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.

Owner position: Melnyk says NHLPA offer not good enough

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2004, 11:27 AM
  #26
Taranis_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 655
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Taranis_24
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjb3599
Actually, the NHLPA has given the owners a perfect opportunity to exercise cost certainty. There's nothing wrong with the system, just owners paying too much for players. The 24% give-back essentially gives the owners a clean slate to work with and if they want cost certainty it should be up to them to create a budget and work within it.

Personally, I still favor a more stiff luxury tax scheme, but the beauty of the NHLPA's recent proposal is that it places the blame for the current economic state of the league squarely on the owners (which is precisely where it belongs IMO).
And do you real expect that to happen? It will just be the same 'ol same 'ol. The big money market taking the market out of whack for the smaller markets, but you being a Ranger I could see why you would care less....

Taranis_24 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 11:30 AM
  #27
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis_24
BRG - Don't you think it's both sides that are unreasonable? You can't always complain that the NHL is unreasonable because it will not give into NHLPA demands in fact. The NHLPA is doing the same thing by not giving into the NHL demands. An unreasonable opponent vs an unreasonable opponent.
But you have to look at both sides ideal solutions. I doubt the players ideally would give up 24% of their money, or go with the other drags their latest proposal had. Sure its not enough, but there are certainly major concessions and major changes from the previous CBA, al of whihc could be increased further in the owners favor if they wanted.

The NHL has only talked about one thing. Look at the quote from Melnyk today: "There is one solution and that's what is being proposed by commissioner Bettman". To me, thats not negotiation.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 11:31 AM
  #28
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Because its a joke? Who cares if the players decertify. Who really cares? What are they going to do? Go to Europe and play for thousands of dollars rather than millions? Play in the AHL for even less? Maybe start an European Super league where the buildings aren't large enough to sustain the money demands the players have? Oh wait, I know, they're going to start their own league! And how are they going to do this?

Where are they going to play? They have to play in markets that are hockey markets. The NHL owners already own all those buildings. Maybe they can build their own buildings? Okay, feel free to cough up the $6 billion dollars to build the 24 arenas capable of sustaining the salary levels the players want. Now try and promote this new league. Try and convince the fans to come and watch you play at $250 a ticket to pay for your salaries and the money it takes to pay for the mortgages on the buildings. That doesn't even include the development and organzational costs that would be required and the expertise to run the teams.

Players decertifying would be a god send to the league. That would essentially bust the union and at that point it is every man for themselves. You would see players crossing the lines so fast ot would make your head spin. The players best bet is to understand the challeneges that the owners face and just how lucky they are to make the money they do assuming no risk other than their physical well being.
Not to mention trying to find another group of suckers (read: Owners) that would be somehow willing to pay them an average salary of 1.8 million/yr, with no salary cap. Good luck with that.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 11:34 AM
  #29
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast

Players decertifying would be a god send to the league. That would essentially bust the union and at that point it is every man for themselves. You would see players crossing the lines so fast ot would make your head spin. The players best bet is to understand the challeneges that the owners face and just how lucky they are to make the money they do assuming no risk other than their physical well being.
there would be no line to cross. Every player would be an independent contractor. If you have a few teams ruining it for everyone now, how would it be different with no CBA?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 11:39 AM
  #30
Taranis_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 655
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Taranis_24
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
But you have to look at both sides ideal solutions. I doubt the players ideally would give up 24% of their money, or go with the other drags their latest proposal had. Sure its not enough, but there are certainly major concessions and major changes from the previous CBA, al of whihc could be increased further in the owners favor if they wanted.

The NHL has only talked about one thing. Look at the quote from Melnyk today: "There is one solution and that's what is being proposed by commissioner Bettman". To me, thats not negotiation.
Okay - then lets look at both sides. The NHL approached the PA how many times in the last 5 seasons to work a new deal to solve the problems before they got this bad. The PA was not receptive. Why because they had a deal that worked for them and didn't want to change it. Well that deal is done and the owners are not obligated to go with something they know isn't fixing the root of the problem. So both have been unreasonable, the NHL for about 6-12 months the PA for about 60 months....

Taranis_24 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 11:41 AM
  #31
jcpenny
Registered User
 
jcpenny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis_24
And do you real expect that to happen? It will just be the same 'ol same 'ol. The big money market taking the market out of whack for the smaller markets, but you being a Ranger I could see why you would care less....
Your comments are bang on man. Can you explain to me why many poster here and players can't understand that? Thats why the old system was crap! OWNERS DO NOT WORK TOGHETER!! So theres no such thing as giving to much mny for teams like NYR, Dallas, COLORADO, Detroit and Philly. They are succesful teams that do not care about poor teams like any wealthy company does not care about how the small market spend. I cannot picture myself the owner of the NYR asking the owner of the Hurricanes before giving a contract to a player saying : " Hum, is 9 millions too much for Holik?" They dont care! So the only way to stop that is Stiff tax or Salary cap.

I can't some people can"t understand that.

jcpenny is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 11:44 AM
  #32
fan mao rong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: port royal , pa
Posts: 968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Can someone tell me why the players decertifying and in turn destroying the league to the ground is not some big threat?

The players have the hammers. If the owners continue to be unreasonable, they will decertify, and the teams will not be worth anything.

Only an idiot would think this is to help fix the system for the small markets, when its clear that the ownres do not want to share revenues. The way they would help the smaller revenue teams is by sharing revenues from the top clubs. They do not want to share more than 65 million, to replace the old TV deal.

You think melnyk is gonna be with bettman when the sens are on the verge of destruction? You really think Ottawa could compete if all players became free-agents at will and could sign with whatever team offered them the most?
Why is not a big threat? I believe it is not because, differing from what people on here believe, pro sports teams really have no assets that can be readily sold off and distributed monetarily. So if the union decertifies, and somehow wins a lawsuit (I don't think it's likely) they might recieve a reversal of the ruling of impasse the disallowing of implementation and a massive monetary award. But where do they go from there? The team's only real asset are the value of the player contracts, what are they going to do? Pay themselves? You might think a team has many assets but they do not. Let's look at Philadelphia. The lawsuit might apply to the League and it's member teams, but you are not getting any of the parent company's cable system, arena, shares in Microsoft. You get the contracts of players, maybe the logos, team name, rights to game (eg. EA Sports) and the like. But how much will that be worth if their is no one to operate the league? Players Union may own the team name, but then then must negotiate a lease( probably with whoever they just beat out of a team) to play in an arena. And even if they get that done, lets see what their revenues are like. Then they can pay themselves. And this legal process will take probably measured in years. And all of that time they won't be making big money playing hockey. I believe this is one of the biggest non-issues on here.

fan mao rong is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 11:50 AM
  #33
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis_24
Okay - then lets look at both sides. The NHL approached the PA how many times in the last 5 seasons to work a new deal to solve the problems before they got this bad. The PA was not receptive. Why because they had a deal that worked for them and didn't want to change it. Well that deal is done and the owners are not obligated to go with something they know isn't fixing the root of the problem. So both have been unreasonable, the NHL for about 6-12 months the PA for about 60 months....
So why did the league extend the CBA in 1999, which if you listen to Bettman is when he knew it wasn't working?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 11:56 AM
  #34
Taranis_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 655
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Taranis_24
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
So why did the league extend the CBA in 1999, which if you listen to Bettman is when he knew it wasn't working?
Typical reply, which has been discussed fully in other posts on this board(expansion, TV, owners balking(mainly big market)). What you have now is that the owners gave him the mandate to get cost-certainty and to make sure they wouldn't balk only need 8 owners to agree to continue lockout. So you are not willing to acknowledge that both sides have been unreasonable. But I would say the NHLPA has been more unreasonable then the league over the last 5 years.

Taranis_24 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 12:01 PM
  #35
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis_24
Typical reply, which has been discussed fully in other posts on this board(expansion, TV, owners balking(mainly big market)). What you have now is that the owners gave him the mandate to get cost-certainty and to make sure they wouldn't balk only need 8 owners to agree to continue lockout. So you are not willing to acknowledge that both sides have been unreasonable. But I would say the NHLPA has been more unreasonable then the league over the last 5 years.
But has the NHL been demanding the same thing for 5 years? Would they have accepted a tax 5 years ago?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 12:03 PM
  #36
Taranis_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 655
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Taranis_24
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
But has the NHL been demanding the same thing for 5 years? Would they have accepted a tax 5 years ago?
You damn skippy! In fact they were not looking for a cap 5 years ago but a tax system, the NHLPA balked. If I can find where I read it I will post here....

Taranis_24 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 12:05 PM
  #37
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
But has the NHL been demanding the same thing for 5 years? Would they have accepted a tax 5 years ago?
They very likely would have, but the NHLPA wasn't in any mood to offer a luxury tax 5 years ago so the point's kinda moot IMO.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 12:05 PM
  #38
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
How many of you believe when the owners say "We want to fix this for the fans." But in reality the want want to fix this for themselves.

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 12:08 PM
  #39
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
How many of you believe when the owners say "We want to fix this for the fans." But in reality the want want to fix this for themselves.
Not me, but what does it matter?

Neither side is doing what they do 'for the fans'. This is big business vs. big union.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 12:13 PM
  #40
Habnot
 
Habnot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,472
vCash: 500
What a completely futile argument. What I really don't understand is why the fans take sides one way or the other. Both sides are right, both sides are wrong and more importantly both sides are equally self-serving. Billionnaires vs. millionnaires, let's see, do I take sides with the least oppressed.

Come to think of it, I don't give a sh^t.

Habnot is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 12:42 PM
  #41
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjb3599
Actually, the NHLPA has given the owners a perfect opportunity to exercise cost certainty. There's nothing wrong with the system, just owners paying too much for players. The 24% give-back essentially gives the owners a clean slate to work with and if they want cost certainty it should be up to them to create a budget and work within it.

Personally, I still favor a more stiff luxury tax scheme, but the beauty of the NHLPA's recent proposal is that it places the blame for the current economic state of the league squarely on the owners (which is precisely where it belongs IMO).
Owners paying too much for players is what is wrong with the system (or players as a collective forcing owners to pay too much, if you like to view it from another perspective).

The problem with claiming that "owners could just stop offering so much money" is that the one saying it have failed to understand the dual goals of a NHL club.

Goal 1). To run a business. To make money. To have less expenditure than revenue.

Goal 2) To be competitive. Try to make playoffs. Try to win the Stanley cup.

As far as goal 1 is concerned, a strategy where you just offer players less money and accept it if they will sit out and/or force a trade will work. You would keep salaries down and probably make a profit. The problem is that it would be very hard to satisfy goal 2 at the same time. And seeing how each team has a finite supply of players they have the rights to, it should be obvious why for most teams it is impossible to fulfill both goals these days. The more good players you have to part way with, the less chance of sporting success. We have the Rangers, Leafs etc that due to their market size can afford to go for both. But we also have the Edmontons that are forced to focus more on goal 1 than goal 2. There are some hybrids also. Low cost teams that have great success (Tampa this year for example). They run into the problem that their players start to say "Hey, we are the best. We deserve more money." which usually forces the team to choose between ruined finances or ruined sporting chances eventually. If you have an owner/market like Detroit/Denver you can handle the increased demands of your champion players of course. But most teams can't.

Having some sort of cost certaintly aims to enable most teams in the league being able to pursue both goals. I think that is a pretty good ambition. That is why I support the owners in this conflict.


Last edited by Freudian: 12-13-2004 at 12:48 PM.
Freudian is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 12:55 PM
  #42
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Can someone tell me why the players decertifying and in turn destroying the league to the ground is not some big threat?
Because the worst thing that can happen to the players in the NHL is a $1.3 million average salary. The best thing that can happen to them under any other scenario (Europe, new league, whatever) isn't even close to that.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 12:58 PM
  #43
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis_24
You damn skippy! In fact they were not looking for a cap 5 years ago but a tax system, the NHLPA balked. If I can find where I read it I will post here....
No need to find it, I'll take your word for it. My question is if it would have worked 5 years ago, how come one can't work now? Especially after the rollback, since the league would be in better shape than it was in 1999.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 01:24 PM
  #44
Taranis_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 655
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Taranis_24
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
No need to find it, I'll take your word for it. My question is if it would have worked 5 years ago, how come one can't work now? Especially after the rollback, since the league would be in better shape than it was in 1999.
Believe when I first read the 24% rollback I went holy crap, then started looking into it a bit more. The only teams this really helps is the teams with high payrolls already. NHLPA knows that giving those teams 24% more cash to play with will only make the "haves" have more and the lower market teams loose their players to the big markets. Maybe not right away but eventually, now I understand players can go, and owners can trade players but what I don't want to see is teams not keeping their players because of finances, or having frachises like the Yankees in the NHL. The other probelm why the NHL may (still some hope) not accept a salary tax now as not in the past (depending on whose numbers you believe) is that the league has lost $1.8B in the last 10 years and around $300-$500M in the last years, again depending on who numbers you want to believe in. Now if the NHLPA had agree to the tax system 5 years or even 2 years ago the league may not have lost that money and therefore not feeling they have to do something drastic to fix the economical situation in the league. Of course, this is all hypothetical now and even with a tax system a couple years ago the league could still be having this battle but I would suggest it wouldn't nearly be as cut-throat as it seems right now.

Taranis_24 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 12:58 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.