I disagree. But then I'm acting on the assumption that the owners are rational businessmen and won't throw away hundreds of millions of dollars over the remaining issues such as pensions.
IMO it is probably in the owners best financial interests to ****can the season and take away make whole and every other concession before the NHLPA caves later in the summer. Would fans and players hate them more? Sure, but they'd still pay to watch hockey and the league would bring in money.
The players are like a girlfriend who never forgives or forgets **** you did a year ago.
This is exactly why I've been lambasting the league for that initial proposal since they put it on the table. They poisoned the well. It was stupid.
It's stupid the players are still offended and letting it affect them, but it was equally stupid for the league to set the negotiating table on fire as their opening salvo. No good has come of it.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
And also throw away hundreds of millions of dollars in costs.
The major losers in this are the players.
And the fans.
The owners losses from missing an entire season is far far less.
So? Since when do billionaires throw away hundreds of millions of dollars over fairly minor issues. Their losses may be less but most rich people I know don't look at issues that way. I doubt the owners view this as personally as some posters do.
it would be like the owners bringing their high school kids/grand kids to the meetings and giving them a say in the negotiations.
"Grandpa said the PA is trying to pull a fast one on us, and I have no idea what any of this legal stuff means or how business negotiations work, so I'm gonna take his word for it!"
It's more like bringing union reps to a collective bargaining negotiation, which happens pretty much all the time, in all unionized industries.
Another poster hit some points, I'll add a few more.
You wouldn't have a problem sitting in a pile of rubbish fans left from games before? I know you're a season STH and that you sell off some so it's not like you're gonna clean up your spot every game. That's part of the brand being nice neat and tidy.
Most are not STH and need someone to show them their seats. How would you like for people aimlessly walking around while the game is going on(not everyone is early) not waiting for stop in play because there are no ushers.
The brand is basically not held to just the teams and it's players, even though they're are the main focal points.
Life would be very messy without those others at games.
Look, I'm not saying arena employees are useless. I've always had good experiences with the ones I've dealt with, and I appreciate their competence. I don't begrudge them their paychecks. They earn them.
But their contribution to the NHL experience is on a basic level and could be fulfilled by someone else if they decide their time is worth more than the team is willing to pay. They could be replaced and the same level of service would be provided.
That's not the same with the players (or even replacement football officials, as we all saw in fall). There is "talent" that people pay to see, and there are employees who are paid to deliver a service to people.
It's really missing the mark to broadly compare NHL players with bartenders, waitresses and janitors in terms of the leverage their skills afford them in negotiations and their compensation.
This is exactly why I've been lambasting the league for that initial proposal since they put it on the table. They poisoned the well. It was stupid.
It's stupid the players are still offended and letting it affect them, but it was equally stupid for the league to set the negotiating table on fire as their opening salvo. No good has come of it.
That Bettman just implied that the players' bosses hate them in a meeting yesterday doesn't help matters either.
RealKyper (Nick Kypreos)
Latest #NHL #NHLPA update. Nothing has changed. Process that was on yesterday and this morn has continued. Individual meetings with mediator
And also throw away hundreds of millions of dollars in costs.
The major losers in this are the players.
And the fans.
The owners losses from missing an entire season is far far less.
You should know based on the numbers I sent you that the league as a whole would be missing out on about 250 million dollars of income with a completely lost season. They're still losing a lot with a half season gone, but not as much. The NHL lined more pockets than it drained last year, according to Forbes.
IMO it is probably in the owners best financial interests to ****can the season and take away make whole and every other concession before the NHLPA caves later in the summer. Would fans and players hate them more? Sure, but they'd still pay to watch hockey and the league would bring in money.
You're looking at the issue as a an emotionally invested fan who wants to stick it to the players. The owners have given Bettman his marching orders to get a deal because the remaining issues are not worth losing hundreds of millions of dollars over plus the possibly irrevocable erosion of the NHL brand, such as it is.
“I talked to some guys and some disagree and some agree, but they don’t necessarily want to go to you guys (reporters) and say the truth or say what they think,” he said. “I earned the right to say what I think.
“But it’s not about me or what anyone said. It’s about compromise and making a fair deal on both sides, bringing the fans back and having fun playing the game.”
If there's a season, I hope Hamrlik gets traded to a Western Conference team.
I'll cheer for him, maybe even seek him out and shake his hand.
If there's a season, I hope Hamrlik gets traded to a Western Conference team.
I'll cheer for him, maybe even seek him out and shake his hand.
He's just about the only person in the entire issue who I have gained respect for, that's for sure. I'd take him as veteran sixth on the Rangers for the year.
If you can show me any rational basis on which the owners can make more money by cancelling the season vs compromising or even giving in on the remaining issues then I will agree. Again, I always assume that billionaires got that way by acting rationally and putting aside their emotions. I am sure that there are a few owners who may want to stick it to the players but I believe the majority will be rational businessmen and recognize the huge potential loss of a missed season oncluding future revenues.
Most of the owners make very little, nothing, or lose money on operating costs for a season. I guess the players think they're lying, which is possible, but it's pretty obvious there are at least a handful of teams losing serious money. And I doubt the richer teams mind terribly missing out on a season where a chunk of their profits would have gone to the struggling franchises anyway.
Hockey is not a huge moneymaking machine for the owners overall. In terms of return vs investment it's actually quite pathetic. These people make far more money with their other business ventures, hockey players do not.
It's nothing like bringing their kids and grandkids. These negotiations directly impact the players' lives. The players have a direct stake...the owners' grandkids don't. By having players in the room, Fehr can show he's being completely open with the PA and can say he's acting according to their wishes. It makes sense...especially after Bettman accused him of witholding info from the players, despite there being players in the room at the time.
I believe that was more pointed at the players not in the room. They felt the majority of players were not getting the entire scope of the negotiations.
The NHL and PA are like 2 little kids that don't like each other.
"You're ugly."
"Well, you're stupid."
Then, out of the blue, they find themselves laughing at the same thing, agreeing on something, and getting along.
As soon as they realize this is happening, they look at each other. They are at a critical point in their relationship. Will they be friends, or will they be rivals from here forward?
Most of the owners make very little, nothing, or lose money on operating costs for a season. I guess the players think they're lying, which is possible, but it's pretty obvious there are at least a handful of teams losing serious money. And I doubt the richer teams mind terribly missing out on a season where a chunk of their profits would have gone to the struggling franchises anyway.
Hockey is not a huge moneymaking machine for the owners overall. In terms of return vs investment it's actually quite pathetic. These people make far more money with their other business ventures, hockey players do not.
Change owners to NHL Franchises. The owners are very profitable including the losses incured by owning the teams. The difference is the money comes from other things than owning an NHL team.
The entertainment experience created by professional athletes is a product.
Nachos are a product. Beer is a product. I buy them because I want the experience of eating a nacho or drinking beer, not the experience of interacting for 20 seconds with someone who hands me the nachos or beer.
Handing someone a tray of nachos or a beer and saying "have a good one" is the transaction to buy the product, not the product itself. And it takes relatively little skill or education to conduction that transaction.
Given that teams mark up the price of concessions by a ridiculous degree makes your argument about the "expenses" of selling concession that much weaker. Teams hire people to sell nachos and beer because the can make a large profit doing so and because the cost to employe food service employees is pretty friggin cheap ... and it's cheap because they are easily replaceable, which isn't the case with NHL-caliber players.
I've never bought a jersey with "concessions" above the numbers.
my statement.....THE product
your statement....A Product
Tell the owners who shell out millions of dollars to employees they are not part of the product.....The product is a whole not pieces.
You're looking at the issue as a an emotionally invested fan who wants to stick it to the players. The owners have given Bettman his marching orders to get a deal because the remaining issues are not worth losing hundreds of millions of dollars over plus the possibly irrevocable erosion of the NHL brand, such as it is.
I'd RATHER not stick it to either side actually. The deal in October was more than fair.
-The players specifically requested something
-The league agreed
-The players figured out that the thing they want might not be used in the WAY they want
-The players get butthurt and don't want to cooperate anymore
