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.

NHLPA starts another 'disclaimer' vote

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2013, 09:23 PM
  #76
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
From the Memorandum filed by the NHLPA earlier today:

"...the NHL is using (their December 14) suit in an attempt to force the players to remain in a union. Not only is it virtually unheard of for an employer to insist on the unionization of its employees, it is also directly contradicted by the rights guaranteed to employees under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act."

"In essence, the NHL’s position is that the Court should force the players to remain a union so that the NHL can continue to claim that the non-statutory labor exemption protects activities that would otherwise be flagrant violations of the antitrust laws."
This sums it up. There is nothing the owners can do IF the players actually want to walk the decertification route. Even if the DOI-as-proxy-decert plan gets blown up, all it takes is a simple paperwork filing to start a real, legit decert process, and then we are truly on the Train to Nobody Knows The **** Where.

Exciting times!

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:23 PM
  #77
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,501
vCash: 500
@Fugu:

Fine, if you demand that I shoot off numbers in the dark about TV deals, let's shoot off numbers in the dark about TV deals. For lack of any real figures on the matter, let's just assume that every team's TV deal is worth exactly as much as they make in gate receipts. This is an extremely generous assumption, because everyone knows the NHL is a gate-driven league without a ton of TV money coming in, but let's just assume it so. All the figures for gate receipts are in my other thread, and I'll just borrow them here.

What you get is $1.38B in TV money. Toronto's TV deal is worth exactly 4X Phoenix's TV deal, and the biggest gap between two teams is the Isles and NYR, for which the ratio is 5:1. Sounds great, right? Sounds like a plausible ratio in terms of the value of different deals? That must mean a huge amount of sharing, right? But it doesn't.

Because even if you take 1.38B in money that is hugely disproportionately split up between the teams and split it completely evenly (so that every team receives the same $46.2M average), you still only redistribute $236.8M from rich teams to poor.

So add that to the gate split example. Now we're assuming the NHL "shares" $1.38B in gate receipt money (by a 60-40 split for the home team, resulting in $94M being redistributed), plus $1.38B in TV revenue (shared completely evenly). That would be 83.6% of league revenues (assuming $3.3B total revenue) put into sharing the same damn way the NFL does it. And you're still only talking about actually redistributing, TOTAL, $330M.

THAT is the power of sharing v redistribution. The NHL is doing so much more than people are giving it credit for because people are blinded by the difference between sharing and redistribution.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:44 PM
  #78
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,592
vCash: 500
Nothing really surprising here. It took the risk of a disclaimer of interest to get the NHL to negotiate, and was seemingly the only recourse the PA had to get the owners back to negotiating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Where did I say I was? I'll wait. Or maybe I just posted my opinion.

Snark aside, DOI cannot be used as a negotiation ploy by present legal standards. How does the PA go about justifying that is not precisely what they are doing?
Honestly, I don't think they have to.

The PA isn't interested in representing the players if the NHL isn't willing to negotiate with them. The NHL refused to do so until the disclaimer of interest deadline came up, and now that it's passed, it seems that progress has slowed again...

So what's the recourse for the players who (at least last time) felt by a large majority, that they'd like their leaders to have the option of removing the unionized environment, as obviously, it's not working for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
This sums it up. There is nothing the owners can do IF the players actually want to walk the decertification route. Even if the DOI-as-proxy-decert plan gets blown up, all it takes is a simple paperwork filing to start a real, legit decert process, and then we are truly on the Train to Nobody Knows The **** Where.

Exciting times!
QFT. The disclaimer method was simply a quicker, and less reliable means, to the same end. We're likely less than a week away from cancelling the season, at which point the timeline goes out the window.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Both sides have been negotiating. That isn't the issue.

The issue is Bettman/Owners issuing threats/ultimatums and then backing down. Ain't nobody going to take you seriously when you do that, time after time.

Now the players are in danger of the same thing with the DOI thing - this time, they're either actually going to have to do it, or it will be taken as an idle threat.
Absolutely. The players made substantial progress as the deadline for disclaimer approached...however, this time around, it seems there would be little incentive to not file, as the season would be cancelled, or much closer to it by the next deadline.


Last edited by seanlinden: 01-03-2013 at 09:50 PM.
seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:54 PM
  #79
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Was just thinking through the numbers...if the union blows itself up, I'm assuming an EPL-like distribution of salary spending. Call it three buckets averaging out at :

10 teams @ 75% of HRR/3
10 teams @ 50% of HRR/3
10 teams @ 25% of HRR/3 (because obviously the floor goes away, too)

This produces the same amount of total income for the PA as Bettman's "30 teams @ 50%" scheme.

There are, OF COURSE, many assumptions in this. The point is that the PA may well have crunched the numbers and come to the conclusion that even eliminating the floor and having a third of the league at rock-bottom salaries would be more than compensated for by the big clubs shooting each other in the head with money-bullets chasing a fully loaded roster.

As I have stated before, I do not believe the PA is just making noise about decertifying...IMO they are in fact willing to walk that path.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:05 PM
  #80
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
As I have stated before, I do not believe the PA is just making noise about decertifying...IMO they are in fact willing to walk that path.
I've said before, if this is true, the PA has nothing to fear from the NHL's legal suit. Give it a little time, put together some body of evidence that shows you're actually serious, something to counterweigh all the players telling the media that this is their negotiation ploy, and the courts will eventually be glad to hear your antitrust case. The NHL will have nothing to say about it. It's the antitrust case that they bring 24 hours after filing a disclaimer and walking out of the last negotiation session, when all your people have said for a few months is that they're doing this for leverage, and no one has done a damn thing to indicate that they're actually planning on representing themselves next season (i.e., one player tries to negotiate one non-CBA contract with any team), it's that antitrust case that the court will likely throw out.

If the PA is legit in its desire, it has nothing to fear from the NHL's legal papers. They just have to give it a little time, prove they've really walked away from the negotiating table for good and are trying to work as individuals.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:12 PM
  #81
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,990
vCash: 500
@Haseoke.

In general, for the bigger teams, it runs at about half of gate receipts.


The problem there as well is that several teams, perhaps a third, have very low local TV revenues, maybe not even $5 MM per year. Compare that to Toronto's $40+ MM and gate revenue of $2 MM/game.... You also have several other teams that are $20-30 MM in TV money. It's always been about uneven revenue.


My eyeballing of the local TV money had it at roughly $400 MM. Add to the national contracts, and you have $700 MM that could be shared. That's about $23 MM per team. The local money is about $13 MM per team, so if the top ten gave up that money altogether (a la the NFL style), and your hypothetical gate money, the amount going into an RS pot would be: $130 MM + $96 MM = $226 MM from the top ten. The poor teams would gain that exclusively, plus receive the full share of the national money, or $10 MM each.

I'll try to check my math in a bit. I'm multitasking at the moment.


Now, here's what you said in that other thread:
Question: If the only piece of revenue sharing the NHL did was an NFL-style 60-40 gate revenue split, how would that compare to the revenue sharing agreed to in the current NHL negotiations?

Short answer: If the NHL split all gate revenue 60-40, they would in effect redistribute $94.72M from 16 teams (including all 6 Canadian franchises) to the rest of the league. In the current negotiations, the NHL has agreed to share $200M from 10 teams, while the NHLPA is asking for $250M.

The revenue transfer program is funded by more than just the contributions from the top ten earners. Your exercise seems to imply that the top ten teams are ALL giving $14 MM each (to get to the old RS total), and that that would be expanded to $20 MM per team. That isn't what's happening.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:24 PM
  #82
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,539
vCash: 500
This is relatively funny.

Bettman addresses the disclaimer issue almost as if he's daring Fehr to file it.

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:37 PM
  #83
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
@Haseoke.

In general, for the bigger teams, it runs at about half of gate receipts.


The problem there as well is that several teams, perhaps a third, have very low local TV revenues, maybe not even $5 MM per year. Compare that to Toronto's $40+ MM and gate revenue of $2 MM/game.... You also have several other teams that are $20-30 MM in TV money. It's always been about uneven revenue.


My eyeballing of the local TV money had it at roughly $400 MM. Add to the national contracts, and you have $700 MM that could be shared. That's about $23 MM per team. The local money is about $13 MM per team, so if the top ten gave up that money altogether (a la the NFL style), and your hypothetical gate money, the amount going into an RS pot would be: $130 MM + $96 MM = $226 MM from the top ten. The poor teams would gain that exclusively, plus receive the full share of the national money, or $10 MM each.

I'll try to check my math in a bit. I'm multitasking at the moment.


Now, here's what you said in that other thread:
Question: If the only piece of revenue sharing the NHL did was an NFL-style 60-40 gate revenue split, how would that compare to the revenue sharing agreed to in the current NHL negotiations?

Short answer: If the NHL split all gate revenue 60-40, they would in effect redistribute $94.72M from 16 teams (including all 6 Canadian franchises) to the rest of the league. In the current negotiations, the NHL has agreed to share $200M from 10 teams, while the NHLPA is asking for $250M.

The revenue transfer program is funded by more than just the contributions from the top ten earners. Your exercise seems to imply that the top ten teams are ALL giving $14 MM each (to get to the old RS total), and that that would be expanded to $20 MM per team. That isn't what's happening.
The problem with what you're saying is that I think you're confusing sharing with redistribution again. Just look at the bold. You're suggesting that the top ten teams will just "give up" their total local TV money. But that's not what happens in the NFL. Every team gives up its money and then gets back the average of everyone's contributions. It's that "getting back" that you, and countless other people who mistake sharing and redistribution, aren't accounting for. When you factor in that "getting back," you really aren't giving up nearly as much as it might appear. I don't know how to manipulate your figures, because you haven't provided what the average is, you've just suggested that the top ten teams make $13M each. But in order to really simulate the NFL model, you then have to subtract the average TV deal from what they put in, because that's what they'll take right back out.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:37 PM
  #84
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Where did I say I was? I'll wait. Or maybe I just posted my opinion.

Snark aside, DOI cannot be used as a negotiation ploy by present legal standards. How does the PA go about justifying that is not precisely what they are doing?
Quite easily.

We held off. We extended. but it still wasn't good enough to get a fair deal.

So now we disband because the union isn't working/

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:40 PM
  #85
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
If the PA is legit in its desire, it has nothing to fear from the NHL's legal papers.
That's right.

The only real question here is whether or not they really want to do it. We'll find out soon enough...

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:40 PM
  #86
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,678
vCash: 500
Some players second-guessing Fehr for not having gone forward with the DOI on Wednesday?

Lebrun: "... having some players second-guess him Wednesday night for not filing the disclaimer of interest (several players told me they would have liked him to do so)... "

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ssing-to-worse

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:43 PM
  #87
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
Some players second-guessing Fehr for not having gone forward with the DOI on Wednesday?

Lebrun: "... having some players second-guess him Wednesday night for not filing the disclaimer of interest (several players told me they would have liked him to do so)... "

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ssing-to-worse
I'm beginning to operate under the impression that a lot of the players are legitimately just stupid...

But I suppose if they're interested in having their contracts voided, a disclaimer is a great idea, not that it'll ever hold up in court...

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:43 PM
  #88
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
You're suggesting that the top ten teams will just "give up" their total local TV money. But that's not what happens in the NFL. Every team gives up its money and then gets back the average of everyone's contributions.
Can't speak for anyone else, but when I talk about revenue sharing, I'm talking about the latter. All NHL TV money - local, regional, national, extraterrestrial, whatever, all of it, would go into a pot and get split 30 ways.

The NFL simplifies this process by having more or less centralized broadcast rights. This prevents accounting games that you see in places like Philly (and likely soon in T.O.) where a team is owned by its own broadcaster and gives its owner a sweetheart deal (thereby reducing HRR while increasing revs one corporate layer up).

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:58 PM
  #89
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
Saying it repeatedly does not make it true.

What is "extreme" or "ridiculous" about an offer that merely mirrors what the opposite side has been getting in the last deal? 57-43 for the side that takes the risk of the business and pays for the costs, vs. the side that doesn't have any risk for the business.

With the make whole, the deal is going to end up being more than 50-50 for the players, and yet they STILL whine about that opening offer.
Your not a party ( neither am I) so our opinion is moot but it was pretty clear that the players were not going to accept the reversal. Not then, not now.

If the owners want to go to 50/50 on total revenues, I'm sure the pa signs. The pa is trying to get what they can. Cap and rollback last time, reduction in HRR contract length and variance

It is true the players dont assume risk but they are employees not partners. I like Geoff Molson, but I'm not paying 75 bucks to see him do his job.

And to be clear my allegiance is not to get games going now but to get the best deal for labor peace. Until the owners stop viewing the PA as an ATM, at the end of every CBA poorly run teams or teams in crappy markets will cry poor and this whole process starts again. If your assumption that 50/50 is equitable, when the owners ask 60/40 you gonna change your tune? Casuse its gonna happen.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 11:02 PM
  #90
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,539
vCash: 500
It'll be interesting to see if more people vote no this time, and how many more do.

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 11:07 PM
  #91
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,529
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Because it is no longer a negotiation ploy. If they genuinely feel that negotiations are not working (and please, tell me how you would prove, in court, that they don't feel that way), then they can file for DOI.
The league hardlining or the PA not liking what was proposed does not translate into unfair labor negotiation. The PA would have to prove the NHL is unwilling to negotiate in good faith. Considering they allowed the original DOI to expire because they received a more favorable offer. Proving in court this second attempt is nothing more than a ploy to strong arm the NHL becomes increasingly difficult. Combine that with those always lovable tweets and the PA does not look at that genuine.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 11:07 PM
  #92
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Your not a party ( neither am I) so our opinion is moot but it was pretty clear that the players were not going to accept the reversal. Not then, not now.

If the owners want to go to 50/50 on total revenues, I'm sure the pa signs. The pa is trying to get what they can. Cap and rollback last time, reduction in HRR contract length and variance

It is true the players dont assume risk but they are employees not partners. I like Geoff Molson, but I'm not paying 75 bucks to see him do his job.
It's very rare, in most big businesses at least, that the employees take home more profit than the business owners do. And until it actually truly gets to 50/50, the employees in this League have for at least a couple of decades now taken home a bigger % of the pie than the owners have. So Ok, it may not be called a "partnership" (though it should be), but these "employees" have really got a strong hold on the control of the buisness.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 11:09 PM
  #93
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,529
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Quite easily.

We held off. We extended. but it still wasn't good enough to get a fair deal.

So now we disband because the union isn't working/
Actually, it was. The PA simply didn't like it. There is a significant difference.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 11:20 PM
  #94
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Actually, it was. The PA simply didn't like it. There is a significant difference.
Possibly unintentional, but you're talking about the union in the past tense. Let's just wait and see what actually happens.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 11:33 PM
  #95
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It's very rare, in most big businesses at least, that the employees take home more profit than the business owners do. And until it actually truly gets to 50/50, the employees in this League have for at least a couple of decades now taken home a bigger % of the pie than the owners have. So Ok, it may not be called a "partnership" (though it should be), but these "employees" have really got a strong hold on the control of the buisness.
There aren't many businesses where labor is the product. There are also not many businesses that can legally restrict competitors from entering their markets.

The players made more 2 cbas ago, took a cut for linkage and revenues grew. Are there many businesses that increase revenues and ask their employees to take a cut? If this has all been an informal partnership, where's the pas cut of expansion fees? The distinction between partner and employee is not a semantic one, the owners can't treat the players as partners in order to get them to stabilize teams in crappy markets but as employees when it comes to things like cashing expansion checks. Was the pa consulted over the new TV deal ?

I feel that the use of quotes " partnership" is designed to intentionally confuse things, much like people who wanted to rebrand the owner initiated lockout as a " strike".

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 12:19 AM
  #96
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,529
vCash: 500
It's kind of funny. Fehr thought he was showing Bettman how to use brinkmanship, then Bettman turns around at the last minute and shoves it in his face.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 12:27 AM
  #97
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
It's kind of funny. Fehr thought he was showing Bettman how to use brinkmanship, then Bettman turns around at the last minute and shoves it in his face.
But the battle is still ongoing. I really don't know what is likely to happen, this could be posturing or real, I can't tell right anymorew. Ultimately, winners and losers likely won't be known till the last minute, there is still plenty of time for either side to blink.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 12:50 AM
  #98
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
I wonder how the court will see PA's actions.

PA claims that DOI is not a negotiating tactic but players play that card whenever the talks hit a snag. Really credible...

Also it's funny how PLAYERS want Fehr to do the DOI when the DOI is all about Fehr not wanting to represent players. I'm sure Batterman & co. will have fun with that in the possible court case.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 12:59 AM
  #99
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 2,930
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
I'm beginning to operate under the impression that a lot of the players are legitimately just stupid...
I'm not sure that they're stupid. I definitely think they're getting some questionable advice.

_Del_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 01:02 AM
  #100
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
I wonder how the court will see PA's actions.

PA claims that DOI is not a negotiating tactic but players play that card whenever the talks hit a snag. Really credible...

Also it's funny how PLAYERS want Fehr to do the DOI when the DOI is all about Fehr not wanting to represent players. I'm sure Batterman & co. will have fun with that in the possible court case.
It's pretty simple really, the players, and probably Fehr to be honest, are banking on a deal getting done without this seeing court.

If it does see court, they're going to get absolutely steamrolled. As I said before, I honestly think Bettman's daring them to do it.

Wingsfan2965* is offline   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 02:47 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.