HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

New NFL and NBA Player-Owner Agreements not a good sign for NHLPA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-26-2011, 08:12 PM
  #1
blueandgoldguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greg's River Heights
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 500
New NFL and NBA Player-Owner Agreements not a good sign for NHLPA

With reports circulating that the NBA players' share of overall revenue will decrease to 49%-51% from the previous contract's 57%, and it already being established that the current 10-year NFL agreement limits players earnings to 50% from the previous 57%, in my mind it is not a question of IF, but by HOW MUCH the NHLPA will have to forego in order to reach a new long-term agreement with NHL owners.

I believe the players currently receive 57% of the pie.........and I think they will have that reduced to 51%.

By how much do you think the players' share of NHL revenue will be reduced??

blueandgoldguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 08:13 PM
  #2
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 123,799
vCash: 826
Keep in mind that unlike the NHL, there were no roll backs.

__________________
Philadelphia's Real Alternative
(ynotradio.net)

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2015

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17
GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 08:31 PM
  #3
Mathradio
Drive for 25
 
Mathradio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,861
vCash: 500
Hope that all previous deals get rolled back as well.

Mathradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 08:35 PM
  #4
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 35,506
vCash: 500
Why isn't the new MLB agreement good news for the players?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 08:44 PM
  #5
blueandgoldguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greg's River Heights
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Why isn't the new MLB agreement good news for the players?
I guess the new deal in MLB could be construed as good news for NHL players, but the thing is, pretty well all MLB teams make money thanks to the generous luxery tax. A team like Pittsburgh that draws well below 20,000 per game stands to profit because they receive tens of millions of dollars in revenue sharing form the rich clubs.

IN the NHL, not so much. Even some clubs which are receiving the maximum amount under the current NHl agreement (I believe it's 13 million) are reportedly losing millions of dollars per season. The "big" new contract with NBC works out to $6 million per team per season and will not solve the revenue cruch faced by certain teams.

The only solution in my mind, if the NHLPA does not want to lose jobs through contraction, is to agree to lower their share of overall revenue.


Last edited by blueandgoldguy: 11-26-2011 at 08:45 PM. Reason: added info.
blueandgoldguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 08:53 PM
  #6
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,394
vCash: 500
Not its not. But the will be no lockout. I don't expect the NHLPA to roll over but their jobs are on the line here. Another lockout according to many here will kill hockey in the US.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 09:00 PM
  #7
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 46,093
vCash: 500
Fehr and Bettman have been so quiet on this issue that I really have no idea where they stand. Until they start talking, there's no reason to say one way or the other whether a lockout is imminent or not.

I don't buy that a lockout will kill the sport. It will be something they need to recover from again like they did last time but it won't kill it. Hopefully, both sides are smart enough that a lockout will pretty much reset their improvements in revenue and that they'll have to work just as hard and wait just as long to see this level of revenue again. They should want to just revise a few of the terms but the main things should still be in place. A lockout will kill the momentum that the league has gained in revenue, which is what matters most on this issue. I just don't see there being a huge systemic issue that will cause either side to want to break the other.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 10:08 PM
  #8
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Fehr and Bettman have been so quiet on this issue that I really have no idea where they stand. Until they start talking, there's no reason to say one way or the other whether a lockout is imminent or not.

I don't buy that a lockout will kill the sport. It will be something they need to recover from again like they did last time but it won't kill it. Hopefully, both sides are smart enough that a lockout will pretty much reset their improvements in revenue and that they'll have to work just as hard and wait just as long to see this level of revenue again. They should want to just revise a few of the terms but the main things should still be in place. A lockout will kill the momentum that the league has gained in revenue, which is what matters most on this issue. I just don't see there being a huge systemic issue that will cause either side to want to break the other.
I agree, but the NBA owners just got a kings ransom. I think the NHL owners would love to lower the 57 percent.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 10:56 PM
  #9
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 46,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
I agree, but the NBA owners just got a kings ransom. I think the NHL owners would love to lower the 57 percent.
The NHL owners would love that but they aren't losing money at the same level that the NBA owners were so they don't have that kind of rhetoric to throw out there. I'm sure by and large the teams themselves are losing a bit of money overall but nothing that would justify a 7% drop. There's no way teams are losing 300 million dollars like the NBA was reporting. If you just count the teams reportedly losing money, they might get near 150 million but that doesn't take into account the beasts raking in the money.

If you just wanted to cover the teams losing money, you could drop it to 54% and that would actually be reasonable in terms of negotiations to not drive a wedge between the two sides. However, I don't think the NHL needs to ask for a better percentage at this point. It shouldn't be something they hard line like the NBA did and had to do.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 11:02 PM
  #10
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The NHL owners would love that but they aren't losing money at the same level that the NBA owners were so they don't have that kind of rhetoric to throw out there. I'm sure by and large the teams themselves are losing a bit of money overall but nothing that would justify a 7% drop. There's no way teams are losing 300 million dollars like the NBA was reporting. If you just count the teams reportedly losing money, they might get near 150 million but that doesn't take into account the beasts raking in the money.

If you just wanted to cover the teams losing money, you could drop it to 54% and that would actually be reasonable in terms of negotiations to not drive a wedge between the two sides. However, I don't think the NHL needs to ask for a better percentage at this point. It shouldn't be something they hard line like the NBA did and had to do.
I hope so, but I know things never go the way they are supposed to. I hope Bettman reminds the owners that the ground regained since '04 will take even longer then last time

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 11:08 PM
  #11
blueandgoldguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greg's River Heights
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 500
I don't believe hockey will die in the US just because there is a lockout. During the last lockout, I remember Brian Burke on TSN stating that the current revenues at the time (approx. 2.2 billion) would drop to $1.5 billion or less. Turns out the revenues increased the year after the lockout. I suspect it would be no different this time.........not that I think there will be a lockout.

blueandgoldguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2011, 11:16 PM
  #12
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy View Post
I don't believe hockey will die in the US just because there is a lockout. During the last lockout, I remember Brian Burke on TSN stating that the current revenues at the time (approx. 2.2 billion) would drop to $1.5 billion or less. Turns out the revenues increased the year after the lockout. I suspect it would be no different this time.........not that I think there will be a lockout.
But this would be the 3rd in almost 20 and the 2nd in 8 years? That's a death stentence.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 04:19 AM
  #13
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
But this would be the 3rd in almost 20 and the 2nd in 8 years? That's a death stentence.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the NBA, but I suspect it'll be just fine.

Sports is the opiate of the people, its demand is far more inelastic than people think.

HabsByTheBay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 05:32 AM
  #14
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
The idea of a cap and floor is completely wrong-headed. The best way forward is a free market approach where owners can pay players whatever they like, and if they overextend themselves they fall on their swords as they should.

The current system asks players to share in the responsibility for poor management of certain teams. The players are employees, period. If their manager acts like a donkey and gets over-extended and can't pay the bills, that's got nothing to do with the employee. Sure, that employee might lose his/her job, but if they're any good they'll find work with someone else somewhere.

Enough of these ownership groups in each league holding players responsible for their lack of business acumen. Balance your own books. If you've overpaid players, or other staff, or you can't entice people to buy your product that's on you. If you fail, you fail...hockey players are already doing what they do best. It is ridiculous to expect a hockey player to be held responsible for stupid management.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 05:43 AM
  #15
Sarcastic
PosterOfTheYear2014
 
Sarcastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 4,455
vCash: 500
Hopefully the two sides are smart enough to try and meet at a little bit of both on maybe a 3 year agreement so that both sides aren't handcuffed. Lets them continue their momentum and with a somewhat acceptable agreement for both sides.

Sarcastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 08:26 AM
  #16
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,042
vCash: 500
Jordan
A cap is needed to keep teams in line i don't want the nhl to have no cap where you see teams over spend and offer players who maybe should get 1-4 million a year get 4-6 million.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 08:58 AM
  #17
Fehr Time*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy View Post
I guess the new deal in MLB could be construed as good news for NHL players, but the thing is, pretty well all MLB teams make money thanks to the generous luxery tax. A team like Pittsburgh that draws well below 20,000 per game stands to profit because they receive tens of millions of dollars in revenue sharing form the rich clubs.

IN the NHL, not so much. Even some clubs which are receiving the maximum amount under the current NHl agreement (I believe it's 13 million) are reportedly losing millions of dollars per season. The "big" new contract with NBC works out to $6 million per team per season and will not solve the revenue cruch faced by certain teams.

The only solution in my mind, if the NHLPA does not want to lose jobs through contraction, is to agree to lower their share of overall revenue.
A luxury tax and other sharing of revenues. Why would this not work in the NHL? You admit that small revenue teams are profitable in baseball reguardless of product, would this not be an improvement for small revenue/market NHL teams?

Fehr Time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 09:05 AM
  #18
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsByTheBay View Post
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the NBA, but I suspect it'll be just fine.

Sports is the opiate of the people, its demand is far more inelastic than people think.
Let's hope so. A collapse would be terrible for sports period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
The idea of a cap and floor is completely wrong-headed. The best way forward is a free market approach where owners can pay players whatever they like, and if they overextend themselves they fall on their swords as they should.

The current system asks players to share in the responsibility for poor management of certain teams. The players are employees, period. If their manager acts like a donkey and gets over-extended and can't pay the bills, that's got nothing to do with the employee. Sure, that employee might lose his/her job, but if they're any good they'll find work with someone else somewhere.

Enough of these ownership groups in each league holding players responsible for their lack of business acumen. Balance your own books. If you've overpaid players, or other staff, or you can't entice people to buy your product that's on you. If you fail, you fail...hockey players are already doing what they do best. It is ridiculous to expect a hockey player to be held responsible for stupid management.
Imagine if a private corp did what the sports league where folding, there would be riots, their unions.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 09:34 AM
  #19
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr Time View Post
A luxury tax and other sharing of revenues. Why would this not work in the NHL? You admit that small revenue teams are profitable in baseball reguardless of product, would this not be an improvement for small revenue/market NHL teams?
If you have no cap in the nhl what may happen is you could have teams now that are doing good turn into teams that need help.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 09:48 AM
  #20
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Let's hope so. A collapse would be terrible for sports period.


Imagine if a private corp did what the sports league where folding, there would be riots, their unions.
There wouldn't be riots, there would be jobs.

A huge reason why unemployment is high is because a lot of labour is overvalued, i.e. a minimum wage that dictates to owners how much even the least valued worker is to be paid. So, some people who are able to work can't find work because employers can find labourers with better resumes and better abilities more worth the minimum wage they're being forced by government to pay. Take the minimum wage away, and the lesser skilled or just plain poor workers will find employment because without a min wage they'll be paid whatever the labour market has determined is their value.

From the perspective of the NHL, we have a floor where potentially you could have franchises in poor hockey markets forced to have a payroll that automatically puts them in the red, or forces said franchise to leverage up on debt financing just to keep pace with the haves.

It's madness to run a league this way.

I am not a pro-union guy, but player salaries have to be opened up to a free market system. The cap is crap.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 10:06 AM
  #21
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
There wouldn't be riots, there would be jobs.

A huge reason why unemployment is high is because a lot of labour is overvalued, i.e. a minimum wage that dictates to owners how much even the least valued worker is to be paid. So, some people who are able to work can't find work because employers can find labourers with better resumes and better abilities more worth the minimum wage they're being forced by government to pay. Take the minimum wage away, and the lesser skilled or just plain poor workers will find employment because without a min wage they'll be paid whatever the labour market has determined is their value.

From the perspective of the NHL, we have a floor where potentially you could have franchises in poor hockey markets forced to have a payroll that automatically puts them in the red, or forces said franchise to leverage up on debt financing just to keep pace with the haves.

It's madness to run a league this way.

I am not a pro-union guy, but player salaries have to be opened up to a free market system. The cap is crap.
If you do away with min wage it would be very riskky as you could see people getting paid $5 a hour or even less like it or not a min wage is needed should it be higher maybe but you do away with it we could end up in real big trouble much like way back 50 years ago when there was a very low min wage and go back even more and where there was no min wage it was really not a good thing..As for no cap if you do away with the cap you need another system in place be it a a no guaranteed money another thing i would like to see if there is no cap is ban ntc clauses you have to have soem give and take from both sides.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 10:53 AM
  #22
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
If you do away with min wage it would be very riskky as you could see people getting paid $5 a hour or even less like it or not a min wage is needed should it be higher maybe but you do away with it we could end up in real big trouble much like way back 50 years ago when there was a very low min wage and go back even more and where there was no min wage it was really not a good thing..As for no cap if you do away with the cap you need another system in place be it a a no guaranteed money another thing i would like to see if there is no cap is ban ntc clauses you have to have soem give and take from both sides.
Every time you raise the minimum wage you raise prices for consumers who pay more for items as owners offset the loss in revenue that comes with having to pay more for labour. Every time you raise the minimum wage you drive businesses overseas where labour is cheaper. Every time you raise the minimum wage you kill jobs.

Not everyone is a good worker or a skilled worker. Does that mean they should always be unemployed? No. It just means they should be paid what the market deems their labour is worth.

If the min. wage law forces a company to pay a guy or girl $10 an hour when their labour is really only worth half that, that's twice as much being taken out of revenue that has to be earned back by raising prices, and the consumer suffers as a result.

Or the employer will just try to get by with less employees, thus overworking the current staff, creating poor work conditions resulting in bad service, that winds up causing consumers to suffer again, not to mention the labour market that now has one less job that can be filled by someone taking money out of our pockets by paying them unemployment.

BUT getting back to the NHL. The owners are the employers, they assume the risk, they put up the capital, they own the team. The players are the employees. The owners are responsible to run their business with balanced books, and not to get over-extended.

A cap and floor system is really the owners collectively saying they cannot trust themselves not to be donkeys when it comes to running their business. And by putting limits on spending at the top and bottom it does a disservice to the employees who work hard to be the best they can be at their job. No matter what they do, their labour has a max value according to the league, and that's ridiculous. Likewise it is ridiculous for the league to dictate to an owner that they MUST pay their employees 'x' dollars, as for some it means automatic debt troubles.

Allow owners to operate based on the market they're in, not based on what the league deems to be for the "greater good".

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 11:21 AM
  #23
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
Every time you raise the minimum wage you raise prices for consumers who pay more for items as owners offset the loss in revenue that comes with having to pay more for labour. Every time you raise the minimum wage you drive businesses overseas where labour is cheaper. Every time you raise the minimum wage you kill jobs.

Not everyone is a good worker or a skilled worker. Does that mean they should always be unemployed? No. It just means they should be paid what the market deems their labour is worth.

If the min. wage law forces a company to pay a guy or girl $10 an hour when their labour is really only worth half that, that's twice as much being taken out of revenue that has to be earned back by raising prices, and the consumer suffers as a result.

Or the employer will just try to get by with less employees, thus overworking the current staff, creating poor work conditions resulting in bad service, that winds up causing consumers to suffer again, not to mention the labour market that now has one less job that can be filled by someone taking money out of our pockets by paying them unemployment.

BUT getting back to the NHL. The owners are the employers, they assume the risk, they put up the capital, they own the team. The players are the employees. The owners are responsible to run their business with balanced books, and not to get over-extended.

A cap and floor system is really the owners collectively saying they cannot trust themselves not to be donkeys when it comes to running their business. And by putting limits on spending at the top and bottom it does a disservice to the employees who work hard to be the best they can be at their job. No matter what they do, their labour has a max value according to the league, and that's ridiculous. Likewise it is ridiculous for the league to dictate to an owner that they MUST pay their employees 'x' dollars, as for some it means automatic debt troubles.

Allow owners to operate based on the market they're in, not based on what the league deems to be for the "greater good".
Back to the min wage sure some are not good workers and less skilled but the thing is there are people making $11 a hour that are not good workers etc just as there are people making $40 a hour that are not good worker not all but every job at every pay level has its share of bad workers.As for the cap issue there are many companys out side of the nhl that they have a budget and they can't spend out side of the budget and this in some ways is the same as having a cap.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 11:57 AM
  #24
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr Time View Post
A luxury tax and other sharing of revenues. Why would this not work in the NHL? You admit that small revenue teams are profitable in baseball reguardless of product, would this not be an improvement for small revenue/market NHL teams?
because fans actually want their team to be competitive. You want relegation, that would bring it about. You already have this in MLB. As someone who lives in Pittsburgh, I hate the fact that my tax dollars go to a team that has no interest in winning, but still benefits from public dollars. We lost an entire season so that teams like Philly, Detroit, NY, etc., could not buy up all the elite talent & make for a poor league. I agree that the owners need to keep themselves in line, but that is why a salary cap exists in the first place.

edog37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 12:12 PM
  #25
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,356
vCash: 500
The next NHL CBA won't be about getting the players to take less in terms of revenue splitting. The NHL has continually made money hand over fist since the new CBA.

The only issues with this upcoming CBA are going to be the 11, 12 year deals that some players have signed. The other thing that will be discussed will be salary floors and ceilings. There's going to be teams who claim that they're having difficulties meeting the floor and that you can bet there's going to be a swelling amongst owners to get something more permanent with regards to the floor. The other thing to watch out for is guaranteed contracts. Jeremy Jacobs has already brought up the issue and would like to see guaranteed contracts a thing of the past.

I'm still surprised thought that Bettman and Fehr haven't had informal meetings about the CBA and getting the framework in place for a new deal. After watching the NFL and NBA go through their issues, you'd figure that they'd want to avoid any sort of stoppage and have the framework in place before this deal expires.

BobbyClarkeFan16 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 06:31 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.