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.

OT: MLB one major issue to resolve in labor negotiations (12/11/11 CBA expiration)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2011, 10:23 PM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,435
vCash: 500
OT: MLB one major issue to resolve in labor negotiations (12/11/11 CBA expiration)

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=379003

MLB's CBA expires in December, but there really is only one significant issue in contention - rookie (contract) bonsuses, slotting vs negotiation.

Looks like plenty of time for discussion and compromise.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 11:15 PM
  #2
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,220
vCash: 772
Things I wish they'd discuss:

- Salary floor to force bad teams to spend their revenue sharing funds instead of just pocketing the profit
- International Draft

I know divisions/playoff format will be discussed as well.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2011, 12:15 AM
  #3
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,258
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Things I wish they'd discuss:

- Salary floor to force bad teams to spend their revenue sharing funds instead of just pocketing the profit
- International Draft

I know divisions/playoff format will be discussed as well.
This. It's a joke that teams like Pittsburgh receive all this luxury tax money and do nothing to improve the team.

__________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<
-]>++++++.>+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++++++.<-.
>-------.<<-----.>----.>.<<+++++++++++.>-------------
-.+++++++++++++.-------.--.+++++++++++++.+.>+.>.

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." -31-
Screw You Rick Nash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2011, 03:42 PM
  #4
Fehr Time*
The Don of Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Interesting how a league without a cap seems to have no issues with getting a CBA done but leagues with salary caps do lately. Coincidence? I think not...

Fehr Time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2011, 05:46 PM
  #5
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr Time View Post
Interesting how a league without a cap seems to have no issues with getting a CBA done but leagues with salary caps do lately. Coincidence? I think not...
And what percent of their revenue comes from TV?

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2011, 09:43 AM
  #6
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Anyone wanting an international draft should take a look at the Puerto Rican baseball. Most baseball fans in the know don't want an international draft because it ruined baseball in Puerto Rico. At this point, MLB teams are coming close to spending more on European baseball then Puerto Rican baseball.

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2011, 09:44 AM
  #7
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
This. It's a joke that teams like Pittsburgh receive all this luxury tax money and do nothing to improve the team.
Why should they have to? North American leagues are only designed to make each shareholder money. If Pittsburgh is making a profit, despite how pathetic they are, why would they want change?

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2011, 10:01 AM
  #8
Fehr Time*
The Don of Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
Why should they have to? North American leagues are only designed to make each shareholder money. If Pittsburgh is making a profit, despite how pathetic they are, why would they want change?
This is very true. Interestingly enough, I would argue that MLB has far more 'cost certainty' than the NHL does. Baseball owners can guarantee themselves a profit for the season before the first game is even played if they choose to. The 81 home games are just gravy. If NHL owners were smart (they are not for the most part) they would be advocating for a similar system.

Fehr Time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2011, 10:08 AM
  #9
Fehr Time*
The Don of Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
And what percent of their revenue comes from TV?
They have a better tv deal than the NHL (everyone does) but it is not the be all and end all of why the baseball CBA works. There is also significant sharing of other revenues between teams.

It is a good and fair system for both sides for the most part because it offers an open market to the players and the owners are allowed to spend exactly what they want or can afford in a given year. The one fly in the ointment I think is that N.A. players are subject to the draft unfortunately.

There is also more than ample parity, an issue that people seem to harp about constantly.

Fehr Time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2011, 10:09 AM
  #10
TrollololBoyle
Registered User
 
TrollololBoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 2,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=379003

MLB's CBA expires in December, but there really is only one significant issue in contention - rookie (contract) bonsuses, slotting vs negotiation.

Looks like plenty of time for discussion and compromise.
What's the point of this thread? If anyone is hoping for an MLB lockout, it won't happen. In baseball, things are resolved quickly.

TrollololBoyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2011, 10:25 AM
  #11
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr Time View Post
Interesting how a league without a cap seems to have no issues with getting a CBA done but leagues with salary caps do lately. Coincidence? I think not...
Yes, Fehr seems to have devised a good system based on labor economics for MLB, hasn't he?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
And what percent of their revenue comes from TV?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr Time View Post
They have a better tv deal than the NHL (everyone does) but it is not the be all and end all of why the baseball CBA works. There is also significant sharing of other revenues between teams.
Exactly. The NFL probably blows even MLB out of the water wrt to per cent of revenues from TV/broadcast/digital rights. Their most recent rumblings had to do more with owners grumbling that too many teams were just pocketing the windfall.

As you point out, NFL shares gate receipts. I don't remember if MLB does or not, but the NHL owners have been fairly obstinate when it's come to revenue sharing. It's so much easier to share and share alike when a good portion of revenue is centrally generated-- not gate-dependent.

Quote:
It is a good and fair system for both sides for the most part because it offers an open market to the players and the owners are allowed to spend exactly what they want or can afford in a given year. The one fly in the ointment I think is that N.A. players are subject to the draft unfortunately.
This has really come back to bite the smaller market teams. The cap was supposed to prevent the large cost increases somehow, but the disparity in what was driving the cap range growth was unforeseen (to some at least). Now, the smallest teams have only grown HRR at nominal rates, but are forced to spending twice as much on players as they did before the lockout. I never saw much of problem with letting TO overpay a 33 yr old player who gave his peak years to a smaller market team, forced into three contracts during an RFA grouping that kept him in the fold until 31.

Quote:
There is also more than ample parity, an issue that people seem to harp about constantly.
The greatest heist ever--- parity. Dead puck era was due to parity, not a lack of it. Every way you slice the numbers, it's obvious that parity in the NHL was higher than in most other sports, or certainly in comparison to highly disparate eras--- like the 70's and 80's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukSOGoal View Post
What's the point of this thread? If anyone is hoping for an MLB lockout, it won't happen. In baseball, things are resolved quickly.
To discuss labor economics in sports, and how collective bargaining agreements can be structured?

  Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2011, 10:46 AM
  #12
Fehr Time*
The Don of Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
^^^^
In MLB, as of 2006, teams are required to share 34% of their locally generated revenues. This money is pooled together and then equally split among all 30 teams. It is a major factor in helping to bridge the revenue gap in baseball. I believe this created a revenue sharing pool of over $300 million in 2007 alone, although I would have to dig up/link the article to verify.

http://www.thesportjournal.org/artic...al-perspective

Here is one article that touches on revenue sharing in baseball among other things.


Last edited by Fehr Time*: 10-28-2011 at 10:57 AM.
Fehr Time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2011, 10:57 AM
  #13
chasespace
Registered User
 
chasespace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williston, FL
Posts: 3,627
vCash: 500
I don't think anyone expected any CBA problems for the MLB aside from restructuring the playoffs.

chasespace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2011, 01:00 PM
  #14
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr Time View Post
^^^^
In MLB, as of 2006, teams are required to share 34% of their locally generated revenues. This money is pooled together and then equally split among all 30 teams. It is a major factor in helping to bridge the revenue gap in baseball. I believe this created a revenue sharing pool of over $300 million in 2007 alone, although I would have to dig up/link the article to verify.

http://www.thesportjournal.org/artic...al-perspective

Here is one article that touches on revenue sharing in baseball among other things.

In fact, Goodenow was a longtime proponent of increased revenue sharing as a means to bridging the gap between teams. Of course, Bettman et al. decided to focus just on the cost side and attempt to make the players shoulder the burden entirely with a cap--- and no revenue sharing. The NHLPA had to insist on revenue sharing in the CBA. It wasn't something owners even needed to have players agree to do since it can be structured solely amongst themselves.

Of course, if we only had a cap and no revenue sharing, the windfall to the biggest teams would be beyond embarrassing because everyone would want the bar for a cap set at the lowest end of the spectrum, not something average, for example. These inequities have nevertheless surfaced again because even the current sharing and revenue transfer are insufficient to help the teams that are the worst off, thanks mainly to the magnitude of the revenue gap and that the cap range is based on the collective's sum of HRR.

Baseballs has a much more common sense approach to labor issues, recognizing that owners should be allowed some control over their spending which one could only assume would consider their actual revenues; while furthermore placing some punitive levels on those who want to overdo it via a luxury tax. You may actually profit from someone else's folly. The league also attempts to equalize things a bit more by having shared gate receipts. This type of sharing makes a lot of sense because it has a built-in protection from the cycles that all teams experience in attendance based on teams' performances. One third is fair too because some teams are simply better at maximizing receipts and thus should have some incentive to benefit from their actions at a greater level than those who would ride their coattails.

From the cited article above:

Quote:
The analysis shows statistically significant change in the revenue, payroll expenditures, and attendance, especially for poorer teams; however, it also indicates that the system is working slowly. To speed up the process of achieving a level of comparable competitiveness, perhaps the system needs to implement incentives to motivate teams to spend revenue sharing money on payroll, or simply only award money to those that do. These suggestions, based on the empirical findings in this article, support an observation of Miller (2007), who argues that a revenue-sharing system that rewards quality low revenue teams can alter the outcome of the game while requiring a lower proportion to be taken from high revenue teams.


Last edited by Fugu: 10-28-2011 at 04:55 PM. Reason: ;)
  Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2011, 02:56 PM
  #15
Fehr Time*
The Don of Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Was not Goodenow's revenue sharing plan in his December 2004 proposal in the $215 million dollar range or something? Certainly better for weaker revenue markets than the current system.

Fehr Time* 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 02:36 AM.

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.