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.
When Is a Negotiation Not a Negotiation? (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XVIII
NFL has had a hard cap since 1994. And they have twice the number of roster players.
The MLB luxury tax is a joke - they changed it again recently and it might have teeth now but only because they tweaked RS. Keep in mind they've had a luxury tax since 1997 but only ten teams have ever violated it. For many years it was set a so high a number that only the Yankees could reach it.
The top 15 MLB teams will not share in any of the 'shared' revenues after 2016. Is that a de facto state in the NHL?
Quote:
The NBA had terrible revenue sharing in the past because it only shared national TV deals. Teams kept all of their local revenue, much like the NHL does today - and of course the national NHL TV deal is a joke. It's only now with the new CBA that the NBA has revenue sharing worth speaking of.
The same thing is happening in the EPL - they share their massive TV contract evenly, but most of the teams are bleeding money and the MU's don't benefit proportionally to their revenue.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my post.
Quote:
Also, I don't know how you can go for free-market economics in one sentence and then mention 'more RS' in another.
You skipped this part of my post:
Quote:
Recognizing that this same socialistic way of thinking is represented any time one suggests that the rich teams should 'give' large sums of money to the lower earning teams.
Edited.
Last edited by Fugu: 11-02-2012 at 04:29 PM.
Reason: @mossey. See it upstream now. :)
On the other hand, why should other players let Crosby earn more money. Wouldn't the guys voting for an even split between players favor a majority of the PA?
Also, the max player share is 20% of the cap. So the stars are already getting paid more than the other guys.
''...let's not forget this is all Jeremy Jacobs' idea. Boston, of course, is a successful, well-run team that sells out every night and gives players contracts with at least some amount of forethought most of the time. It is, unfortunately, owned by a cartoonishly villainous and greedy owner who probably counts the league's having smashed the NHLPA into disarray and forced it to accept the owners' CBA proposals in 2005 as a greater career achievement than his team winning a Stanley Cup under his own system six years later. But you already knew that.''
2-Washington
''... Despite being good or even great and selling more than 100 percent of its seats since 2008-09, the team has some very problematic contracts that it would no doubt like to see reduced. One of them belongs to a superstar whose goal totals have shrunk in inverse proportion to his waistline; and oh by the way his $124 million, 13-year deal is backloaded. Mike Green might never be an effective offensive defenseman in this league — or completely healthy — again, but the Caps are still on the hook for $18.25 million over the next three years, which has to be uncomfortable. Nick Backstrom's real good, but he's also due $55 million through 2020, and Brooks Laich is inexplicably signed to a deal that will pay him another $20.5 million through 2017. George McPhee might be able to draft high-end talent with some frequency, but when it comes to signing his team's existing free agents, he has no idea what's going on. Ted Leonsis would love for there to be actual systems in place to prevent that kind of long-term spending, apart from him just refusing to sign the checks.''
3-The others:
"What do those teams have in common? With a few exceptions in various areas, no one gives a rat's ass about them, they're poorly managed to begin with, they're guilty of giving out cap-circumventing contracts, and they stink.
Let's just go down the list here of the various teams who have Bettman's back through thick and thin because they believe the league as it stands now needs to change, no matter what the ultimate cost this season. (...)
...but for the most part, again, these are teams that can't draw fans to begin with. So the answer, as always, is there is no answer, because the sheer number of owners buying in is too large to sway Bettman from his given purpose. The Winter Classic's getting canceled, but almost all of these teams don't care because they weren't going to ever play in one anyway.'
Which is another reason why the stance by NHL hard-liners' is so hard to fathom. The owners need a CBA. That's the only way they can have a salary cap. The last thing in the world they want is a free market, since they've repeatedly demonstrated that they will recklessly over-spend and doom the league to haves and have-nots.
So given that the owners need a CBA, and hence a PA, why are they insisting on shoving a one-sided deal down the throat of the players that makes the PA look like a potted plant, and hence turns the CBA into a tool for ownership only. It leaves the players with no choice but to blow up that tool by disbanding the CBA. In that circumstance, the owners' can't enforce a cap among themselves, so they're stuck with a free market they've already shown they can't live with. They have backed the players into a corner where if they pull the pin on the PA/CBA, both sides blow up. It's senseless.
I don't know that I can answer that question. Is a rational course of action "because they can"? I cannot say it is personally.
To you as well, this is probably closer to what Bettman actually has said.
Now--- why is it "justifiable" , because you are going there, for the owners to say they want more money but it's not okay for the players to say they want to keep more money (or at least, what they initially have and forgo future gains from growing revenues)?
Butch, the NHLPA represents the players and the league has accepted them as the players legitimate representative. The NHLPA would have to either decertify before a new PA could be formed.
Incentive. This is a pretty well understood concept in economics. Even if ALL the teams are making money and are somehow magically hiding it under tens of millions of dollars of losses, that profit would be difficult to give up - therefore the league would have more incentive to negotiate a deal quickly and without locking out the players.
If the majority of the league is in fact not profiting, then their incentive to lockout the players is higher.
The teams know how much money is being lost and gained (and no, we don't know exactly but I think we have a good first approximation) and they seem to be motivated to act accordingly. Some of the money they lose they might be willing to sacrifice to a certain amount of certainty and lessening of risk. Their actions are governed almost solely by cost:benefit.
However, if you look at the player's side, they are acting contrary to what would be considered good for them. Especially because 'the lockout of all lockouts' is in itself not guaranteed to stop a future lockout or money grab. What COULD stop a future clawback is the players agreeing to terms near 50/50. If the league was mostly healthy, the owners would have less incentive to try to get more back.
And yes, morally the league should not bully the players because they have the biggest hammer (which they do). But that's life.
That incentive will always be there when the NHL owners can further clawback salaries via the lockout mechanism. You seem to be suggesting that 40% player share will make them worse off (or reduce the incentive) than a lockout derived 50% share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan
They don't really claim to, and that's the difference.
“We recovered last time because we have the world’s greatest fans,” Bettman said.
Perhaps you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown
On the other hand, why should other players let Crosby earn more money. Wouldn't the guys voting for an even split between players favor a majority of the PA?
The associations aren't like unions where you have classes of jobs, and seniority, but otherwise equivalent skills. As such, to be the most 'fair' to the members, they need a system that has as few limitations on movement, options, and the pay they can individually negotiate for themselves as possible. (Strictly viewing this from the PA side.)
I agree, the hardline owners have prevented such a proposal reaching the table. But paths players are equally as guilty. They know the league won't accept delinked and they've decided that their main goal is keeping the money on current contracts. They are supposedly offering a gradual reduction in percentage (relying on revenue growth)- what has prevented them from working off the leagues proposal and offering that gradual reduction?
For the same reason the league refuses to negotiate off of the players proposal.
Conversely, what's stopping the NHL from trying from saying 5 years is too long to reach 50/50, make it happen faster?
That incentive will always be there when the NHL owners can further clawback salaries via the lockout mechanism. You seem to be suggesting that 40% player share will make them worse off (or reduce the incentive) than a lockout derived 50% share.
“We recovered last time because we have the world’s greatest fans,” Bettman said.
Perhaps you're right.
The associations aren't like unions where you have classes of jobs, and seniority, but otherwise equivalent skills. As such, to be the most 'fair' to the members, they need a system that has as few limitations on movement, options, and the pay they can individually negotiate for themselves as possible. (Strictly viewing this from the PA side.)
That was one comment from 50 days ago when this all started, not the 3 dozen feigning concern for the fans from the PA and it's head.
Besides, Bettman wasn't tugging at heartstrings or talking about how the poor fans are suffering because of what the other side is doing. There's a world of difference.
The Brad Richardson quote seems to be proof in the pudding that the players either don't mind perpetuating half truths to look like good guys or they really just spout everything they've been told without thought to 'why'. The players think it's okay to hold out for their own leverage but question why the league had made the decisions it's made throughout the process. The players don't want to give back a cent off their contracts but question why the league doesnt want to make down payments on an event that isnt guaranteed to happen with no CBA in place. Or perhaps they think there's a magic wand out there that can get the job done in a matter of minutes. Or maybe they should have some regard to the fans who have paid for tickets and reserved flight and hotel. I know someone on the Leafs board already said that their hotel reservation can't be cancelled any later than early/mid November otherwise they'll be charged a cancellation fee. Does the PA plan on paying those costs for all the fans if/when a season doesn't happen at all? It's comments like that that suggest that most of these players can't see past their own nose when it comes to these negotiations. At least keep your mouth shut and avoid confirming it to everyone.
Whoa whoa. I think you mean Brad Richards. Please leave Stanley Cup Champion Brad Richardson out of this!
Dreger just broke on TSN sportscenter the owners are coming forth with a potential make whole provision having the owners foot the bill. 150 million the first year. 50mil the 2nd year.
He said talks could resume start of next week if it gains traction.
He reitirated this isn't an entirely new proposal but a revamp of the make whole.
Dreger just broke on TSN sportscenter the owners are coming forth with a potential make whole provision having the owners foot the bill. 150 million the first year. 50mil the 2nd year.
He said talks could resume start of next week if it gains traction.
I tuned in late and Gino was talking about an olive branch from the NHL to the PA, was wondering what he was talking about. So thanks!
Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
As we just discussed on Sportscentre. NHL advised PA it will absorb share of Make Whole provision. This is a considerable concession.
How much is 150 M in terms of percentage of the ''divide'' between the 2 sides?
Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
As we just discussed on Sportscentre. NHL advised PA it will absorb share of Make Whole provision. This is a considerable concession.
Think this is enough of a concession to move things forward? Or will players be super greedy and claim it's a PR stunt
Dreger just broke on TSN sportscenter the owners are coming forth with a potential make whole provision having the owners foot the bill. 150 million the first year. 50mil the 2nd year.
He said talks could resume start of next week if it gains traction.
He reitirated this isn't an entirely new proposal but a revamp of the make whole.
Maybe Fehr isn't the moron many of you are making him out to be.
Maybe Fehr isn't the moron many of you are making him out to be.
No, he is. The majority of players will still lose out. Not only because of the salary lost this year but the salary lost due to decreased HRR this year.
