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
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.

Blinkage, Linkage & Stinkage (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XVII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2012, 02:16 PM
  #276
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
This is also something I've heard 1000x. It's a simple argument to deflate.

Each owners has 3 options:

(1) Be responsible by themselves, by setting a self-imposed cap that no one else will follow. Because this is a collective action problem, that just means other teams will buy out their all-stars, they won't compete for FA, and they'll become a feeder team. That's a recipe for a downward spiral in revenues. Most teams would rather take a loss indefinitely and keep revenues high, because that at least means the franchise has some value.

(2) Be responsible with others, by agreeing that we all keep - OOPS, that's collusion, and you go to jail.

(3) Be responsible by revising the rules of the market we all play in. Which is exactly what they're doing and the only legal way to fix the problem.

If Leipold was keeping his salaries low, he'd just lose Suter/Parise to Pegula. And then Leipold would be worse off. This is called a collective action problem, and if you don't know the phrase, you should go learn about them.
This was solved in the last lockout. A minimum and maximum teams can pay. As far as I know teams were following it. You HAVE to spend within the same range as everyone else. We lost a year to get it, it fixed that problem.

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:16 PM
  #277
SpeedyLazaro
Registered User
 
SpeedyLazaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
@GlobeKPD: Look for next NHL offer by owners to dial cap in the $53m - $55m range. Message: use it or lose it.
what was it on the previous offer

SpeedyLazaro is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:17 PM
  #278
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
This was solved in the last lockout. A minimum and maximum teams can pay. As far as I know teams were following it. You HAVE to spend within the same range as everyone else. We lost a year to get it, it fixed that problem.
If the maximum is high enough that teams are still losing money, we didn't fix that problem. Imposing a cap by itself is meaningless if the cap is too high.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:18 PM
  #279
BlueChip01
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BlueChip01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
This is also something I've heard 1000x. It's a simple argument to deflate.

Each owners has 3 options:

(1) Be responsible by themselves, by setting a self-imposed cap that no one else will follow. Because this is a collective action problem, that just means other teams will buy out their all-stars, they won't compete for FA, and they'll become a feeder team. That's a recipe for a downward spiral in revenues. Most teams would rather take a loss indefinitely and keep revenues high, because that at least means the franchise has some value.

(2) Be responsible with others, by agreeing that we all keep - OOPS, that's collusion, and you go to jail.

(3) Be responsible by revising the rules of the market we all play in. Which is exactly what they're doing and the only legal way to fix the problem.

If Leipold was keeping his salaries low, he'd just lose Suter/Parise to Pegula. And then Leipold would be worse off. This is called a collective action problem, and if you don't know the phrase, you should go learn about them.
Stop using logic!!!

BlueChip01 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:19 PM
  #280
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Use math. I appreciate your pithiness at times, but give me some substance. You can't just spout one-liners all the time, however clever they are at times.
For the most part, I don't try and pretend like I understand the intricacies of the various team's financial situations. What I do understand is collective bargaining, and what I see is the owners rejecting deals that have them saving a significant amount of money out of hand because they don't fit their one specific template that they themselves have proposed. Considering they apparently want to save money, and the players have offered that despite objections to the format, I just don't understand why so many people are so unwilling to consider that perhaps the owners would still come out ahead if they come off their hard-line position on formatting. The owners are looking at 'saving money' in the face, and saying no thank you flat out.

The players, by offering the owners significant savings, are the one party imo who has taken a significant step here.

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:21 PM
  #281
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChillyPalmer View Post
He is, the owners refuse to meet unless they work off of they're proposal.
They have said they are willing to negotiate and all they really want is a linked cap. fehr has submitted 0 proposals with a linked cap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
Revenues have gone up since the lockout....you know that right?
Profits haven't. Operating costs are more than the revenue that is being brought in for most teams
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
@GlobeKPD: Look for next NHL offer by owners to dial cap in the $53m - $55m range. Message: use it or lose it.
Good, It's just going to get worse and worse for the players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
How much is the median team losing? $4M? Then go look at the contracts they just signed.

It's hilarious that the Owners sign the contracts...but somehow it is the player's fault for being paid it.
It doesn't matter what contracts the small market teams sign. No matter if they are at the floor or not, the players are still getting their share.

If all 30 teams spent to the floor, they'd still have to write a check at the end of the year to pay the rest of the 200 or so million dollars

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:21 PM
  #282
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyLazaro View Post
what was it on the previous offer
I'm not sure.

Crows* is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:23 PM
  #283
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyLazaro View Post
what was it on the previous offer
I believe it was 61m

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:25 PM
  #284
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,412
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
For the most part, I don't try and pretend like I understand the intricacies of the various team's financial situations. What I do understand is collective bargaining, and what I see is the owners rejecting deals that have them saving a significant amount of money out of hand because they don't fit their one specific template that they themselves have proposed. Considering they apparently want to save money, and the players have offered that despite objections to the format, I just don't understand why so many people are so unwilling to consider that perhaps the owners would still come out ahead if they come off their hard-line position on formatting. The owners are looking at 'saving money' in the face, and saying no thank you flat out.

The players, by offering the owners significant savings, are the one party imo who has taken a significant step here.
Is there anything in the PA's proposal that guarantees them saving money? Or is it simply based on POTENTIAL savings given a certain percentage of growth. How can you, or the PA GUARANTEE savings based on their proposal?

LPHabsFan is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:27 PM
  #285
SpeedyLazaro
Registered User
 
SpeedyLazaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,600
vCash: 500
$60m RT“@DaveFord78: What was it in offer 2 weeks ago? RT : Look for next NHL offer by owners to dial cap in the $53m - $55m range....”

SpeedyLazaro is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:29 PM
  #286
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
For the most part, I don't try and pretend like I understand the intricacies of the various team's financial situations. What I do understand is collective bargaining, and what I see is the owners rejecting deals that have them saving a significant amount of money out of hand because they don't fit their one specific template that they themselves have proposed. Considering they apparently want to save money, and the players have offered that despite objections to the format, I just don't understand why so many people are so unwilling to consider that perhaps the owners would still come out ahead if they come off their hard-line position on formatting. The owners are looking at 'saving money' in the face, and saying no thank you flat out.

The players, by offering the owners significant savings, are the one party imo who has taken a significant step here.
I see what you're saying, but I'm assuming the owners are rationally self-interested. That means I assume some basic things: (1) If owners could make enough money off the game by taking the PA's last offer to make it worth it for them, they would just do it. Nobody throws money away for nothing (except, apparently, the players, but that's another matter). (2) If teams are losing money, de facto, players are overpaid. They're not overpaying the popcorn vendors, they're not turning away ticket buyers, it is what it is. So the whole negotiation is framed around "how much do the players have to give up to make it worth it for owners to open the doors?" As soon as they give up that much, the doors open. The owners, see, have a comparable option to the PA on the table: rather than give away money to keep your team afloat, why not just keep your doors closed? You make out just as well, if not better. Players don't have a comparable option. For them if they don't like a 12% pay cut, their next best deal is a 75% pay cut in another league. So owners have all the leverage, they can afford to wait forever, and as soon as the players give them enough that a rationally self-interested person would rather open the doors than close them, the doors will open.

Put that all in the context that all the figures we are privy to - how much other leagues pay their players, how much the NHL makes and loses, how much the NHL doesn't make on TV, etc - and you don't even have to assume. It's a pretty consistent story.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:30 PM
  #287
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
Is there anything in the PA's proposal that guarantees them saving money? Or is it simply based on POTENTIAL savings given a certain percentage of growth. How can you, or the PA GUARANTEE savings based on their proposal?
The PA didn't even start talking about the other non-financial aspects of the eventual CBA. Those 3 proposals were a potential starting point, not a finish line. Negotiate off them, incorporate a mechanism where if revenue growth ends up not being either of the owners or the players estimates, that the salary reductions are adjusted accordingly.

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:30 PM
  #288
chasespace
Registered User
 
chasespace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williston, FL
Posts: 3,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyLazaro View Post
$60m RT“@DaveFord78: What was it in offer 2 weeks ago? RT : Look for next NHL offer by owners to dial cap in the $53m - $55m range....”
I wonder how they will calculate the method of raising it? Doubt they give the NHLPA a 5% escalator again, probably a 2.5-3.5% one.

Would be smart to make the floor a percentage of the cap instead of a hard number gap, would keep the floor from rising so quickly.

chasespace is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:31 PM
  #289
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,412
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
The PA didn't even start talking about the other non-financial aspects of the eventual CBA. Those 3 proposals were a potential starting point, not a finish line. Negotiate off them, incorporate a mechanism where if revenue growth ends up not being either of the owners or the players estimates, that the salary reductions are adjusted accordingly.
Isn't that called linkage? Where no matter what the revenue does, the percentage share remains the same?

LPHabsFan is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:36 PM
  #290
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,950
vCash: 500
Jack Johnson's comments reiterate to me that Fehr is misrepresenting the situation to the players. He's a long-term deal guy. The idea of modifying long term deals has been abandoned for over a month. Even without the still-to-be-decided-details of the "make-whole" provision, his contract would change only in that he gets crushed by escrow for about two years, in year 3, pays what he's been used to paying into escrow, then pays way less than he's been paying into escrow for the last 2 or 3.

For guys like him (and OV and Sid and Mike Richards and Jeff Carter and every other guy with a long-ass deal) their overall take home doesn't really change under Bettman's last proposal over the term of the proposal. Depending on how "make-whole" would have been fleshed out, all of them probably would have seen their take-home actually go UP as escrow fell as a result of the accounting changes Bettman wanted.

There are guys who would get screwed under Bettman's deal (Giroux, Letang...probably Jamie Benn and Logan Couture). But those guys have yet to say anything...which tells me Fehr has rallied everybody around a phantom cause (contract modification) and not explained who would actually suffer.

billybudd is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:36 PM
  #291
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
The PA didn't even start talking about the other non-financial aspects of the eventual CBA. Those 3 proposals were a potential starting point, not a finish line. Negotiate off them, incorporate a mechanism where if revenue growth ends up not being either of the owners or the players estimates, that the salary reductions are adjusted accordingly.
You've described linkage.

The PA has known since summer that the league wouldn't accept anything without linkage. There hasn't been an ounce of intimation that this could change. And if the players are doing this in good faith - if they truly believe they're trying to reach an agreement that helps teams stay afloat - they should have no problem with linkage.

The fact that players put forward 3 offers that everyone and their brother knew were DOA just shows to me that they were meant as PR.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:37 PM
  #292
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
Isn't that called linkage? Where no matter what the revenue does, the percentage share remains the same?
Yes, that would be linkage but only in negative growth scenario which I doubt either side is actually forecasting.

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:39 PM
  #293
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
The PA didn't even start talking about the other non-financial aspects of the eventual CBA. Those 3 proposals were a potential starting point, not a finish line. Negotiate off them, incorporate a mechanism where if revenue growth ends up not being either of the owners or the players estimates, that the salary reductions are adjusted accordingly.
This is the crux of why the owners will not negotiate off any of the players' offers (and why they canceled a season after Goodenow offered a cap $3 million higher than they did in 2005). Every offer Fehr has made explicitly does not do that.

billybudd is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:41 PM
  #294
scelaton
Registered User
 
scelaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 971
vCash: 500
Arriving late from the Jets board, where I've done my posting...
The least helpful approach in all of this, IMO,has been to make it an issue of principle-right vs wrong, good vs evil, generosity vs avarice. While it animates these boards and makes for good press, this polarization is completely damaging to the players' interests. It simply throws more testosterone-laced fuel on the fire and deludes them into thinking this is some sort of game they can win. Unfortunately, that is the position their leadership has taken.
Let's assume the players are NOT stupid, selfish and entitled. Instead, let's characterize them as naive, young and innocent, sort of like children with a huge inheritance. That places an enormous responsibility on those entrusted to manage their affairs, ie, the Union and their individual agents. It is simply incomprehensible to me that those guardians of their affairs are not protecting their financial interests by concluding a deal ASAP. As has been pointed out ad nauseum by many knowledgeable posters here, the difference in the two positions is negligible relative to the losses they are incurring. For the lower/older tier of players, lifetime earnings are even more magnified. These kids are simply getting bad advice.
For the lawyers here, is Fehr responsibly exercising his fiduciary responsibility to his clients, whose assets are huge and over whom he wields considerable intellectual, experiential and professional power? Ditto, with respect to their agents. I think not.


Last edited by scelaton: 10-28-2012 at 03:02 PM.
scelaton is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:43 PM
  #295
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
Yes, that would be linkage but only in negative growth scenario which I doubt either side is actually forecasting.
It doesn't matter if it's forecasted. If there's a global depression 4 years from now (and I mean a serious one), where the butterfly effect diminishes league revenue by, say, 50%, the league dies under Fehr's offers. Which is why they will not even listen to them (there are also future implications on setting up an attack on the cap with de-linkage).

billybudd is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:46 PM
  #296
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scelaton View Post
Arriving late from the Jets board, where I've done my posting...
The least helpful approach in all of this, IMO,has been to make it an issue of principle-right vs wrong, good vs evil, generosity vs avarice. While it animates these boards and makes for good press, this polarization is completely damaging to the players' interests. It simply throws more testosterone-laced fuel on the fire and deludes them into thinking this is some sort of game they can win. Unfortunately, that is the position their leadership has taken.
Let's assume the players are NOT stupid, selfish and entitled. Instead, let's characterize them as you naive, young and innocent, sort of like children with a huge inheritance. That places an enormous responsibility on those entrusted to manage their affairs, ie, the Union and their individual agents. It is simply incomprehensible to me that those guardians of their affairs are not protecting their financial interests by concluding a deal ASAP. As has been pointed out ad nauseum by many knowledgeable posters here, the difference in the two positions is negligible relative to the losses they are incurring. For the lower/older tier of players, lifetime earnings are even more magnified. These kids are simply getting bad advice.
For the lawyers here, is Fehr responsibly exercising his fiduciary responsibility to his clients, whose assets are huge and over whom he wields considerable intellectual, experiential and professional power? Ditto, with respect to their agents. I think not.
I agree. The players have already lost this negotiation, by giving away more money in cancelled games than they even stand to get under their own proposal. Not only that, the league has backed off their best offer. Will likely offer 48% or so next. Even if the players claw back something, it will more than likely be less than what they lose in paychecks for the time it takes them to claw it back.

Players seem to have been operating under the presumption that the league has a hidden red line that's much closer to them than it is. They seem to have thought the owners would cave if they just waited. And anyone looking at how much the NFL, NBA and MLB pay, in comparison to what they make, could have told you that likely isn't true. I think 50% is more than the NHL ought to be paying it's players, based on what financial information I've read. Fehr should have had his group prepared to actually compromise much lower if they didn't want to suffer the bigger loss of missing games.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:48 PM
  #297
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
It doesn't matter if it's forecasted. If there's a global depression 4 years from now (and I mean a serious one), where the butterfly effect diminishes league revenue by, say, 50%, the league dies under Fehr's offers. Which is why they will not even listen to them (there are also future implications on setting up an attack on the cap with de-linkage).
Have a renegotiation clause in case of global financial ruin?

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:49 PM
  #298
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
Have a renegotiation clause in case of global financial ruin?
And what happens when the players refuse to take a pay cut then?

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:51 PM
  #299
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
And what happens when the players refuse to take a pay cut then?
Then they sit out for eternity and can spend their free time running from zombies or what have you.

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 02:55 PM
  #300
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
For the most part, I don't try and pretend like I understand the intricacies of the various team's financial situations. What I do understand is collective bargaining, and what I see is the owners rejecting deals that have them saving a significant amount of money out of hand because they don't fit their one specific template that they themselves have proposed. Considering they apparently want to save money, and the players have offered that despite objections to the format, I just don't understand why so many people are so unwilling to consider that perhaps the owners would still come out ahead if they come off their hard-line position on formatting. The owners are looking at 'saving money' in the face, and saying no thank you flat out.

The players, by offering the owners significant savings, are the one party imo who has aken a significantt step here.



Really?

JAX 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 08:19 PM.

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.