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