I always find it shocking when analysts have to confidence to comment on such things when they clearly don't have even a basic understanding of economics.
Supply and demand.
Short supply of truly dynamic players - demand is high for them - price goes up. You'd figure even a hockey writer would understand the basic structure of markets, but perhaps Im giving too much credit.
On a more positive note, he indicated that the sides were "fairly close" to an agreement on revenue sharing. It's believed the NHL is willing to bump the annual pot to $220 million from its current position of $140 million.
Should the usually fabulously wealthy owners be indemnified every CBA against their own lack of restraint--their own manipulations in figuring out how to subvert the agreement like we all know they will and then lavishly spending on players to put their franchises over the top?
This is the one of the items that I find the most galling. Where is it written that an NHL owner MUST make money? What business model has EVERYONE successful? Businesses rise and fall with their owners making right and wrong choices. How is it that the NHL has the only owners that are trying to bend the CBA so that it indemnifies them from loosing money?
This is the one of the items that I find the most galling. Where is it written that an NHL owner MUST make money? What business model has EVERYONE successful? Businesses rise and fall with their owners making right and wrong choices. How is it that the NHL has the only owners that are trying to bend the CBA so that it indemnifies them from loosing money?
One could just as easily say:
A) Where is it written that the players are due ever penny on every SLC on time and without risk? Those are subsidiary documents to a master document that has expired and is currently under renegotiation.
or
B) Where is it written that the players are entitled to everything that they had in the previous CBA and should receive something for everything they give up? That was an old deal that is no longer market.
I am on the side of getting a deal done. And, if the sides are truly "within spitting distance" on the rev split and make whole, then it is now incumbent on the league to give on a couple of the contracting issues and the players to concede on a couple, IMO. But the blindly pro-player partisan sentiment that characterizes more than half this board can be very frustrating.
Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 11-12-2012 at 10:01 PM.
The overriding sentiment I got from talking to hockey people today in Toronto about the lockout is...
That today was somehow a good day, even though there were no formal talks. More and more high-ranking people seem to think we'll get a deal done soon, that the month of November is a prime deal-making month. We'll see, but that's the latest
But not talking at all produces good news? Sorry, the media is all over the place with this. And when you see the media all over the place, that means one thing: They simply don't know and are guessing.
But not talking at all produces good news? Sorry, the media is all over the place with this. And when you see the media all over the place, that means one thing: They simply don't know and are guessing.
I'm not necessarily disputing you about the reporters' level of knowledge, but I would take Dater's quote to mean that the days of formal talks DID produce meaningful progress...
A) Where is it written that the players are due ever penny on every SLC on time and without risk? Those are subsidiary documents to a master document that has expired and is currently under renegotiation.
or
B) Where is it written that the players are entitled to everything that they had in the previous CBA and should receive something for everything they give up? That was an old deal that is no longer market.
I am on the side of getting a deal done. And, if the sides are truly "within spitting distance" on the rev split and make whole, then it is now incumbent on the league to give on a couple of the contracting issues and the players to concede on a couple, IMO. But the blindly pro-player partisan sentiment that characterizes more than half this board can be very frustrating.
Usually in labor negotiated contracts you do give something to get something. That is how it goes and without an arbitrator in the mix making final decision giving something for nothing in return is called capitulation by the side doing all the giving. What is the point of the players having a union at all if it's only going to capitulate? And without a union to negotiate why would the league need a CBA at all? And without a CBA what kind of restraints would there be on the owners at all? And how could anyone then guarantee that they'd all make a profit? By the way if there were an arbitration process in play here this thing would probably be done.
Anyway your post strikes me as having an anti-labor bias. The inconvenience felt by the fan (public) is the overriding factor--about on the level of the customer is always right (which is some of the happiest horse **** that I've ever heard--a fall back defense for the wealthy in their war against the not wealthy) an attempt to wedge gullible public opinion into thinking they're 'on our side' doing all they can do--but also whatever it takes to keep the plutocrats running the show happy no matter how incompetent they are in doing so. They tinkered with the last CBA which was very favorable to them doing end runs around the spirit of the language of the thing and now they want another custom made ******** free version in which they're guaranteed profitability and it's pretty certain that as soon as the ink is dry they're going to have teams of lawyers looking for loopholes.
The fair way to sort this all out quickly and efficiently is for both sides to work out agreements on things they can agree on and leave the rest to an agreed upon arbitrator(s).
Last edited by eco's bones: 11-13-2012 at 02:36 AM.
All of the parties were in Toronto last night. Unless Bettman and Daly left last night or are leaving this morning,maybe they will bother to meet. Don Fehr requested the meetings(if any)get moved to Toronto the next time. The PA staff is based in Toronto.
Whenever the NHL returns,no corny slogans please. No Game On(after 1994 lockout). No Thank You Fans(after 2005 lockout). Just play and ****.
Quote:
Sources in Chicago tell me NHL lockout will be settled in time to get skating Dec. 2. And the Winter Classic at Ann Arbor isn't dead.
This has been going on too long now... To actually (again) see that a league is frozen, stopped and most likely dropped for a year because of money is just insane. Ok, money runs the league. Obviously. But to see that money has that power is more frightening than it makes sense.
I agree that athletes in different sports makes way more money than they should, but then again... The men in suits are not the ones with the talent and the physical work hours in their bags. It's the players that sacrifice their bodies night in and night out. The suits running the show only has the business sense, closing marketing deals, making money out of other people's talent. So yes, the players make more than enough, but again it is their talent and not everybody has that.
I am on the side of getting a deal done. And, if the sides are truly "within spitting distance" on the rev split and make whole, then it is now incumbent on the league to give on a couple of the contracting issues and the players to concede on a couple, IMO. But the blindly pro-player partisan sentiment that characterizes more than half this board can be very frustrating.
I understand your sentiment. However, I am not saying that players are entitled to everything. The sole thing that I felt that they are "entitled" to is the contracts that they signed. I find it disengenous to rush out to sign a contract and then expect to be given a 20% break from it becuase the other players are going to now be footing the bill.
I am not blindly pro-player. However, THIS lockout is the fault of the owners. If a season is lost, it is ALL on Bettman and the owners. I will also say that I am shocked at the seeming NHL owners feeling that they are entitled to be indemnified from suffering any financial losses and that their tactic is to squeeze the players to get the money back. Do you really see a back and forth? What has the NHL offered as a concession?
