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.
It's Not About Winning Or Losing. It's About Who Gets The Blame (CBA/Lockout) XVI
Do any of you get annoyed with yourself over how much time you spend on this thread and posting the same general comments over and over again? How bout checking blogs or twitter updates hoping something new will change? It's driving me nuts, and I really don't remember caring THIS much in 04, probably cause I was younger than and didn't fully understand the numbers but knew it was for the good of the game. This is just.....so wrong.
I was the same way back in 04. It was the main reason why I signed up on these forums back then. I remember watching these cruddy feeds of the Russian Super League, (Pre-KHL days) on Saturday mornings at like 6am.
Since then, my passion for the game has increased significantly, making this go around a lot harder. Not only that but in the past 7 years I would consider myself a great ambassador for the game luring tons of friends and family into the sport who are now what I consider more than fair weather fans of the game.
Do any of you get annoyed with yourself over how much time you spend on this thread and posting the same general comments over and over again? How bout checking blogs or twitter updates hoping something new will change? It's driving me nuts, and I really don't remember caring THIS much in 04, probably cause I was younger than and didn't fully understand the numbers but knew it was for the good of the game. This is just.....so wrong.
Yeah, I'm pretty tired of it too.
I've got other things to keep me busy.
Don't really care what happens with the NHL/PA anymore right now.
That might change in ten minutes but right now, I'm fed up.
Except for the fact that player salaries would be driven through the roof. Teams with an internal cap would not be able to ice a competitive team which would force contraction due to lost revenue.
You would have a few middle of the pack teams that may be able to make a push once every 10 years while the top of the pack fight it out to see who can be the best of the top 6.
Once again....it would be the worst thing that could happen to the league.
If you want an 15 team league, then by all means, kill the cap. I am sure the NHLPA would love to fire 1/2 their members.
lol, there was already an uncapped era in the NHL and it wasn't anything like you're describing.
I suppose one significant difference was the concession owners gave up on free agency to get the cap, they used to control players until they were 31, which mean teams had some level of cost control on players through their prime years.
These scare tactics about what would happen in a semi free market are growing tiring, usually backed up with falsities about baseball. FWIW, if hockey used the same playoff system has baseball since the lockout, baseball would have had as many or more playoff teams than hockey.
I'm NOT saying it would be good, so I don't even want to argue the merits about whether or not it should be done but you're grossly exaggerating. Hockey has a system where you get points for losing games and over half the league makes the playoffs, even if there were further separation in terms of money spent, it's hard to imagine teams NEVER getting a sniff, especially if they controlled players as long as they used to or MLB teams do.
Again, to be clear, not advocating a switch just saying give me a break on all the contraction.
is it? Linkage/salary floor forces teams to lose money. That's a fact.
Nothing about an unlinked salary structure would do that
Wrong, before the last lockout under a non cap system the league as a collective lost around $270 million. Now under a cap system the league as a collective made over a $100 million in profit. The cap has absolutley worked in helping the league gain not only competetive parity but also financial stability. The problem is that there ares still a number of teams losing money and that needs to be adressed. There isnt enough profit lying around to fix it completely by revenue sharing so as a result the league is asking for a greater share to help fund RS.
The main difference between the owners and the PA's set of proposals is that in the players proposal it puts all the risk on the owners whereas the risks are shared evenly under the owners proposal. The players need to be willing to accept some risk here maybe not the whole 50/50 that the owners proposed but they need to accept some. If they are confident in there growth projections the PA shouldnt have any problem accepting a linked 54% in year 1 52% in year 2 and get to a linked 50% in year 3 or 4. This proposal would present risks and rewards to both sides, revenue grows at a fast pace the players recoup their salaries quicker and potentiall gain a greater share. If it grows slower then they run the risk of not having all their salary paid like the current system. The owners in return would have to get most of the system changes they asked for.
Both sides should really be able to get something done they arnt that far apart.
It's so strange to hear all these people demanding the players take less because that's how business works. Businesses can simply choose to not spend. If they can't keep up with the Joneses, they shouldn't try.
Salary caps? Salary floors? Damn ridiculous.
MOD
The business is choosing to spend less on the players.
The players are choosing to not accept that fact. I cannot dictate what my job pays me. I can, however, move on to another business.
The players are free to do the same. They are free to go overseas and take a massive pay cut.
If they don't want to, too bad, so sad.
Last edited by Fugu: 10-25-2012 at 06:32 PM.
Reason: address the topic, no personal attacks please
I really thought they would of had some dialog by today. I was wrong. I have a deadline in mind. If they manage to screw this up and miss the season I will not be attending games for some time (years). Been averaging 20 per year since 06'. I'm sick of them.
lol, there was already an uncapped era in the NHL and it wasn't anything like you're describing.
I suppose one significant difference was the concession owners gave up on free agency to get the cap, they used to control players until they were 31, which mean teams had some level of cost control on players through their prime years.
These scare tactics about what would happen in a semi free market are growing tiring, usually backed up with falsities about baseball. FWIW, if hockey used the same playoff system has baseball since the lockout, baseball would have had as many or more playoff teams than hockey.
I'm NOT saying it would be good, so I don't even want to argue the merits about whether or not it should be done but you're grossly exaggerating. Hockey has a system where you get points for losing games and over half the league makes the playoffs, even if there were further separation in terms of money spent, it's hard to imagine teams NEVER getting a sniff, especially if they controlled players as long as they used to or MLB teams do.
Again, to be clear, not advocating a switch just saying give me a break on all the contraction.
Do you know how much more money is involved these days?
You can try and look back to the pre-cap era and say that things worked back then but that was a long time ago.
With the amount of money that the NHL brings in at the present time, the top teams could throw out enough money to make you puke.
Disagree with me if you want but if the cap goes, you will see OUTRAGEOUS contracts because there will be nothing stopping the top teams from scooping up all the talent.
When New York ices a $120 million dollar team, how is any team supposed to compete?
I think that whatever the outcome of this FIASCO, the NHLPA needs to be blown up entirely.
Bring back Kelly. Get rid of all the ex-players with agendas who are hanging around - they already get pensions, no need to pay them a salary on top of that. I mean, how many of them have any experience or education relevant to running a business? For God's sake, hire some accountants and economists. The PA has to fight the NHL on a business level. You don't need a ton of ex-players hanging around for that.
The majority of the union has to have more say. There should be a trigger for the membership to force a vote on an offer.
That's all I have for now, but I can't help but thinking that this PA has gotten the players into yet another fine mess, and this time even the owner's stupidity isn't going to get them out of it.
I agree. I don't think Mathieu Schneider knows thing one about the business of hockey.
I think that whatever the outcome of this FIASCO, the NHLPA needs to be blown up entirely.
Bring back Kelly. Get rid of all the ex-players with agendas who are hanging around - they already get pensions, no need to pay them a salary on top of that. I mean, how many of them have any experience or education relevant to running a business? For God's sake, hire some accountants and economists. The PA has to fight the NHL on a business level. You don't need a ton of ex-players hanging around for that.
The majority of the union has to have more say. There should be a trigger for the membership to force a vote on an offer.
That's all I have for now, but I can't help but thinking that this PA has gotten the players into yet another fine mess, and this time even the owner's stupidity isn't going to get them out of it.
Helene Elliott @helenenothelen
NBA Commish David Stern on whether he has advised former protege Bettman: "I have a close relationship with Gary. But I would say that(more
Helene Elliott @helenenothelen
the subject of such conversations as we have had is covered by the commissioner-to-commissioner privilege and it wouldn't be (more)
Helene Elliott @helenenothelen
appropriate for me to comment further." End of Stern quote on Bettman
So essentially, "continue to loose millions of dollars for the next few years, while the Players continue to rake in their millions, and hope that the league grows enough that you break even in 3 or 4 years."
That sound's like an awesome business plan.
If they slash 7% off all future contracts and have at least another 50-60m in RS added on to the current pot, yet would still have teams losing money, then that is called incompetent mgmt. at team levels, period.
No business plan can save a team from that type of incompetence.
If the Winter Classic is cancelled, I say Bettman gets fired. The owners are posturing but the league cannot afford to lose the Classic. Hockey is DONE in the US if they lose the momentum they started there.
Do you know how much more money is involved these days?
You can try and look back to the pre-cap era and say that things worked back then but that was a long time ago.
With the amount of money that the NHL brings in at the present time, the top teams could throw out enough money to make you puke.
Disagree with me if you want but if the cap goes, you will see OUTRAGEOUS contracts because there will be nothing stopping the top teams from scooping up all the talent.
When New York ices a $120 million dollar team, how is any team supposed to compete?
Well New York did ice a team with a disproportional payroll at times prior to the lockout, the premise is the same even if the economics change. No, it wasn't 120 million but the middle class of the NHL is richer now too because of inflation, better tv deals ect. BTW the Rangers were terrible quite often with that high payroll.
Anyway, following other, richer sports there's probably no amount of money an NHL team could afford to throw out that would make me puke.
I'm not saying a free market system is a great idea or anything, just that you're dramatically over stating the impact. ESPECIALLY if we went back to teams controlling players until they were 31. That's what stops teams from controlling all the talent. It's why you never win through free agency in baseball and you couldn't in hockey prior to the lockout. You can add to your team, for sure but the Rangers tried to win through free agency and failed while smart teams just added to their cores. It would mean the Rangers and Leafs and Canadiens, if they chose to go the free agent route, would be spending their money on players past their prime. It would give teams an advantage, especially teams that were able to draft and develop their own players and keep them.
It wouldn't end teams, in fact it would probably let teams better manage themselves rather than having to worry about getting to the cap floor and artificially inflate the market by over paying mediocre guys or giving big money to players on their 2nd contract. The current system artificially keeps bad teams in the hunt anyway and over half the league gets into the playoffs. Again, I'm not saying it would work for the NHL again or it's a grand idea, just that teams wouldn't be dropping like flies left right and center. If anything the current system would see to that more so, because it makes teams spend more than they can truly afford.
If they slash 7% off all future contracts and have at least another 50-60m in RS added on to the current pot, yet would still have teams losing money, then that is called incompetent mgmt. at team levels, period.
No business plan can save a team from that type of incompetence.
I would agree, I think getting the systematic changes to contracts should be more important to the owners then getting an immediate 50/50 split. If some teams cant grow with a greater share of revenue and tighter controls then they need to look at themselves and accept the blame for poor drafting development etc...
You seem to be more on the players side and id like to hear your opinon on a linked soft landing proposal and why you feel that the players havnt offered one yet? I'm of the opinion that if they did offer it and agree to some of the NHL's other demands a deal could be worked out pretty damn quickly.
Finally you've come around. Glad to see you've got some sense. The business is choosing to spend less on the players.
The players are choosing to not accept that fact. I cannot dictate what my job pays me. I can, however, move on to another business.
The players are free to do the same. They are free to go overseas and take a massive pay cut.
If they don't want to, too bad, so sad.
He's saying to get rid of the salary cap, which you seem to oppose, that way teams can spend what they want to, like most businesses in our economy. If the league got rid of the cap and teams wanted to spend less on players and players got less than 50% of league revenues, so be it.
I love people using their job as an example, like it's similar in some way. If you want it to mirror reality, let's get rid of the cap, minimum salaries, the draft, everything and have a completely free market.
The players are also free to not play under the NHL's offer and the NHL is free to lock them out. You say the players are free not to play and you're right, so why the resentment right now towards them for not playing?
I agree. I don't think Mathieu Schneider knows thing one about the business of hockey.
If you look at the sophistication of the offers tabled so far, it looks like business-wise the NHLPA is trying to fight a howitzer with a cap gun. I think they're getting terrible counsel and aren't being given an objective view of what offers have been tabled so far.
It's ok to reject the NHL offers and present alternative frameworks - but only to a point, and only if you truly know what you are getting into and what the other avenues open to you are.
