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 VII: I've walked for miles, my feet are hurting

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2013, 10:54 AM
  #26
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
It doesn't work that way in a linkage world. If playoff revenue goes *poof*, player revenue goes *poof*.
Well so far half the season has gone *poof* and Fehr doesn't seem to mind. I think he could convince the lemmings, errr players that they should strike the playoffs for the good of the NHLPA in the future.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 10:54 AM
  #27
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Can anyone doubt now what would've happened if Bettman and the owners hadn't locked out the Season until a deal was made? We should all now clearly know that negotiations wouldn't half as far along as they are, and by Playoff time if the owners didn't give Fehr what he wants, there would be a strike. Sure, the fans would've got their Season, But No Playoffs. The players would've been paid, by the cash cow of the Playoffs would've been lost. Fehr's tactics should be clear to all by now. And that Bettman and the owners are getting mighty fed up with it... Just not soon enough for my liking.
First part is correct, negotiations never would have happened.

Second part though, think about. Why would the players go on strike before the playoffs? Its a huge chunk of yearly revenue. For every buck they cost the owners, they cost themselves far far more. For every playoff dollar lost, the owners lose 43 cents - expenses, the players lose 57%. The escrow accounts would be hit to the tune of 30% or more. The players would never strike in that instance.

ottawah is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 10:55 AM
  #28
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,256
vCash: 500
Season is gone.

I expect this to go to the courts.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 10:55 AM
  #29
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Meh, they simply ripped a page from Fehr's playbook and moved the goal posts like he has many times.
Funny how the NHL though pretty much gets a free pass when they do it though while this board erupts when ever Fehr does it. You'd think by now that people would be able to see things objectively and recognize that both sides have been pulling the same tricks.

vanwest is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 10:56 AM
  #30
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
More - I know that this is what Fehr did in MLB. I wonder, though, if that was a different situation. MLB players had no CBA right to playoff money. In this case, the players get their cut of playoff income, too. That lessens the leverage they have for a late season strike.

I rather think, that, as long as the players could play under the old CBA, that's what they would do. In other words, just keep dragging out and dragging out until the CBA expired totally. It's their best move, money wise.
It IS totally expired! Dragging the old CBA out longer only serves the purpose of the players, because it's closer to what they want. The owners could just have rightly said that, OK, we'll play the Season under the proposed system that we want until the CBA is finalized. Neither option however would be legal to do without the consent of the other side. The old CBA is no more valid now than is the owners' first proposal back in October.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:02 AM
  #31
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
First part is correct, negotiations never would have happened.

Second part though, think about. Why would the players go on strike before the playoffs? Its a huge chunk of yearly revenue. For every buck they cost the owners, they cost themselves far far more. For every playoff dollar lost, the owners lose 43 cents - expenses, the players lose 57%. The escrow accounts would be hit to the tune of 30% or more. The players would never strike in that instance.
The first part is right, the second part is wrong. Those figures no longer apply and haven't applied since the end of last Season. You're playing the players song, with the idea that if this Season were played out while the negotiation process continued, that the players should rightfully just continue to get the share that they had been getting in the old CBA. WHY should they? There is no contract stating what share the players should be receiving this Season if the Season were in process.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:08 AM
  #32
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
First part is correct, negotiations never would have happened.

Second part though, think about. Why would the players go on strike before the playoffs? Its a huge chunk of yearly revenue. For every buck they cost the owners, they cost themselves far far more. For every playoff dollar lost, the owners lose 43 cents - expenses, the players lose 57%. The escrow accounts would be hit to the tune of 30% or more. The players would never strike in that instance.
Cause the players hit the jackpot doing it in 1992. The players had received all their money and the owners were still in the red. Right before the playoffs is the best time to strike.

Hawkscap is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:09 AM
  #33
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Well so far half the season has gone *poof* and Fehr doesn't seem to mind.
Time will tell if it ends up being worth the bother.

It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that the PA ends up with more income under a union-blowup scenario than it does under any of the recent owner offers.

No way to know until it's all over and we're looking back on it from a few years hence.

 
Old
01-04-2013, 11:17 AM
  #34
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,686
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
First part is correct, negotiations never would have happened.

Second part though, think about. Why would the players go on strike before the playoffs? Its a huge chunk of yearly revenue. For every buck they cost the owners, they cost themselves far far more. For every playoff dollar lost, the owners lose 43 cents - expenses, the players lose 57%. The escrow accounts would be hit to the tune of 30% or more. The players would never strike in that instance.
Your only looking at the HHR part of the equation.

IIRC revenue generated during the playoffs counts towards calculating HHR and in effect what the cap is and what the players get paid, BUT I do believe the players don't actually get paid a salary during the playoffs. They get a specific amount from a NHL playoff pool based on where they finish in the playoffs. So to me the playoffs are where the owners make quite a bit more money on a per game basis than during the regular season.

As well, the owners do generate some revenue streams that are not part of sharing with the players.

Here is a breakdown as to what it costs the NYR when they miss the playoffs from a few years ago...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/sp...offs.html?_r=0

Tickets for the first round of the playoffs cost roughly 25 percent more than regular-season games, so the team would generate about $2 million in ticket revenue for each first-round home game. As the eighth seed, the Rangers would host up to three home games, worth as much as a total of $6 million.

But like all playoff teams, the Rangers would give about half of that money to the N.H.L. In each round, the clubs still playing must pay the N.H.L. a low six-figure fee to help cover the leagueís costs to produce the playoffs, including expenses for travel, marketing and officiating. The fees increase each round.

The Rangers would also contribute part of their playoff ticket revenue to the N.H.L.ís revenue-sharing program, which redistributes money to the financially weaker teams.

The Garden, though, would keep all food and beverage sales because it runs the concessions. Fans spend $18 to $26 a person at N.H.L. playoff games, said Chris Bigelow, the president of Bigelow Companies, a consultant to stadium operators. The Rangers would be on the high end of that range.

Roughly half of the revenue from food and beverage sales covers the Gardenís expenses for buying the hot dogs, pretzels and soda, and for hiring the workers to serve them. The Gardenís profit, then, is equal to 18,200 fans multiplied by about $13, or about $235,000 for each playoff game.

cbcwpg is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:19 AM
  #35
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It IS totally expired! Dragging the old CBA out longer only serves the purpose of the players, because it's closer to what they want. The owners could just have rightly said that, OK, we'll play the Season under the proposed system that we want until the CBA is finalized. Neither option however would be legal to do without the consent of the other side. The old CBA is no more valid now than is the owners' first proposal back in October.
More - I guess I need something clarified. A question on the prior CBA. Did the term of it expire, or did the owners exercise their right to end it, and hen lockout the players? I have been under the impression that the prior CBA could have been in place another year. If that it true, then obviously, the players would play any delay game possible, because their cut in the prior CBA was higher than anything they ever get otherwise.

However, if the prior CBA expired of its own terms (means the owners chose not to use their right to end opt out), then there would have to be an agreement to play this year under the terms of the old CBA. The legal details of that agreement would determine whether a strike right existed for the players. I suspect that the owners would not have given them strike rights at the end of season/before playoffs without the players' cut of playoff income also suffering.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:20 AM
  #36
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The first part is right, the second part is wrong. Those figures no longer apply and haven't applied since the end of last Season. You're playing the players song, with the idea that if this Season were played out while the negotiation process continued, that the players should rightfully just continue to get the share that they had been getting in the old CBA. WHY should they? There is no contract stating what share the players should be receiving this Season if the Season were in process.
I believe hes working under the assumption that if the season were to continue while bargaining was under way, it would continue operating under the expired CBA. that's what the players suggested, and I believe that's what happened in the 90's when they played while negotiating.

cheswick is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:25 AM
  #37
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 Dado View Post
Time will tell if it ends up being worth the bother.

It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that the PA ends up with more income under a union-blowup scenario than it does under any of the recent owner offers.

No way to know until it's all over and we're looking back on it from a few years hence.

Can you explain how this would happen? I'm sure the Crosbys and Ovechkins of the world would have a lot to gain, but there's no way Ville Leino gets $4.5 mil/yr if the union disbands. At first glance I would think the majority of the players would lose money in this scenario.

Tkachuk4MVP is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:26 AM
  #38
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Time will tell if it ends up being worth the bother.... No way to know until it's all over and we're looking back on it from a few years hence.
This is very true, and I suspect history will not be kind to this particular group of BOG's when it is written. Though many, including Gary Bettman & likely Bill Daly will all eventually find themselves inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame's Builder Category. Revisionism. In perpetuity. Ironic really. "Builders", when in effect what theyve' really been up to is Darwining the players & the PA, scaring them out of their tree's, driving them back to the beaches, and none too nicely....

Killion is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:30 AM
  #39
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
I believe hes working under the assumption that if the season were to continue while bargaining was under way, it would continue operating under the expired CBA. that's what the players suggested, and I believe that's what happened in the 90's when they played while negotiating.
Cheswick - Please see my prior post. I believe that this lockout is because the owners exercised their right to opt out of the prior CBA. Once they did that, there had to be negotiations. Since there had to be negotiations, no owners would ever play the season without a new CBA. Even if the players said, "Let's just play while we negotiate..." that would just be their best tactic. The old rules were better for them than anything else they might get, and they knew it. Under those rules, they wouldn't strike. Never. They had it good.

So, what I am saying is that Fehr never could have had a "we will strike right before the playoffs" card to play. It would never have fallen that way. His best tactic would be like this:

If the old CBA were not cancelled, then delay, delay, delay and don't even bother with negotiations. As long as we can play under those rules, we win.

Once the old CBA was cancelled, no one will play. The owners will not let that happen. They won't agree to play w/o a CBA, and if the owners would have agreed to 'negotiate while we play' why would they have opted out in the first place. So, once the owners decided to opt out, the players had no strike leverage. The owners had to lock them out first. In this case, Fehr's best tactic is 1) if he wants the most money for the players, then don't lose them too many paychecks. 2) if he wants the most favorable terms in the new CBA, then delay and wait wait wait for the NHL to yield, because his real leverage is that the owners will have a hard time cancelling the season.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:30 AM
  #40
RedeyeRocketeer
Registered User
 
RedeyeRocketeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,042
vCash: 500
I wonder what the real impact of this lockout will be to attendance and merchandising. I've promised myself to not attend an NHL game, or pay anything directly to the NHL for the balance of this season, and the next. I wonder if I'm in the minority.

RedeyeRocketeer is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:32 AM
  #41
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It hasn't worked because the owners have been spineless to get the Season started. It's such a limp dick method of negotiating, to say you want concede further on a certain point and a few days or a week later you go right ahead and do the very thing you said you wouldn't do.
Not only that, it ticks off the players each and every time and they get more and more intractable themselves.

It's almost like Bettman can't help himself.

Ernie is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:35 AM
  #42
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
Can you explain how this would happen?
Keep in mind this is all averaging of numbers to keep the conversational scope under control.

Owner scenario:

- 30 teams @ 50% of HRR

UFA Thunderdome scenario:

- 10 teams @ 75% of HRR
- 10 teams @ 50% of HRR
- 10 teams @ 25% of HRR

That's break-even - both scenarios generate the same revenue for the PA. Individual players are unlikely to do worse, as what will happen is marginal players who were already being paid below average shift towards the bottom-spending teams and the higher paid guys shift upwards. Add in the fact that HRR is actually likely to be higher in the second scenario than in the first scenario because the well-supported teams will be more likely to make deeper playoff runs, and it ends up being a positive move for the PA.

Of course there are an uncountable number of possible scenarios - the above is just one, meant only to illustrate that their is in fact much logic behind the PA walking the decertification path IF owners insist on too low an HRR percentage. If you redo this using the 57% share in the first scenario, then Thunderdome looks less desirable.

The PA is not (currently) acting stupidly. And they are being guided by a damn smart, experienced labor leader. There is no reason to believe they haven't looked very very closely at such scenarios.

 
Old
01-04-2013, 11:38 AM
  #43
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
This is very true, and I suspect history will not be kind to this particular group of BOG's when it is written.
My SWAG is that none of this has gone the way the owners scripted it, and Bettman's job is now actually in jeopardy.

 
Old
01-04-2013, 11:41 AM
  #44
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
My SWAG is that none of this has gone the way the owners scripted it, and Bettman's job is now actually in jeopardy.
My SWAG is that you're totally wrong.

Owners are getting just about everything they wanted from the players.

Remember what was said here by many people (including myself) and reported by most NHL journalists in september? Owners goal is to get 50-50 split and end the stupidly long front-loaded contracts.

They are getting just that.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:44 AM
  #45
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Owners are getting just about everything they wanted from the players.
The arenas are dark - the owners have yet to get a single thing from the players.

 
Old
01-04-2013, 11:45 AM
  #46
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,183
vCash: 500
OK, I found what I was looking for:

1.5 Duration of the CBA
When does the CBA expire?
- From Section 3.1 of the CBA:
-- 6/21/10: NHLPA votes to extend CBA to 9/15/12.
-- The agreement runs until September 15, 2011, after which it will automatically extend year-to-year unless either the NHL or NHLPA elect to cancel.
If either side chooses to cancel the CBA, notice must be given at least 120 days before the Sep 15th auto-renewal date [May 18th].
- The NHLPA has two special options that supersede the above agreement terms:
-- The NHLPA had the option to terminate the CBA on Sep 15th, 2009 with 120 days notice. This option was not exercised.
-- The NHLPA has the option to extend the CBA an additional year till Sep 15th, 2012 with 120 days notice prior to Sep 15, 2011. Option exercised.


I read this the following way:
1) The prior CBA automatically renews unless either party opts out. They have to do so on or before May 18.
2) In 2012, the players did not 'opt out' so that means they were willing to play under the old CBA. I do not mean OLD CBA RULES, even if the CBA were expired. I mean, old CBA.
3) Had the season been played under the old CBA (auto renewed), the players would not have had strike rights. So, even if there was a 'negotiate while playing' thing happening, the players could not strike right before the playoffs started. And, if they had, they would have cost themselves 57% of HRR from the playoff income.
4) The owners did not want to renew, because they feel their franchises need something different. So, they cancelled the old CBA. Or, ended it.
5) Now, there is no CBA. To play at all at this point requires an agreement about salaries, division of HRR, etc. In other words, all that had to be negotiated. If there could be a one season negotiation (and I doubt that), the owners would never have allowed strike rights to the players.
6) Since there is no CBA, everything has to be negotiated anyway. So, we are right back to the present situation.

In short, under no circumstances would Fehr ever have been able to hold a "Strike right before playoffs card."

The union's best move without a lockout would be forever delay, because without a lockout, the old CBA would still have been in effect. And, it was more favorable to the players than anything that might come out of the current negotiations.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:48 AM
  #47
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Funny how the NHL though pretty much gets a free pass when they do it though while this board erupts when ever Fehr does it. You'd think by now that people would be able to see things objectively and recognize that both sides have been pulling the same tricks.
Funny how people don't recognize that the players have been losing the owners money for at least the last 20 years, and that the owners are sick of it.

If this season goes by the boards, I fully expect the next offer the players get from the owners to be much less than 50% of HRR. The players are not dealing with economic reality very well, but that is their right. I think they will regret it.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:49 AM
  #48
WinterEmpire
Unregistered User
 
WinterEmpire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
Can you explain how this would happen? I'm sure the Crosbys and Ovechkins of the world would have a lot to gain, but there's no way Ville Leino gets $4.5 mil/yr if the union disbands. At first glance I would think the majority of the players would lose money in this scenario.
Why wouldn't he get 4.5mil/yr? He already got that last year and the sabres certainly weren't itching to go out and find a player to spend up to the cap floor.

WinterEmpire is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:50 AM
  #49
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Time will tell if it ends up being worth the bother.

It is entirely possible - maybe even likely - that the PA ends up with more income under a union-blowup scenario than it does under any of the recent owner offers.

No way to know until it's all over and we're looking back on it from a few years hence.
Only if they win an anti-trust case and get triple damages, which is highly unlikely.

Revenues are going to drop in the near term. The players that are in the NHL today, and not playing now are losing millions of dollars that they will never see again.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:50 AM
  #50
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
I believe hes working under the assumption that if the season were to continue while bargaining was under way, it would continue operating under the expired CBA. that's what the players suggested, and I believe that's what happened in the 90's when they played while negotiating.
That's fine if the owners agree to that. Just as it would be equally fine to have the Season be underway using the owners initial proposal as a basis to work with until the actual new CBA is finalized. Neither option is valid nor can be used IF both sides don't agree to it, because the old CBA is now no more legal than an unapproved proposal made today.

MoreOrr 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 04:45 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.