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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Owners cannot legally 'control' themselves with contracts

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2012, 01:16 AM
  #26
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,841
vCash: 500
^^ capital and income are treated differently in taxes. Unless you have actual financial data that is reliable, dont even go there. But anyways, rant on.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 01:19 AM
  #27
colchar
The Keon Curse Lives
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,255
vCash: 500
The very definition of 'collusion' is secret agreement and the definition of 'collude' is act in unison or agreement and in secret towards a deceitful or illegal purpose so, if the owners agreed amongst themselves not to offer big contracts, then they could definitely be sued for collusion. But if a bunch of them just don't bother offering those contracts, without an agreement not to offer them, then they couldn't be sued as they wouldn't have colluded.

colchar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 01:29 AM
  #28
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
The very definition of 'collusion' is secret agreement and the definition of 'collude' is act in unison or agreement and in secret towards a deceitful or illegal purpose so, if the owners agreed amongst themselves not to offer big contracts, then they could definitely be sued for collusion. But if a bunch of them just don't bother offering those contracts, without an agreement not to offer them, then they couldn't be sued as they wouldn't have colluded.
I don't believe there was any evidence of "secret meetings" during the first 2 mlb collusion cases.
They were sued for collusion solely because all the teams collectively didn't offer big contracts.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 02:30 AM
  #29
CloutierForVezina
Registered User
 
CloutierForVezina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,541
vCash: 500
Individual teams can set whatever limits they want. If a team wants to spend no more than 4M on any one player, they're welcome to do so. The only thing they're not allowed to do is get together and all agree to not spend more than 4M on any one player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
Except then the teams they own cannot compete with all the good players deserting them, and they lose even more money in a league system where most teams need playoff revenues to make any kind of profit. Then the league does worse overall, and the league loses all parity the owners fought to create, something which the players agreed was important.
The idea that a GM (and let's be clear here, it's the GMs handing out the contracts, the owners just OK them) can't run a successful team while maintaining a budget on individual players is silly.

Vancouver operates on a fairly strict cap for defensemen. They aren't paying anyone over what Bieksa makes (4.6) and they let Ehrhoff walk at the end of last year because he wanted 5+ on the term Vancouver was interested in. Now there's still quite a bit of debate on the Vancouver board about whether or not that was foolish or not but the Canucks are proof that a team can operate under a self imposed budget for UFAs and be successful.

Nashville, aside from recently, also ran on a fairly strict budget. Phoenix runs on an even stricter budget. Both have had some amount of success in the last few years.

CloutierForVezina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 02:53 AM
  #30
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,136
vCash: 500
I don't think GMs are "stupid" more than they are desperate.

It's hard to make a profit in this league.

Unless you are winning and in the playoffs or close to it every year it's virtually impossible to profit outside of Canada and like New York City and Philly.

So you're Minnesota's GM, you have empty seats popping up, you have dropping renewals in your season tickets, your ownership is grumbling. Unlike NBA and NFL teams you don't have a monster TV contract as an insurance policy. The team has lost money for a few years now, you know people will show up if you have a good team. You know it's your head on the chopping block if the team doesn't get better quick.

You're telling me you're not going to pay Ryan Suter and Zach Parise when opportunity comes knocking?

When's your next window to get two players this good?

Of course you're going to pay. You have to take care of your own business, too bad if this raises the salaries on the open market for everyone else. They're not exactly apologizing to you for knocking you out of playoff contention for 3-4 years in a row.

This will continue to happen in the next CBA too. The system is weighted towards players getting monster raises.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 04:12 AM
  #31
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CloutierForVezina View Post
Individual teams can set whatever limits they want. If a team wants to spend no more than 4M on any one player, they're welcome to do so. The only thing they're not allowed to do is get together and all agree to not spend more than 4M on any one player.
If 24 teams just independently started budgeting themselves because they felt it was responsible what do you think the result would be?

Fish on The Sand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 04:29 AM
  #32
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,596
vCash: 500
Evgeni Nabokov always made the point (before the cap) that if the poorer teams manage their budgets and spend less, they won't win as much, which will drive away fans, which will make them have to spend even less, and it is a vicious cycle until the team eventually folds. Then, the NHLPA has lost 20+ jobs, and the revenue pie has shrunk more than 3.3% (fewer games = less revenue). So the players actually had a vested interest in agreeing to the owners controlling their own spending.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 04:43 AM
  #33
Whydidijoin*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CloutierForVezina View Post
The idea that a GM (and let's be clear here, it's the GMs handing out the contracts, the owners just OK them) can't run a successful team while maintaining a budget on individual players is silly.

Vancouver operates on a fairly strict cap for defensemen. They aren't paying anyone over what Bieksa makes (4.6) and they let Ehrhoff walk at the end of last year because he wanted 5+ on the term Vancouver was interested in. Now there's still quite a bit of debate on the Vancouver board about whether or not that was foolish or not but the Canucks are proof that a team can operate under a self imposed budget for UFAs and be successful.

Nashville, aside from recently, also ran on a fairly strict budget. Phoenix runs on an even stricter budget. Both have had some amount of success in the last few years.
Vancouver didn't not sign Ehrhoff because they refuse to spend more than 4.6 or because they have an internal cap. They didn't sign him because they are up against the cap already. They are currently the third-highest spending team in the league. Terrible argument.

Nashville has never gotten past the second round, and have only even gotten there twice in their existence. They just lost one of their highest quality players to free agency, and they had their other one targeted by a big-spending team with a predatory long-term, big salary offer sheet they were forced to sign. They also recently had to sign their goalie to a 7 million dollar, long term deal to avoid losing him.

Phoenix has only made the playoffs 3 times in the last 9 years, and only once in their existence have they made it past the 1st round. And this is with them being forced to spend more than any internal budget would allow under lower restrictions.

These teams get high draft picks, spend money developing them, get them for a couple good years (where yeah, maybe they get a couple playoff rounds), and then are either forced to become big-spenders, or restart the cycle and lose all the fans they made. Or in the event that they don't do well for those couple years because of unfulfilled draft picks, they lose more and more money, and eventually fold or move.

By bringing the player percentage more in line with the reality of the current economic situation, we allow the struggling teams to spend more in line with the other teams, and they are able to compete and grow the sport in their area so they can one day be a big-spending team.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 04:44 AM
  #34
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: EVIL EMPIRE
Country: United Nations
Posts: 58,903
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Shake View Post
So before you blame the owners for lack of self control with contracts you need to read this.
It explains why it is illegal and how they could and would get sued.

Please note the one common name all over those collusion suits. It should be a familiar name by now, because he is now involved in NHL CBA talks


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_collusion
using wiki in an argument is silly.

I attend UNI and guess what--Wiki as a source is banned.

there is a BIG DIFFERENCE on how the two parties operate--the nhl is doing it in the open and publicly. Baseball did it behind closed doors and denied they did it.

Also, baseball has always had huge TV contracts--Hockey does not have this.

also, 1/2 of hockey are losing money and you are suggesting that they do not have the fight to put in the place the measure to not lose money

__________________
"If the Detroit Red Wings are defying gravity" by consistently contending without the benefit of high draft picks, "the Edmonton Oilers are defying lift.

Welcome to Edmonton Connor McDavid--the rest of you HA HA HA HA HA HA
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 06:34 AM
  #35
Shwag33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
using wiki in an argument is silly.

I attend UNI and guess what--Wiki as a source is banned.

there is a BIG DIFFERENCE on how the two parties operate--the nhl is doing it in the open and publicly. Baseball did it behind closed doors and denied they did it.

Also, baseball has always had huge TV contracts--Hockey does not have this.

also, 1/2 of hockey are losing money and you are suggesting that they do not have the fight to put in the place the measure to not lose money


You're missing the point.



This thread needed to be made, but it poorly conveyed the message he's trying to send. If teams all spent to the cap floor; at the end of the year the owners would have to cut a big fat check to the NHLPA.

Shwag33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 07:51 AM
  #36
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 38,355
vCash: 500
The owners cannot effectively collude to reduce player salaries in a linkage-based system.

When people talk about the owners/GMs "controlling themselves", it's referring more to the fact that they don't have to offer contracts which are designed to skirt the rules of the CBA as closely as possible without actually being illegal.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 08:04 AM
  #37
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: EVIL EMPIRE
Country: United Nations
Posts: 58,903
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by czwalga View Post
You're missing the point.



This thread needed to be made, but it poorly conveyed the message he's trying to send. If teams all spent to the cap floor; at the end of the year the owners would have to cut a big fat check to the NHLPA.
using baseball as an example is a poor mistake. MLB has always had a larger tv contract and MLB did things that were illigal.

NHL has a problem where some markets are losing a lot of money. One one hand the owners have revenue sharing so that rich clubs like the Leafs and other give money to teams that are losing money. The players need to be willing to help as well. With Fehr it is unlikely to like that idea

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 08:05 AM
  #38
zytz
lumberjack
 
zytz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Shake View Post
My point is that the owners CANNOT legally hold back salaries. They cannot 'control themselves' because they can then be sued.

If the owners get together and the bulk of them says to the teams like say Philly " Hey you cannot hand out any more big contracts like that Weber deal", they have then broken the law and will get killed in court in damages.

THIS is what people need to understand. I see so many fans who do not understand CBA stuff say " its the owners fault they cant control themselves". This thread is for those people and there is sadly ALOT of them

Donald Fehr filed Collusion suits a few times against the owners of the last sport he worked for a PA
I think when people talk about the owners controlling themselves they mean on a case-by-case basis... as in not signing contracts you can't really afford.

zytz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 09:24 AM
  #39
BruinsBtn
Registered User
 
BruinsBtn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,161
vCash: 500
That's a great point.

I compare it a player being told he can only play at 80% because of an injury.

In a healthy league, the rules allow everyone to be able to compete at 100%.

BruinsBtn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:04 AM
  #40
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zytz View Post
I think when people talk about the owners controlling themselves they mean on a case-by-case basis... as in not signing contracts you can't really afford.
And then those people also miss out on how gate driven this league is and that if an owner and GM doesn't try to improve his team due to salary constraints, it can be just as financially risky of the team stagnates, loses fan support and playoff revenue.

PensFanSince1989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:10 AM
  #41
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,731
vCash: 500
They can easily control themselves. You will never see a Habs player sign a 10 year contract. It has never happened and I think it never will.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:11 AM
  #42
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
using wiki in an argument is silly.

I attend UNI and guess what--Wiki as a source is banned.

there is a BIG DIFFERENCE on how the two parties operate--the nhl is doing it in the open and publicly. Baseball did it behind closed doors and denied they did it.

Also, baseball has always had huge TV contracts--Hockey does not have this.

also, 1/2 of hockey are losing money and you are suggesting that they do not have the fight to put in the place the measure to not lose money
...of course wiki is banned for academic papers. It doesn't hold any real authoritative power. However, as a quick reference, which it is being used for here, it's fine to use.

And they have the fight, what do you think they are doing right now? They are fighting legally. And even if it were legal for the owners to come to an agreement to keep salaries down without the unions consent (its not), there would still be a huge problem with the prisoners dillemma and game theory.

PensFanSince1989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:15 AM
  #43
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
So, what in this make believe world of yours is gonna stop the Rangers, Maple Leafs, Bruins, Canucks, Blackhawks, Red Wings of the league from trying to make their team better by offering contracts that their team can afford. It's all nice to say well, they can stop spending so much, without any agreement, but that view is both naive and not in touch with reality. Pro sports economics is a perfect place to test game theory out.
I don't think he's saying there's a problem trying to better a team by offering contracts that you can afford...the problem is offering contracts you can't afford and then complaining that you're losing money.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:17 AM
  #44
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
I don't think he's saying there's a problem trying to better a team by offering contracts that you can afford...the problem is offering contracts you can't afford and then complaining that you're losing money.
And if the team simply site back and lets these players go because of an internal cap, then your team fails to improve, stagnates and loses fan support and playoff revenue, which is also a very financial risky proposition for many of the teams out there.

Take Nashville. Many don't think they could afford to match the Weber deal. And yes, the Weber deal puts them on extremely shaky financial ground going forward. However, letting Wdber walk would have out them on just as much if not more. They would have lost their best player, most marketable player, captain and would probably be seen as basically a farm team likely causin them to miss out on any potential playoff revenue and fan support and squash the momentum the team had in creating their ca base/carving out their niche.

PensFanSince1989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:38 AM
  #45
steviek3b
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
Owners can legally control themselves with internal budgets.

They cannot legally control themselves by banding together with other owners to drive down the contract prices of other players.

Honestly, I don't see a problem either way. As long as there is a salary cap, you will always get teams spending to the max. If there is no salary cap, you will have at least one team that will always spend to their max (like the Rangers used to).

You're telling me that all 30 owners will agree to not pay anyone over a certain amount. Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin/Datsyuk hits free agency and then not one of those owners breaks the agreement they had with the other 29 and signs him to a higher amount than they colluded to?

steviek3b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:40 AM
  #46
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
And if the team simply site back and lets these players go because of an internal cap, then your team fails to improve, stagnates and loses fan support and playoff revenue, which is also a very financial risky proposition for many of the teams out there.

Take Nashville. Many don't think they could afford to match the Weber deal. And yes, the Weber deal puts them on extremely shaky financial ground going forward. However, letting Wdber walk would have out them on just as much if not more. They would have lost their best player, most marketable player, captain and would probably be seen as basically a farm team likely causin them to miss out on any potential playoff revenue and fan support and squash the momentum the team had in creating their ca base/carving out their niche.
Still they could not afford it. That's a case where I think in a better system the league could step in where they would say, alright Nashville can't afford that amount, but at least Flyers give them players so that franchise can save face. Maybe not Couturier but certainly Voracek and Talbot and a few picks.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:43 AM
  #47
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Still they could not afford it. That's a case where I think in a better system the league could step in where they would say, alright Nashville can't afford that amount, but at least Flyers give them players so that franchise can save face. Maybe not Couturier but certainly Voracek and Talbot and a few picks.
The league would have no legal basis for stepping in. Both moves, letting Weber walk, or signing him puts the Predators at a huge risk financially going forward. You can just as easily say they couldn't afford not to sign him. Those are the economics that the CBA is used to change and yes, I'm of the mind that the owners, especially ones that have been forced into that decision are in their right to alter the market so the trying to better their team doesn't have to put them on such financial shaky ground.

PensFanSince1989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:45 AM
  #48
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 46,442
vCash: 500
W. Brett Wilson said on a Canadian sports radio show after matching Weber's OS that some teams in the league underestimate the depth of the pockets in Nashville (paraphrasing). I just thought I would throw that out there.


Last edited by TMI: 10-29-2012 at 10:53 AM.
TMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:56 AM
  #49
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
The league would have no legal basis for stepping in. Both moves, letting Weber walk, or signing him puts the Predators at a huge risk financially going forward. You can just as easily say they couldn't afford not to sign him. Those are the economics that the CBA is used to change and yes, I'm of the mind that the owners, especially ones that have been forced into that decision are in their right to alter the market so the trying to better their team doesn't have to put them on such financial shaky ground.
Hence why I said "in a better system". Give more power to the Commish in these type of situations in a new agreed-upon set of rules included in a new CBA.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 11:32 AM
  #50
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Hence why I said "in a better system". Give more power to the Commish in these type of situations in a new agreed-upon set of rules included in a new CBA.
How the hell would that work?

Commish: "Sorry Nashville, you can't sign Weber, you don't have enough money"
Nashville Owner: "Yeah we do"
Commish: "No we don't"
Nashville Owner: "WTF, I think I know how much money I have"
Commish: "But I'm the commish"

Sorry, but that's just not gonny fly. And like Pensfansince1989 said, there's no way of telling if losing Weber actually hurts Nashville less.

Milliardo 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 02:09 AM.

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.