HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

View Poll Results: Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
The owners 144 48.65%
The NHLPA 152 51.35%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 06:54 PM
  #626
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
This is basically the argument. That hockey players have risk.

As you said, what about everyone else? I've seen people get forklifts into their legs by accident and I didn't exactly see them get private doctors for their troubles either. Oh yah, they made 10$/hour. Maybe that should make about 500k per year, all that risk you know!

Honestly, if a hockey player even dare complains about risk when they have better healthcare, doctors, trainers, nutritionists, first class travel, etc... then honestly, quit. I don't blame them if they feel at risk, but I do blame them for wanting special compensation for it. Everyone goes through risk and some have less insurance, no 'guaranteed contracts' and other forms of compensation.
Exactly.

The players' average salary of 2M is 500 times more than the average Canadian worker who can't afford to play golf for 5 straight months in the summer. Should firefighters and cops get paid 500 times more? The players are basically spoiled whiny high school dropouts making millions.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:02 PM
  #627
Ryan O'Byrne
Registered User
 
Ryan O'Byrne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
According to Forbes magazine, the owners made 160 million dollar in 2010.
ok so how much did the players make ?
because i'm sure they made a lot more then that without all the risk

Oh and I bet all that money was made by the original six teams

Ryan O'Byrne is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:12 PM
  #628
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
No need to think for me, I am capable of explaining my views far better than anyone else.

The players are not bearing the brunt of anything. No matter what happens, they get paid. That is the crux of the issue. The other central point is that the owners are as deserving of an equal division of the revenues as the players. I never once advocated that the players should get less than the owners. It has been interesting to watch people mischaracterize my views and opinions throughout this thread simply because I understand the notion that a partnership where one partner bears all costs is unfair in the context of giving the partner who bears none of the costs a larger portion of the revenues.

I do not hate the players or love the owners. In all honesty, I can live with either or neither as long as there is hockey and my Habs play. I don't care if Molson owns them or someone else. I do care about my favourite players, but when they are gone I will have new ones to cheer for as long as they wear the Habs jersey I love.

This entire argument is not about hating or loving either side, it is about what is fair in a business model as we are seeing in the NHL. I do not feel either side is deserving of pity because they are all millionaires to billionaires who should live far more comfortable lives than I ever will. However, when discussing what is fair in regards to the splitting of shares of revenue, I can render an opinion without emotion based on an intellectual understanding of what the ideal is while recognizing the world we live in is not always ideal.

50/50 split=fair due to the value that each partner brings to the NHL table. The players and owners are fairly equal in their ability to influence the revenue of the league as a whole due to multiple reasons on both sides. As such, they should split the revenues evenly.
Again, you completely ignore the point about NFL-style revenue sharing as the main mechanism whereby a NHL team is able to have a balanced ledger.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:48 PM
  #629
Scripter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 6
vCash: 500
I'm definitely with the owners on this one. It's a business and the players are employees.

Scripter is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:11 PM
  #630
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Wow??? So our fire fighters and cops who are actually indispensable to the functioning of the society don't take risks? How much do they make again? Far more Canadian soldiers have been crippled and fallen to make sure we don't have terrorist bombs go off in places like the Bell Centre where you get to see some sports entertainers.

The players only provide an unnecessary form of entertainment by playing a game and their average compensation which is 500 times more than the average Canadian salary MORE than justifies the risk they take in terms of medical injuries.

Btw, have more respect for our military personnel, cops, fire-fighters whose job are absolutely essential to the well functioning of the society than some overpaid yet whiny millionaire entertainers. Heck, I bet you more STM and TTC employees have died in their lines of work in their short history than NHL players.
Read up on human history sometime. Any good general history book should do.

You lose all credibility when you say that bread and circuses is "unnecessary form of entertainment".

Professional sports, Hollywood, etc are extremely valuable to society. Without them the system would collapse.

*****************

By the way, bus drivers are very well paid and their labor is non-specialized. Their employer, the city of Montreal, makes no profit, and actually loses money on running a bus service.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-17-2012 at 08:59 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:03 PM
  #631
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
Those are fair points, but I will just point to guaranteed contracts and insurance for those players. They are very well compensated for playing the game and assuming those risks.
The guaranteed contract and the insurance is only for the duration of the said contract though. Someone can be a vegetable for the rest of his life in no time. No owner has that risk.

Again, not saying that the owners don't have (financial) risks here, but the players also do and that's where the partnership is important.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:05 PM
  #632
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Again, you completely ignore the point about NFL-style revenue sharing as the main mechanism whereby a NHL team is able to have a balanced ledger.
I didn't ignore anything. I have stated that the owners need to work with each other on revenue sharing. The point is that they should be sharing the 50% of the pie they are entitled to as the people who put up all of the financial risks associated with running an NHL team. I have no problem with people who want the owners to also share their revenues within their own partnership in a fair manner. I have no issue with that and believe revenue sharing within the ownership group must occur. Of course, the owners should have 50% of the total revenue to share amongst themselves.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:34 PM
  #633
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Read up on human history sometime. Any good general history book should do.

You lose all credibility when you say that bread and circuses is "unnecessary form of entertainment".

Professional sports, Hollywood, etc are extremely valuable to society. Without them the system would collapse.

*****************

By the way, bus drivers are very well paid and their labor is non-specialized. Their employer, the city of Montreal, makes no profit, and actually loses money on running a bus service.
Really? You are comparing Bus Drivers who provide the city with an essential service that our taxes support, to Hockey Players who exist solely to entertain? Did you forget that Hockey Players get paid far more money, have far better healthcare services, and never risk a player stabbing or shooting another player while working? I also think you overgeneralize when you claim Bus Drivers are a non-specialized form of labor. Believe me, NOT everyone can drive a bus in the city streets of Montreal.

Heck, the city of Montreal doesn't make any money from Firefighters, Police Officers, Teachers etc...maybe they should all be fired so that we can devote our taxes to Hockey Players who appear to be far more essential to society's survival, according to your general history books (again with no links..Yeesh, what kind of educated academic are you?!?!?)and suffer far more to get and maintain their jobs than we little "Joe Blows" as well.

Still waiting for an explanation of your 98-99% statistics Mr. Educated Academic.

Please explain how the players will lose 25% of their guaranteed salaries if their overall share of the revenue is dropping 7%. Here is the NHL offer:

Quote:
The NHL and NHL Players' Association will meet in Toronto on Thursday where they are expected to go over the league's latest proposal, which was released to the public in its entirety on Wednesday.

The exact details sent out by the league were as follows:

1. Term:

- Six-year Agreement with mutual option for a seventh year.

2. HRR Accounting:

- Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

3. Applicable Players' Share:

- For each of the six (6) years of the CBA (and any additional one-year option) the Players' Share shall be Fifty (50) percent of Actual HRR.

4. Payroll Range:

- Payroll Range will be computed using existing methodology. For the 2012/13 season, the Payroll Range will be computed assuming HRR will remain flat year-over-year (2011/12 to 2012/13) at $3.303 Billion (assuming Preliminary Benefits of $95 Million).

- 2012/13 Payroll Range: Lower Limit = $43.9 Million, Midpoint = $51.9 Million, Upper Limit = $59.9 Million

- Appropriate "Transition Rules" to allow Clubs to exceed Upper Limit for the 2012/13 season only (but in no event will Club's Averaged Club Salary be permitted to exceed the pre-CBA Upper Limit of $70.2 Million).

5. Cap Accounting:

- Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.

- All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but
only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the
contract for the balance of its term.

- Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league.

- In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.

6. System Changes:

- Entry Level System commitment will be limited to two (2) years (covering two full seasons) for all Players who sign their first SPC between the ages of 18 and 24 (i.e., where the first year of the SPC only covers a partial season, SPC must be for three (3) years).

- Maintenance of existing Salary Arbitration System subject to: (i) total mutuality of rights with regard to election as between Player and Club, and (ii) eligibility for election moved to five years of professional experience (from the current four years).

- Group 3 UFA eligibility for Players who are 28 or who have eight (8) Accrued Seasons (continues to allow for early UFA eligibility -- age 26).

- Maximum contract length of five (5) years.

- Limit on year-to-year salary variability on multi-year SPCs -- i.e., maximum increase or decrease in total compensation (salary and bonuses) year-over-year limited to 5% of the value of the first year of the contract. (For example, if a Player earns $10 million in total compensation in Year 1 of his SPC, his compensation (salary and bonuses) cannot increase or decrease by more than $500,000 in any subsequent year of his SPC.)

- Re-Entry waivers will be eliminated, consistent with the Cap Accounting proposal relating to the treatment of Players on NHL SPCs playing in another professional league.

- NHL Clubs who draft European Players obtain four (4) years of exclusive negotiating rights following selection in the Draft. If the four-year period expires, Player will be eligible to enter the League as a Free Agent and will not be subject to re-entering the Draft.

7. Revenue Sharing:

- NHL commits to Revenue Sharing Pool of $200 million for 2012/13 season (based on assumption of $3.303 Billion in actual HRR). Amount will be adjusted upward or downward in proportion to Actual HRR results for 2012/13. Revenue Sharing Pools in future years will be calculated proportionately.

- At least one-half of the total Revenue Sharing Pool (50%) will be raised from the Top 10 Revenue Grossing Clubs in a manner to be determined by the NHL.

- The distribution of the Revenue Sharing Pool will be determined on an annual basis by a Revenue Sharing Committee on which the NHLPA will have representation and input.

- For each of the first two years of the CBA, no Club will receive less in total Revenue Sharing than it received in 2011/12.

- Current "Disqualification" criteria in CBA (for Clubs in Top Half of League revenues and Clubs in large media markets) will be removed

- Existing performance and "reduction" standards and provisions relating to "non-performers" (i.e., CBA 49.3(d)(i) and 49.3 (d)(ii)) will be eliminated and will be adjusted as per the NHL's 7/31 Proposal.

8. Supplemental and Commissioner Discipline:

- Introduction of additional procedural safeguards, including ultimate appeal right to a "neutral" third-party arbitrator with a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

9. No "Rollback":

- The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA.

10. Players' Share "Make Whole" Provision:

- The League proposes to make Players "whole" for the absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars (when compared to 2011/12) that is attributable to the economic terms of the new CBA (the "Share Reduction"). Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.) Any such "shortfalls" in Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA will be computed as a percentage reduction off of the Player's stated contractual compensation, and will be repaid to the Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the Player's SPC (or if he has no remaining years, in the year following the expiration of his SPC). Player reimbursement for the Share Reduction will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits. The objective would be to honor all existing SPCs by restoring their "value" on the basis of the now existing level of Players' Share dollars.
Please explain how the players are having their contracts reduced by 25%, I am very curious. I am also intrigued by your ability to predict the future when you claim that the players will have their salaries cut by another 25%. Now I can see why you don't provide links to support your statements, since it is hard to find future sites writing in the present.

Wow, an educated academic who never supports any of his statements is trying to claim someone else in this discussion has lost all credibility?!?! Lol. I am really starting to enjoy this whole discussion a little too much, and for the wrong reasons...

Out of curiosity, who am I envious of?? I will make it easy for you, just give me your opinion since I know your statement will have no basis in fact...

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:02 PM
  #634
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Really? You are comparing Bus Drivers who provide the city with an essential service that our taxes support, to Hockey Players who exist solely to entertain? Did you forget that Hockey Players get paid far more money, have far better healthcare services, and never risk a player stabbing or shooting another player while working? I also think you overgeneralize when you claim Bus Drivers are a non-specialized form of labor. Believe me, NOT everyone can drive a bus in the city streets of Montreal.
Besides that, even, is the requirement for a somewhat specific grade of license, air brake training, etc. Maybe we just misunderstood what he meant by "non-specialized".

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:35 PM
  #635
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Besides that, even, is the requirement for a somewhat specific grade of license, air brake training, etc. Maybe we just misunderstood what he meant by "non-specialized".
There's a huge fraction of the population that could be bus drivers if it's what they wanted to do. I don't know if it's 30%, 50%, or 70% of the working-age population, I know people with blindness can't be bus drivers, and either way it doesn't matter because it then qualifies as non-specialized. NHL players, on the other hand, are specialized. They are the best in the world at what they do.

The salaries of professional athletes are quite comparable to those of Hollywood stars, singers, models, television hosts, etc.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:41 PM
  #636
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Really? You are comparing Bus Drivers who provide the city with an essential service that our taxes support, to Hockey Players who exist solely to entertain? Did you forget that Hockey Players get paid far more money, have far better healthcare services, and never risk a player stabbing or shooting another player while working? I also think you overgeneralize when you claim Bus Drivers are a non-specialized form of labor. Believe me, NOT everyone can drive a bus in the city streets of Montreal.

Heck, the city of Montreal doesn't make any money from Firefighters, Police Officers, Teachers etc...maybe they should all be fired so that we can devote our taxes to Hockey Players who appear to be far more essential to society's survival, according to your general history books (again with no links..Yeesh, what kind of educated academic are you?!?!?)
One doesn't need to link to the concept of "bread and circuses", it's well-known and part of general knowledge. Similarly, you don't need a link if you say Washington DC is the capital of the United States.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 12:15 AM
  #637
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,945
vCash: 500
Economics lesson:

In the absence of a salary cap, the real reason NHL players are highly paid is because an owner like Geoff Molson makes about 2 million dollars of profit, maybe 4 million of additional revenue? for every home playoff game. Better players means more revenue from home playoff games (and also better attendance at regular season games and exhibition games and TV deals provincewide, I ignore these factors for simplicity without loss of generality).

There are only so many home playoff games to go around, and not all players are equal, therefore owners will pay more money for better players, in order to make more money.

According to the marginal revenue productivity theory of wages, a player who can make you play 1 more home playoff game a year on average should thus be worth up to, but not more, an additional 2 million dollars in salary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margina...heory_of_wages
As there is competition for labor in the NHL, and not all players are equal, wages will eventually reach that level, and in fact before the last lockout wages went to ~72% of total league revenue. (Again, not including the impact of larger attendance during the 82 game regular season due to having a winning team on the ice).

Note that ideally, you'd want to pay exactly 2 million dollars more for a player who will win you one more home playoff game. However, this number is adjusted due to uncertainty. Salaries are also based on what GMs think players are worth, not the reality of what they are worth. Part of the reason offensive specialists are paid more than defensive specialists (in theory both are equally valuable) is that offense is more easily measured, i.e. there is less uncertainty and you can better judge the difference between players. You know that Malkin is 50% more productive than Sedin, who is 33% more productive than Desharnais. You can't make these statements for defensive specialists.

Crosby gets millions of dollars more than Desharnais because if they were traded 1 for 1, profits in Montreal would go up by millions of dollars, and profits in Pittsburgh would go down by millions of dollars.

After the last lockout, the league switched from being a free market economy where players could get market values to being a collectivist cartel with a salary cap, and players got 54% and then later 57% of revenue, down from 72%. As league revenues are 3 billion dollars, this sounds like the NHL should now be making a profit of at least 400 million, but they only made 160 million last year.

Teams are still competing for finite playoff revenue, and want to win. The way for a team to get more playoff revenue than another team in a competitive arena is to invest more, which reduces profits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendenc...profit_to_fall
Teams that could no longer get more playoff revenue by signing more superstars instead invested more into superior drafting and management. As the wage share fell by 25% and revenues went up by 80%, the owners theoretically have 276% as much to play with as they did before the 2005 lockout (0.43*1.8/0.28 = 2.76). However, profits are still too low due to competition, i.e. due to the economic law of declining profits.

Conclusion:
The owners compete with each other, and this drives profit rates downward. In a free market system, the players would get at least 70% of revenue, due to not just the fact that they are talented, but that there are massive differences in talent between different players, that is what they deserve if one adopts free market morality. With a cartel-like salary cap in place, the players get an arbitrary number such as 50/50 or some other number, and profits still go down to zero as money is invested into superior management.

It is thus unrealistic to expect all 30 NHL teams to be profitable, as long as they are competing with one another.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-18-2012 at 05:53 AM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 08:21 AM
  #638
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I didn't ignore anything. I have stated that the owners need to work with each other on revenue sharing. The point is that they should be sharing the 50% of the pie they are entitled to as the people who put up all of the financial risks associated with running an NHL team. I have no problem with people who want the owners to also share their revenues within their own partnership in a fair manner. I have no issue with that and believe revenue sharing within the ownership group must occur. Of course, the owners should have 50% of the total revenue to share amongst themselves.
Why should "the owners have 50% of the total revenue"? Because it's "fair"? Because all NHL owners "deserve to make a profit"? At best that's just a naive assumption as it has been proven that:

1. All businesses do not make a profit. The NHL is no different. It is not a sacrosanct entity where members of the oligopoly are guaranteed a profit.

2. A 50/50 split of HRR still will not "guarantee" all members of the NHL cabal a profit.

There is only one reason why the NHL and the NHLPA are moving towards a 50/50 split and that is due to the precedence of the NFL and NBA CBAs.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 08:37 AM
  #639
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Why should "the owners have 50% of the total revenue"? Because it's "fair"?Yes. THey pay for everything, they should get at least 50% of the money made by the NHL Because all NHL owners "deserve to make a profit"? I don't remember claiming that, you are confusing me wih someone else. I said all NHL owners deserve a fair share of the revenue since they pay all costs.At best that's just a naive assumption as it has been proven that:

1. All businesses do not make a profit. The NHL is no different. It is not a sacrosanct entity where members of the oligopoly are guaranteed a profit. Agreed.

2. A 50/50 split of HRR still will not "guarantee" all members of the NHL cabal a profit.True.

There is only one reason why the NHL and the NHLPA are moving towards a 50/50 split and that is due to the precedence of the NFL and NBA CBAs.Quite likely. If not the only reason, then a heavily influencing one
I am not saying all owners deserve or have to make a profit, I believe that was Ryan O'Byrne (I could be wrong and am too busy to look it up). I have stated that, in a partnership with two distinct entities where one (owners) pays for EVERYTHING related to the business and the other is the key Labour (players) who does not pay for anything and is NOT even the sole source of income, it is only fair to have a 50/50 split of the revenue.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:05 AM
  #640
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Economics lesson:

In the absence of a salary cap, the real reason NHL players are highly paid is because an owner like Geoff Molson makes about 2 million dollars of profit, maybe 4 million of additional revenue? for every home playoff game. Better players means more revenue from home playoff games (and also better attendance at regular season games and exhibition games and TV deals provincewide, I ignore these factors for simplicity without loss of generality).

There are only so many home playoff games to go around, and not all players are equal, therefore owners will pay more money for better players, in order to make more money.

According to the marginal revenue productivity theory of wages, a player who can make you play 1 more home playoff game a year on average should thus be worth up to, but not more, an additional 2 million dollars in salary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margina...heory_of_wages
As there is competition for labor in the NHL, and not all players are equal, wages will eventually reach that level, and in fact before the last lockout wages went to ~72% of total league revenue. (Again, not including the impact of larger attendance during the 82 game regular season due to having a winning team on the ice).

Note that ideally, you'd want to pay exactly 2 million dollars more for a player who will win you one more home playoff game. However, this number is adjusted due to uncertainty. Salaries are also based on what GMs think players are worth, not the reality of what they are worth. Part of the reason offensive specialists are paid more than defensive specialists (in theory both are equally valuable) is that offense is more easily measured, i.e. there is less uncertainty and you can better judge the difference between players. You know that Malkin is 50% more productive than Sedin, who is 33% more productive than Desharnais. You can't make these statements for defensive specialists.

Crosby gets millions of dollars more than Desharnais because if they were traded 1 for 1, profits in Montreal would go up by millions of dollars, and profits in Pittsburgh would go down by millions of dollars.

After the last lockout, the league switched from being a free market economy where players could get market values to being a collectivist cartel with a salary cap, and players got 54% and then later 57% of revenue, down from 72%. As league revenues are 3 billion dollars, this sounds like the NHL should now be making a profit of at least 400 million, but they only made 160 million last year.

Teams are still competing for finite playoff revenue, and want to win. The way for a team to get more playoff revenue than another team in a competitive arena is to invest more, which reduces profits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendenc...profit_to_fall
Teams that could no longer get more playoff revenue by signing more superstars instead invested more into superior drafting and management. As the wage share fell by 25% and revenues went up by 80%, the owners theoretically have 276% as much to play with as they did before the 2005 lockout (0.43*1.8/0.28 = 2.76). However, profits are still too low due to competition, i.e. due to the economic law of declining profits.

Conclusion:
The owners compete with each other, and this drives profit rates downward. In a free market system, the players would get at least 70% of revenue, due to not just the fact that they are talented, but that there are massive differences in talent between different players, that is what they deserve if one adopts free market morality. With a cartel-like salary cap in place, the players get an arbitrary number such as 50/50 or some other number, and profits still go down to zero as money is invested into superior management.

It is thus unrealistic to expect all 30 NHL teams to be profitable, as long as they are competing with one another.
Nice essay. Cool links, too! Now, how about going back to my previous post and answering any of the questions asked.

By the way, just a little FYI:

You claimed: As the wage share fell by 25% and revenues went up by 80%, the owners theoretically have 276% as much to play with as they did before the 2005 lockout (0.43*1.8/0.28 = 2.76). A partial answer: One of the reasons the owners do not have as much to play with is because, even though wage SHARE dropped, wages have dramatically increased even in a Cap system. Had the owners not done what they did in 2005, it is quite possible that the league would be smaller or non-existent due to multiple teams losing money, multiple teams declaring bankruptcy, and the NHL losing huindreds of millions of dollars (which was the state of affiars in 2005).
Quote:
Although the NHL's numbers were disputed, there was no question that several franchises were losing money, as several had declared bankruptcy. Other franchises had held "fire sales" of franchise players, such as the Washington Capitals. The league did not have large TV revenues in the US, so the NHL was reliant on attendance revenues more than other leagues. After the lockout of the 2004-2005 season, NHL teams made on average only 3 million dollars from television revenues.[8] In addition in May of the 2004-2005 lockout, ESPN formally denied the option to show NHL games on the network due to low ratings in previous seasons.[9] Many NHL teams had low attendance totals in preceding seasons.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2...05_NHL_lockout)
So, with your free market system where people who put absolutely no money into the costs associated with running the league and getting 72% of the revenue, we had far worse economic realities for the league. Maybe the owners DO know a thing or two about how to run and maintain and even grow a business. Also, please keep in mind that player salaries have steadily increased significantly since the 2005 season. The players took two steps back to make 5 strides forward.

Now, please explain the 98-99% failure numbers you made up earlier (or you could just act like an adult and admit your error even though it would be a blow to your educated academic's ego) and explain how the players will lose 25% on their guaranteed contracts by agreeing to a 50/50 split, which represents a 7% reduction of the total revenue.

Nice attempt at deflecting my questions, though.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:12 AM
  #641
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,763
vCash: 500
I am still shocked to see people who think 50-50 of HRR is unfair for the players......

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:26 AM
  #642
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,746
vCash: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
I am still shocked to see people who think 50-50 of HRR is unfair for the players......
At this point I think people are just sticking to their previous stance and being stubborn.

Many seem to think the players HAVE 57%. In fact, they have 0%. This isn't me being "the owners have the power!" followed with an evil laugh. Nah, the CBA is over, it's done, finished. The players did not EARN 57%, it was negotiated in. Now the players should get 50-50 like every other league but are sticking to this 57%.

Let's move on, it's a NEW CBA. They need NEW numbers and NEW agreements. People need to stop looking at the past. 50-50 is the industry standard right now.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:35 AM
  #643
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
At this point I think people are just sticking to their previous stance and being stubborn.

Many seem to think the players HAVE 57%. In fact, they have 0%. This isn't me being "the owners have the power!" followed with an evil laugh. Nah, the CBA is over, it's done, finished. The players did not EARN 57%, it was negotiated in. Now the players should get 50-50 like every other league but are sticking to this 57%.

Let's move on, it's a NEW CBA. They need NEW numbers and NEW agreements. People need to stop looking at the past. 50-50 is the industry standard right now.

They are 5-6 days away from losing 25-30% of their salaries to make sure they dont lose 7%.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:39 AM
  #644
Zam Boni
Registered User
 
Zam Boni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Now, please explain the 98-99% failure numbers you made up earlier (or you could just act like an adult and admit your error even though it would be a blow to your educated academic's ego) and explain how the players will lose 25% on their guaranteed contracts by agreeing to a 50/50 split, which represents a 7% reduction of the total revenue.

Nice attempt at deflecting my questions, though.
Well, there are roughly 700 players in the NHL and roughly 1,500,000 registered hockey players in the world = roughly 0,045% of all hockey players in the world make to the NHL
Now, if we exclude some exotic hockey nations and only focus on Canada and the US, our average hockey player chance of making it in the NHL slightly improves. Roughly 75% of the players in the NHL are from NA = 542 players and the total number of players in NA is just over 1 million = 0,05% of all NA hockey players make it in the NHL.

Now, some of those players are too old to make it, lets say 1/3 is over 20yo and no longer of interest. And we must exclude the 700 players actually playing in the NHL. And there are 65000 female hockey players in the US and 54000 in Canada, they dont make it to the NHL.
Would you guess?! We arrive at 0,09% of all hockey players under 20yo and excluding females make it to the NHL!?

There.

Zam Boni is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:52 AM
  #645
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I have stated that, in a partnership with two distinct entities where one (owners) pays for EVERYTHING related to the business and the other is the key Labour (players) who does not pay for anything and is NOT even the sole source of income, it is only fair to have a 50/50 split of the revenue.
"Fair" has nothing to do with what the owners or players receive. The NHL is not a single entity - it is an oligopoly. There is competition within this oligopoly, especially competition for elite labour. Players receive whatever the free market within the confines of the oligopoly dictate. Due to the nature of the competition within the oligopoly the NHL instituted a salary cap in order to curtail the extremes of their purchases within their labour market. "Fair" is what the NHLPA and NHL determine it to be through collective bargaining, not some arbitrary ratio pulled out of thin air that you have determined to be "just".

To apply your logic elsewhere, what is a "fair" ratio in the finance industry, or the manufacturing industry, or the restaurant industry? Does "fairness" enter the equation, or is compensation determined by the labour market?

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 10:09 AM
  #646
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scripter View Post
I'm definitely with the owners on this one. It's a business and the players are employees.
I own my own business and that doesn't make any sense. Who do you think makes the sales? The owners? The players sell the game. If the owner feels he can do it himself, he shouldn't be hiring anyone

Ginu is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 10:20 AM
  #647
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
I own my own business and that doesn't make any sense. Who do you think makes the sales? The owners? The players sell the game. If the owner feels he can do it himself, he shouldn't be hiring anyone
What business are you in? Myself, I own 2 grocery stores (soon, hopefully, 3).

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 10:54 AM
  #648
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
I own my own business and that doesn't make any sense. Who do you think makes the sales? The owners? The players sell the game. If the owner feels he can do it himself, he shouldn't be hiring anyone

So do you have a deal in place with your staff that gives them 57% of total revenues from YOUR business?

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 11:02 AM
  #649
Zam Boni
Registered User
 
Zam Boni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
So do you have a deal in place with your staff that gives them 57% of total revenues from YOUR business?
Since he has 18000 in attendance paying $150 to watch them compare apples and oranges every day that seems about fair, don't you think?!

Me and my collegueas get 71%...

Zam Boni is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 11:11 AM
  #650
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scripter View Post
I'm definitely with the owners on this one. It's a business and the players are employees.
The players are more than the employees... They are also the product, since they are what we are paying to see.

Fozz 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 01:51 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.