HFBoards

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

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

10/26 - NHLPA Statement from Don Fehr

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 06:29 PM
  #226
mytor4*
 
mytor4*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,175
vCash: 500
Anyone throwing out proposals without even adding up the numbers should not be in charge of the NHLPA.Players should have realized that after that meeting.
But because of the players stupidity we will loss a season and they will get burned badly foe being dumb.

mytor4* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:31 PM
  #227
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topdog View Post
Anyone throwing out proposals without even adding up the numbers should not be in charge of the NHLPA.Players should have realized that after that meeting.
But because of the players stupidity we will loss a season and they will get burned badly foe being dumb.
yes season lost because the players locked themselves out...

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:31 PM
  #228
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 30,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Toronto, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg, San Jose, Detroit, and Nashville all come immediately to mind.
... mouser, how on Earth is it "good the game" to watch a founding franchise in one of the best markets on the continent who since the early 60's had little to cheer about finally breaking through only to find their team being forcibly dismantled because Tallon made a wee tiny boo boo? Then cant hang on to player X, Y or Z because with modest raises proffered by way of reward they breach the Cap? Im a Leaf fan but tell ya what, that seriously pissed me off. Patently unfair, harmful to the honour & integrity of the Black Hawks, the game itself. Outrageous. System Down. Dysfunctional.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:32 PM
  #229
Buttonwood
$$$
 
Buttonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,661
vCash: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
I see his statement as factual. and if they know Fehr... then I guess in the end they know he will win then too

I think the league looks mickey mouse... 3 lock outs, more games lost than the other big 3 leagues combined. the Phoenix fiasco. the league has more black eyes.
And the PA doesn't see this? If I work at Kia, and I know the deal BMW workers just got, would I be inclined to hold out for more at the risk of Kia Motors?

Buttonwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:33 PM
  #230
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,198
vCash: 500
Bettman's negotiations, here's our offer come to the table and accept it, and maybe we'll talk about some minor tweaks. Yet people are blaming Fehr. Do all the posters here work for the league's PR department?

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:34 PM
  #231
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 33,902
vCash: 500
The Blackhawks still have Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook, etc. and they probably could've kept Byfuglien too if they had managed their cap better.

The Penguins kept their core group for a long time (truth is I don't think Jordan Staal wanted to play third line center forever) and so did the Capitals.

It's not like stacked teams are gaurunteed to keep all their talent into perpetuity, the 80s Oilers lost Coffey and then won another Cup and even Gretzky and still won another Cup on top of that.

Soundwave is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:34 PM
  #232
billybudd
5 cups pls
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 19,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
why ? St. Louis is right....

the owners are expecting the players to pay for managements mistakes...
Wrong. No number of management mistakes can change the percentage of league revenue that's paid into players salaries.


Quote:
the rich owners do not want to pay into revenue sharing. The league refuses to move dead teams to more lucrative markets. so all that lost money poured into Phoenix could have went to a more deserving franchise.
I would agree with this...except this isn't at issue. Fehr wanted X in revenue sharing. Bettman said how about .9x in revenue sharing. Then moved to "meh, I guess X is fine."

Personally, I'd like to see the NHL share 70% of revenues just like the NFL. Wake me up when someone proposes something like that, because it hasn't happened.


Quote:
And why is Phoenix even eligible for revenue sharing ? we keep hearing it's the 5th or 6th biggest market in the US. seems like they should be too big an area to receive revenue sharing.
MSL didn't say anything about this or anything else you've just said he was right about.

billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:36 PM
  #233
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
I see his statement as factual. and if they know Fehr... then I guess in the end they know he will win then too

I think the league looks mickey mouse... 3 lock outs, more games lost than the other big 3 leagues combined. the Phoenix fiasco. the league has more black eyes.
Agreed. Its like a walmart league. Second rate with everything they do. The owners sign 2nd tier stars like Parise and Suter to over $100mil a year and now they cry poor. You can't have it both ways.

ScottyBowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:38 PM
  #234
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buttonwood View Post
And the PA doesn't see this? If I work at Kia, and I know the deal BMW workers just got, would I be inclined to hold out for more at the risk of Kia Motors?
yes but you are talking real world... this is sports... their is no competition in the market so that's a moot point.

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:39 PM
  #235
Buttonwood
$$$
 
Buttonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,661
vCash: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
yes but you are talking real world... this is sports... their is no competition in the market so that's a moot point.
Of course the NHL does: NFL, MLB, and NBA. They all compete for a finite amount of fan dollars.

I was referring the recent NBA and NFL CBAs as the 'BMW' deals.

Buttonwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:40 PM
  #236
TCsmyth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
Why should there be any concessions from the owners??

Every team does not make a profity every year.

Every player does make a profit every year.

Yes. That simple.
Yeah, I don't get the whole "what are they giving up" line of reasoning. They are trying to get a deal where they say they want to compensate less. If they get the players to agree to lesser %, why would you be giving gains away in other areas? Players think they are going to get enhanced "something".

Beyond better hotel thread counts and more massages, I don't think they are going to get enhancements.

TCsmyth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:41 PM
  #237
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 33,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
Agreed. Its like a walmart league. Second rate with everything they do. The owners sign 2nd tier stars like Parise and Suter to over $100mil a year and now they cry poor. You can't have it both ways.
One owner did.

NHL owners are under tremendous pressure to ice a competetive product because the NHL is basically a gate driven league.

You can't pull crap like Donald Sterling in the NBA, where the Clippers were awful for years, but he still made a profit because of the TV contract/sweetheart arena deal he had.

The NHL doesn't have the cushion of monster TV contracts and sky high sponsorship deals. It's a niche sport in the US that draws mediocre-to-moderate TV ratings and has virtually zero national TV appeal. Unless you are the Toronto Maple Leafs or Edmonton Oilers, in the NHL if you want to make money, you have to ice a decent team at least, and in a lot of US markets, you have to have a fairly good team to even sniff profit.

Players like Parise will always be able to make a killing the NHL, because there's always going to be at least 1 owner out of 30 desperate enough to take his team "to the next level".

If I'm a GM, my job is to ice the best team possible. And even if the owners all called each other and agreed to not spend more than X ("showing restraint") ... this is illegal, as it's collusion and the NHLPA would file a lawsuit immediately.

Soundwave is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:41 PM
  #238
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
Wrong. No number of management mistakes can change the percentage of league revenue that's paid into players salaries.
lol... why do you think they are trying to lower those percentages then ?

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:45 PM
  #239
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 30,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
Agreed. Its like a walmart league. Second rate with everything they do. The owners sign 2nd tier stars like Parise and Suter to over $100mil a year and now they cry poor. You can't have it both ways.
... sure, followed by every agent who worth his salt will demand same for players he represents of the same ilk of a Parise or Suter, holding them up as comparable examples, precedent & price set by geniuses like Craig Leipold.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:45 PM
  #240
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
One owner did.

NHL owners are under tremendous pressure to ice a competetive product because the NHL is basically a gate driven league.

You can't pull crap like Donald Sterling in the NBA, where the Clippers were awful for years, but he still made a profit because of the TV contract/sweetheart arena deal he had.

The NHL doesn't have the cushion of monster TV contracts and sky high sponsorship deals. It's a niche sport in the US that draws mediocre-to-moderate TV ratings and has virtually zero national TV appeal. Unless you are the Toronto Maple Leafs or Edmonton Oilers, in the NHL if you want to make money, you have to ice a decent team at least, and in a lot of US markets, you have to have a fairly good team to even sniff profit.

Players like Parise will always be able to make a killing the NHL, because there's always going to be at least 1 owner out of 30 desperate enough to take his team "to the next level".
So basically the owners are trying to save themselves from each other. I just don't understand some of these deals they throw around. Wisniewski in Columbus immediately comes to mind.

ScottyBowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:45 PM
  #241
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Geographical Oddity
Country: United States
Posts: 11,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4 View Post
It wouldn't be necessarily getting rid of the cap altogether, but rather softening it, a la the NBA, by letting teams over the cap spend extra money for their own players and through various "exceptions." The silly hard cap broke up the 2010 Blackhawks; I don't know how anyone could possibly argue that was good for hockey.
Non-Blackhawk fans thought it was fine...

not that it was "good for hockey" but the BH knew the risk they were taking.

every team played by the same rules (about time!) - the BH just seemed to sign some "good-to-great (marginal) players at high salaries. Hey, it got them the Cup though, what's the problem?

If it's not a hard cap, it's really not a cap then is it?

Butch 19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:47 PM
  #242
billybudd
5 cups pls
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 19,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
lol... why do you think they are trying to lower those percentages then ?
Asymmetrical growth of the member businesses. Which has zero to do with what St Louis said and even less to do with your "irresponsibility" thesis.

billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:47 PM
  #243
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
One owner did.

NHL owners are under tremendous pressure to ice a competetive product because the NHL is basically a gate driven league.

You can't pull crap like Donald Sterling in the NBA, where the Clippers were awful for years, but he still made a profit because of the TV contract/sweetheart arena deal he had.

The NHL doesn't have the cushion of monster TV contracts and sky high sponsorship deals. It's a niche sport in the US that draws mediocre-to-moderate TV ratings and has virtually zero national TV appeal. Unless you are the Toronto Maple Leafs or Edmonton Oilers, in the NHL if you want to make money, you have to ice a decent team at least, and in a lot of US markets, you have to have a fairly good team to even sniff profit.

Players like Parise will always be able to make a killing the NHL, because there's always going to be at least 1 owner out of 30 desperate enough to take his team "to the next level".
If a team loses money spending over the cap floor, I feel no pity for them. that was a business decision.

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:49 PM
  #244
billybudd
5 cups pls
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 19,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
So basically the owners are trying to save themselves from each other. I just don't understand some of these deals they throw around. Wisniewski in Columbus immediately comes to mind.
It ultimately didn't matter what Columbus paid wisniewski, because they were required to spend that money and he was willing to play there, which most free agents are not.

billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:51 PM
  #245
Baron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 289
vCash: 500
There really is two prisoner’s dilemmas involved in this. There is a rather large incentive for the owners to play tough with the players and for the larger and mid-level teams to think a bit more selfishly than for the best of all 30. NO ONE is trying to find the best solution for everyone, just the best for themselves. Though to negotiate as "willing to compromise" and not as every compromise is like pulling teeth is a very quick way to give a lot more then intended.

It’s the same reason as in nasty divorce settlements the lawyers always suggest going for everything:
-Parent A: “I’d like to have my kid exclusively”
-Parent B: “We should alternate weeks, its fair”

Lawyer A could then question Parent B’s commitment and push for weekends only to avoid disruptions in school. And of course only every other weekend so that way Parent A gets time with their kid as during the week they’re in school and don’t get the quality time. While they won’t always get that type of split and people can be more reasonable, it does happen and you expose yourself to it for opening without the hard line.



From a pure negotiation standpoint, the way I see it, I don’t think either side has played it too poorly yet given the hands their dealt. I’ll admit that in September while I anticipated the league to be the first ones to “move” and up their offer before a NHLPA offer, I also optimistically hoped both sides would be a bit more pliable despite the relative “lack of incentive” for either to do so.

The owners hold the deck. They take all the risks and certainly are entitled to a higher incentive when they succeed. But without the players they can’t succeed. While they certainly can ensure that they make their profit by “taking” from the players, I’m not sure that is best approach. The way their going about it is that they got 80% of what they wanted last time, why not “make it whole” and get the remaining 20%. It’ll certainly fix some issues but not necessarily at a fundamental level and are just creating this artificial solution, which will definitely work except it works for just the owners. I.e. if we get a bigger pie, the smaller owners will be able to make their smaller slices work – the rich will just get a whole bunch more pie to eat too. While from a strategic standpoint, it’s the smartest thing to do – I’m not sure (extremely hyperbolic here) offering to let your PRODUCT volunteer and then negotiating to minimum wages is necessarily fair. Again that was an exaggeration and the league’s offers have a least been in the ballpark, just not realistically reasonable yet IMO. Which they shouldn’t be at this point, as noted above.


The players have little power. They either hold out and earn nothing while they delay, or cave at a reduced level. They’ll never get what they formerly have, and are fully aware of it. The only thing they really can do is hold the bleed long enough to get some concessions. I.e. they have to keep letting the owners move to the middle (and provide concessions elsewhere) and then “cave” when they think they got the best offer that they will, because as soon as they move – it’s all over and hockey starts. E.g. 57 vs 43, 57 vs “50”, 57 vs 50 + concessions or 57 vs 52 and no make it whole / more RS, or increased free market ability (lower UFA, lost the contract restrictions, random perks, etc.). Then cave fully.

It’s a bit of a gamble and obviously a precarious balance between lost wages and concessions (both monetary and otherwise). Their only real negotiating ability is that eventually some owners will grow restless and permit a couple of concessions be given. They have to keep unity as long as possible, throw a wish list of things for the owners that they’d like to get, and hold the line. I don’t think give and take would work, as they can’t really “take” so it’d just be “give”. Their only real “takes” is to make the owners play nicer with themselves and increase revenue sharing. They’re not going to get paid more, and their contracts will become more restrictive. It is just a matter of how much.



Hence we wait.



IMO, the only thing to really shorten this is to put the pressure on the owners. They currently don’t have much, and are really the only ones with the power. Fehr’s doing fine and Bettman is playing it right, they just to keep the unity and wait for the others to crack. If someone is to be “blamed” it’s Bettman as he controls this pace.




As for the “third” face, the fans, while sentimentally / emotionally we are invested, we don’t really and shouldn't really have a seat at the table despite the public cries. IMO, fans by default are pro-owners as they see it a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires and even scaling it down doesn’t play favourable to the players (I.e. “I” don’t impact my company’s business decisions and am “expendable”, if I tried to negotiate I’d be fired – Collective bargaining aside). That, and from a power standpoint it’s much easier for the players to cave to get hockey back. ‘Good’ for the owners, ‘good’ for the fans, ‘bad’ for the players.

Two major differences to the traditional ‘putting yourself in the players shoes’:

A) Is that the players are much better than you at what they do than what you do. Are you the best data entrier, manager, electrician, in your company? The world? I’m pretty damn good at my job but certainly not the best in the world at it, those people are above me at my company making bigger decisions or leading the bigger companies. It’s like saying; I don’t understand what Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, some of the NHL owners, my companies CEO and VPs did to get paid what they did. They’re the best at their niches and got paid accordingly, and to say that because the NHL players are the best at theirs (and entertain us which is certainly valuable, as I enjoy being entertained in my time) and deserve wages in line with someone who simply isn’t the best is kind of narrow minded. Sure it’s a game, but it’s not like they didn’t train hard to get to that point – to be the best, and it’s not like other wealthy individuals don’t get the same enjoyment and fun at succeeding at being the best at something more traditional business i.e. CEOs, entrepreneurs, architects, wall street bankers, researchers, etc..

B) The players are also the business; the product suffers if the top players aren’t involved. Sure it’s hockey, but how many of you actively support the NHL and AHL / CHL or other good brands? Which do you prefer? I’ll watch the lesser leagues and they’re certainly better value but the product of the NHL is definitely more appealing. The players are the “name brand”, and the same reason you buy “Cheerios” and not the any name “O” s cereal.


While unions certainly give me some frustrations from a management standpoint, unions do give employees a lot more power than without.


And we’ll still “patiently” wait.

Baron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:51 PM
  #246
HookKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
why ? St. Louis is right....

the owners are expecting the players to pay for managements mistakes...

the rich owners do not want to pay into revenue sharing. The league refuses to move dead teams to more lucrative markets. so all that lost money poured into Phoenix could have went to a more deserving franchise.

And why is Phoenix even eligible for revenue sharing ? we keep hearing it's the 5th or 6th biggest market in the US. seems like they should be too big an area to receive revenue sharing.
This is too funny...kinda the risk we all take when we go to work for someone else now isn't it? If you want a guarantee that your slice always goe up then you should start your own business and see how well that works.

HookKing is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:53 PM
  #247
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,652
vCash: 50
haha oh Fehr, trying to spin a story to pull one over on the fans... We've been conditioned by Bettman to see right through that carp.

YogiCanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:53 PM
  #248
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Geographical Oddity
Country: United States
Posts: 11,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
An economic understanding that would have 9 year olds work in silver mines for 2 shilling a week to this day.
\


Hyperbole of the day - congrats!

Butch 19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:57 PM
  #249
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buttonwood View Post
Of course the NHL does: NFL, MLB, and NBA. They all compete for a finite amount of fan dollars.

I was referring the recent NBA and NFL CBAs as the 'BMW' deals.
you can't compare, even tho the NHL wants to try.... those leagues have different ways they pool tv monies etc, especially the NFL... that tactic would work in the NHLPA favor tho. the revenues would be more evenly distributed amongst the teams . probably only PHX and CBJ would still lose money.

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2012, 06:58 PM
  #250
Legionnaire11
PredaBolts
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 3,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... mouser, how on Earth is it "good the game" to watch a founding franchise in one of the best markets on the continent who since the early 60's had little to cheer about finally breaking through only to find their team being forcibly dismantled because Tallon made a wee tiny boo boo? Then cant hang on to player X, Y or Z because with modest raises proffered by way of reward they breach the Cap? Im a Leaf fan but tell ya what, that seriously pissed me off. Patently unfair, harmful to the honour & integrity of the Black Hawks, the game itself. Outrageous. System Down. Dysfunctional.
So the Original 6 teams should have separate rules that allow them to keep highly competitive rosters together in perpetuity regardless of how poorly the GM plans his roster vs the cap?

The "honour and integrity" of O6 teams should be looked out for ahead of anything else in the league?


Legionnaire11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:24 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

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