are the people the fans pay money to come see. No fan in the history of the NHL has ever paid money to come see an owner or ownership group sit in their box.
The players are not the product. They are part of the product like I said. Fans come to watch the NHL teams, whoever might be playing for them.
Let's put it this way; take out the current teams and there will be no NHL. Take out the current players and there will still be NHL (albeit with worse players).
