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.

CBA - What the owners want

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2004, 08:22 PM
  #1
capman29
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
CBA - What the owners want

Interesting reading go to spectors.net then open soapbox. Read this article that the writer states that the offer made by the union was a good one and all management wants is to break the union . He was not originally on the players side . All you pro-management people will have your eyes opened by what he says. Read and lets discuss his position .

capman29 is offline  
Old
09-13-2004, 08:33 PM
  #2
x-bob
Registered User
 
x-bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by capman29
Interesting reading go to spectors.net then open soapbox. Read this article that the writer states that the offer made by the union was a good one and all management wants is to break the union . He was not originally on the players side . All you pro-management people will have your eyes opened by what he says. Read and lets discuss his position .
Wow nice artical....I totaly agree with him......That offer from the NHLPA didn't sond that bad to me.

x-bob is offline  
Old
09-13-2004, 09:54 PM
  #3
capman29
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
I hoe everyone who loves the game of hockey reads this artical and become an informed consumer.

capman29 is offline  
Old
09-13-2004, 10:58 PM
  #4
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by capman29
Interesting reading go to spectors.net then open soapbox. Read this article that the writer states that the offer made by the union was a good one and all management wants is to break the union . He was not originally on the players side . All you pro-management people will have your eyes opened by what he says. Read and lets discuss his position .
That's not even a legitimate webpage. I don't see any article there, much less something called soapbox. Post the link to the site next time by right clicking on the address in the address bar and pasting it into your post.

Who cares anyway if the league breaks the Union. They are a bunch of greedy :mad: .


Last edited by Licentia: 09-13-2004 at 11:34 PM.
Licentia is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 11:49 AM
  #5
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,361
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
That's not even a legitimate webpage. I don't see any article there, much less something called soapbox. Post the link to the site next time by right clicking on the address in the address bar and pasting it into your post.

Who cares anyway if the league breaks the Union. They are a bunch of greedy :mad: .
Here it is: Spectors

You'll still have to click on the soapbox link, but there's the real site address.

Winger98 is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 12:00 PM
  #6
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
Who cares anyway if the league breaks the Union. They are a bunch of greedy :mad: .
The owners care. They can't afford to break the union. No union, no CBA means no entry draft, no standard player contract, and every player is a free agent from day one.

How much do you figure Sidney Crosby will get next year if the NHLPA decertifies?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 01:03 PM
  #7
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 107,571
vCash: 6115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
How much do you figure Sidney Crosby will get next year if the NHLPA decertifies?
Enough to go over a $31 million salary cap.

The article from Spectors is dead on though, and I'm not someone who is a big fan of him.

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 01:49 PM
  #8
no13matssundin
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,257
vCash: 500
Unbelievable.

What is so hard with getting the fact that the owners want a salary cap. 5% salary rollback concessions and 120 Mil in savings isnt cover a 230 Million dollar loss! Did the guy who wrote the Spectors article fail MATH?!?... If so, lemme help him:

230 Million in losses
- 120 Million in savings
-----------------------
= 110 Million in losses

And, oh by the way, while the rollback and concessions are a one time bulk savings of 120 Million the league is losing 230 Mil EVERY YEAR

HELLOOOOO.... ANYBODY GETTING THIS?!?!

110 Million dollars in losses per year = a dying NHL...

thus, BLOW THE SUCKER UP... Or... in this case... BREAK THE GREEDY UNION and let the Owners fix the mess that they themselves created.

MAN! sometimes people just dont get it.

no13matssundin is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 04:57 PM
  #9
Peter
Registered User
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,660
vCash: 50
Here's the bottom line. The owners lock out the players. Wait a year and start all over again...over just walk away. What do they lose? It's not like these owners count on their NHL teams to feed them. These teams are hobbies for all of them.

But the players...without the NHL what do the players have?? Europe. The minor leagues. Maybe a rival league. But none of these choices will ever pay these players the amount of money they are currently making.

Bottom line...players will have no choice but to give in.

Peter is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 10:22 PM
  #10
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98
Here it is: Spectors

You'll still have to click on the soapbox link, but there's the real site address.
Now the page comes up and just dies. Man, i'm glad i'm not overly anxious to see this website.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 10:59 PM
  #11
loveshack2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old School
Country: Tokelau
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 500
Al Strachan referenced five times in one article?

That's all I need to know.

loveshack2 is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 11:11 PM
  #12
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,361
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
Now the page comes up and just dies. Man, i'm glad i'm not overly anxious to see this website.
that's too bad, while it's not earth shattering it's really not a bad read. He doesn't endorse the player's offer as one the owners should take, but sides with them in the sense that he sees the NHLPA as at least being willing to find a compromise while the owners appear to have a "take it or leave it" attitude. He is clearly unhappy with how the NHL has handled their side of the negotiations so far.

He also references the imperfections in the NBA and NFL cap systems, and how the owners/GMs simply need to shoulder a bit of the responsibilities of getting their financial houses in order.

Winger98 is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 11:16 PM
  #13
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 107,571
vCash: 6115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Here's the bottom line. The owners lock out the players. Wait a year and start all over again...over just walk away. What do they lose? It's not like these owners count on their NHL teams to feed them. These teams are hobbies for all of them.

But the players...without the NHL what do the players have?? Europe. The minor leagues. Maybe a rival league. But none of these choices will ever pay these players the amount of money they are currently making.

Bottom line...players will have no choice but to give in.
If only it was that simple. What about the arena investors who do not have their main tenants because of the lockout? Do you think Continental Airlines Arena, since the Nets are jumping ship are keen on not having the Devils, a 3-time Stanley Cup champions, playing in their house? They get loads of money from the Devils (despite not being a huge draw) because they are robbing them with the arena lease. Do you think the owners of the Arrowhead pond are just willing to just sit there and mainly be a venue for concerts and a few Clippers games? Miami? Tampa Bay? Vancouver? Calgary? They can't afford to have arena just sit there and play host to concerts, junior leagues and minor league sports. If the owners of the arena aren't getting their money from the NHL teams (and the cities I just mentioed, the NHL team is the main tenant) then the owners of the arena are the owners of an NHL team. An NHL team that has an arena just sitting there playing host to concerts and other minor activites. Even in arenas with more than one main tenant, do you think arena owners are going to be just oke doke with one of their main draws bringing in money. Do you think

How about sponsors? Sponsors who invested their time and money in a product that is at an impasse? Sponsors who bear the name of the arenas (Wachovia, Fleet Bank, Staples, Bell Mobile, Gaylord Entertainment). Nevermind the fact some of these arenas have other tenants (Sixers, Celtics, Lakers). This is money they are losing. Phoenix just opened a building, $200M and might sell naming rights to KB Homes. They're not going to be selling any naming rights to anyone (thus making money) during a lockout. Do you think Nationwide Bank, a business that is essentially dealing with money, loans, mortages is going to sit around while a hockey team, the Blue Jackets, that they invested sponsorship money in is going to just sit there and not get pissed off about it? Do you think they won't do anything about this?

Do you think the owners built a $300 million 'war chest' so that it is ok they can just get money go out the window because of player salaries and their own piss poor decisions? What if the sponsors, and arenas, and other marketing entities take the NHL teams to court because they're not being supported with the product they agreed to invest in? All these people are just fine and dandy losing money simply because they have more? The owners didn't save this money if they knew they weren't going to be pissing it away in a lockout.

And just by business decisions, the NHL losses this past season were not as extensive as they were in the past. And this was only because of a possibility of a lockout? Do you think its a good business decision to lockout all season, start a new with replacement players, and then you know they're going to outrageously overprice tickets, even more than they do now to watch AHL and ECHL players fight to put their names on the Stanley Cup, which at this point, would be tainted forever?

The owners will have no choice but to give in. With a new deal, the players only have to satisfy themselves. The owners have many more things to worry about than pissing off the players because they have an extra stash of cash..

And just wait when people start catching on that the owners are just brainwashing fans to cover up their terrible business decisions and trying to blame it on the players.

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-15-2004, 01:06 AM
  #14
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
I hate when articles refer to the various member owners as a collective "they". I know it is a lot easier to categorize them in a single collective consciousness, but it is not realistic. As such, I am strongly discouraged by people who say "they" (being the owners) are responsible for spending hand over foot on player salaries, "they" are responsible for ratifying a bad CBA, "they" are responsible for lack of institutional self-restraint. It is analogous to saying that the whole of the United States was in favor of the Vietnam War because a certain representative percentage of the population was in favor. I just think it does not tell the whole picture.

The fact of the matter is that a certain fraction of owners spend like wild and drive the market for the rest of the owners. In the past, this had not been a problem. But as time has gone by and the price of labor has increased at a faster rate than the creation of new revenue, it is now a problem. So, as a function of time, the percentage of owners that have been driving the market has been decreasing in favor of the percentage of owners who have let others drive the market. It is now at a point where those who are driving the market are a clear minority and the rest of the various owners are utilizing this new voting power to fix the problems that were created in the past that they could not fix because there were too many living high on the hog. I cannot put any blame on that (nor can I put any blame on the players for wanting to get all they can). Let the bargaining process run its course. But don't let the actions of a select minority fuel your perception of the entire group (similarly not coloring all players "greedy" because a select group has decided to run for the quick buck).

Most everyone believes that the system is broke in some way. So why not just fix the dang thing. Everytime someone tries to point the finger and blame someone, we get further and further away from fixing it. Both sides need to concede something to hammer out a mutually beneficial deal. The real question is which side must concede more. Right now, it looks like the various owners have the better leverage and are going to get a better deal. But that is how the collective bargaining process is designed to operate. Stop blaming sides and just deal with the practical problem.

Basically, I DESPISE articles that try to identify "blame" because there is so many variables and so many different opinions at any given time that placing blame on any one or any single group is definitely going to paint a distorted picture.

Oh, and by the way, the following "offer":

Quote:
They're willing to give back a portion of their salaries for next season, close off entry-level contract loopholes and lower the rookie cap level, explore a more level field in the salary arbitration process, have suggested a revenue-sharing scheme, and most importantly, are willing to discuss a luxury tax system, something they were dead-set against ten years ago.
from what I understand, was not offered all at the same time. They have offered varying combinations of the above concessions, but not all at the same time. The writer either is misinformed, careless with his clarity of the offer, or misleading the reader to create sympathy.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research

Last edited by David A. Rainer: 09-15-2004 at 01:18 AM.
David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-15-2004, 02:03 AM
  #15
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The owners care. They can't afford to break the union. No union, no CBA means no entry draft, no standard player contract, and every player is a free agent from day one.

How much do you figure Sidney Crosby will get next year if the NHLPA decertifies?

Tom

Not that much. Think about it

a) $31m cap. The NHLPA won't be around to stop it.
b) Every player is UFA. Never be any RFAs.

So go ahead, throw $10m/y at Crosby for 4 years, and watch him as rookie, then a struggle a bit more, then show promise. By the time he's ready as a player there is a 90% he'll take a better offer from another club. Blow your cap on a rookie and struggle, waste $40m training him, enjoy watching him play on another team.

I'd paid to see that.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-15-2004, 02:04 AM
  #16
AlexandreDaigle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 33
vCash: 500
The article also shows a marked degree of ignorance in regards to the NFL cap.

The NFL cap is fundamentally foolproof. A team CAN defer money to future years, and it can pay out a massive sum of money in a given year without it hitting the cap (for instance paying a 30 million dollar signing bonus that counts 5 million per year for 6 years).... but sooner or later EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR PAID OUT hits the cap.

In other wors, the NFL cap does not prevent teams from committing Rangers-like excesses, it just ensures that they will pay the price when they do.

Really it's quite an excellent system actually.

Also in regards to basketball it's important to note that teams over the cap CANNOT SIGN BIG TICKET FREE AGENTS. If you gave Hockey a soft cap, with lux tax, but also prevented teams over the cap from signing big ticket FAs, that would have a substantial effect.

In other words, in the NBA you can only go over the cap to resign your own players.

AlexandreDaigle is offline  
Old
09-15-2004, 09:25 AM
  #17
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Bring on the Scabs!

This article is better.

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/775/29/

Bring on the Scabs!
-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
09-15-2004, 09:28 AM
  #18
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 107,571
vCash: 6115
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
This article is better.

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/775/29/

Bring on the Scabs!
-HckyFght!

If only the owners were to charge so little for their expensive seats.

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-15-2004, 12:29 PM
  #19
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveshack2
Al Strachan referenced five times in one article?

That's all I need to know.
And Larry Brooks once or twice as well. Thats where it loses credibility with me. I think he makes some points, but he gives the players proposal more credit than it deserves. I like Spector, he is a good guy, but I think he is a bit extreme here. I dont think you will ever see scab players playing in NHL rinks....no one would even go and no owner is stupid enough to believe people would.

I do think the players union has two choices. Bend over and take it and hope for the best or eventually get to the point where they have to vote as a whole with the threat of 150 jobs being lost due to contraction. The owners have blind faith in their leadership, but when it comes down to losing jobs I think you will see a crack in the unity.

I really hope someone is bluffing because it doesnt look good at all.

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
09-15-2004, 12:32 PM
  #20
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
This article is better.

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/775/29/

Bring on the Scabs!
-HckyFght!
That was incredibly misinformed and not even close to reality.

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
09-15-2004, 11:36 PM
  #21
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98
that's too bad, while it's not earth shattering it's really not a bad read. He doesn't endorse the player's offer as one the owners should take, but sides with them in the sense that he sees the NHLPA as at least being willing to find a compromise while the owners appear to have a "take it or leave it" attitude. He is clearly unhappy with how the NHL has handled their side of the negotiations so far.

He also references the imperfections in the NBA and NFL cap systems, and how the owners/GMs simply need to shoulder a bit of the responsibilities of getting their financial houses in order.
I found it finally by searching for the page on Google. I don't get why a cap wouldn't work? Just make the cap so it can't be circumvented. The salaries - no matter how they are paid - cannot exceed $31 million. Each team must report all of it's spending to the league at the end of the year. Any player paid over the cap - no matter how - will cause the team to be fined. Or the teams assign a player a percentage of the revenue. Or use a points system. That's the best way to do it. Then the league knows exactly what is spent on each player. Each signing when it occurs is reported to the league.

The NFL and NBA are overpaying, and it's well known. That's fine. So the NBA and NFL heads should be penalizing the teams that are doing it.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 01:22 AM
  #22
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Not that much. Think about it

a) $31m cap. The NHLPA won't be around to stop it.
The courts will stop it as soon as Crosby files his lawsuit. Without a CBA, a salary cap violates anti-trust law on both sides of the border. It is illegal.

Without a CBA, there is no entry draft, no salary cap, no standard player contracts. Hockey players would be like any other employee, able to work for whoever he wants.

The NHL needs the NHLPA and a CBA more than the players do. The players don't have to belong to a union or have a collective agreement. They negotiate their own salaries anyway.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 02:41 AM
  #23
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The courts will stop it as soon as Crosby files his lawsuit. Without a CBA, a salary cap violates anti-trust law on both sides of the border. It is illegal.
I'd like to see that one argued out by good lawyers. Why can't the NHL put a condition of entry that teams payrolls can't exceed a certain amount. They are free to spend what they like on whoever they like and play anywhere else.

Quote:
Without a CBA, there is no entry draft, no salary cap, no standard player contracts. Hockey players would be like any other employee, able to work for whoever he wants.

The NHL needs the NHLPA and a CBA more than the players do. The players don't have to belong to a union or have a collective agreement. They negotiate their own salaries anyway.

Tom
If the NHLPA deregisters what is to stop the owners getting a bunch player stooges to start a new union. Implelment their their salary cap with this pet union.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 04:34 AM
  #24
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
I'd like to see that one argued out by good lawyers. Why can't the NHL put a condition of entry that teams payrolls can't exceed a certain amount. They are free to spend what they like on whoever they like and play anywhere else.
It has been argued out by good lawyers and the case law is very clear. The owners can't do it because they are supposed to be 30 competing businesses who are supposed to compete for labour. They can't have a salary cap - unless the players agree - because it is an illegal restraint of trade.

For the sake of competitive balance, the players voluntarily waive individual rights. If they decertify, they reclaim those rights, and the NHL doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Quote:
If the NHLPA deregisters what is to stop the owners getting a bunch player stooges to start a new union. Implelment their their salary cap with this pet union.
As if the courts let companies get around anti-trust law with pet unions. They'd have to hire the players first on a wide open system with no cap, then the players could form a union, then they could negotiate a cap. When the teams failed to hire ex-NHL stars, they'd get nailed for collusion. They would have to explain why the Rangers, Leafs and Flyers all decided to hire Joe Blow instead of Markus Naslund.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 07:08 AM
  #25
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It has been argued out by good lawyers and the case law is very clear. The owners can't do it because they are supposed to be 30 competing businesses who are supposed to compete for labour. They can't have a salary cap - unless the players agree - because it is an illegal restraint of trade.

For the sake of competitive balance, the players voluntarily waive individual rights. If they decertify, they reclaim those rights, and the NHL doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Run two comps. One for the under $40m teams called the Stanley Cup and one for the big spenders called the MegaBucks Cup. Teams are free to move between both sign whatever players to whatever contracts they want.

Quote:
As if the courts let companies get around anti-trust law with pet unions. They'd have to hire the players first on a wide open system with no cap, then the players could form a union, then they could negotiate a cap. When the teams failed to hire ex-NHL stars, they'd get nailed for collusion. They would have to explain why the Rangers, Leafs and Flyers all decided to hire Joe Blow instead of Markus Naslund.
Tom
Well they could offer one-way $250-500K with $100K signing bonuses contracts to every NHL player and a bunch of AHLers. The ex-NHLPA players would choose not to accept those offers out of pride. The unaligned AHLers would jump on them. When enough new-NHLers get together they form a union. If the Naslund signs for $500K the owners are laughing, if he chooses not to sign that is his choice.

me2 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 03:10 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.