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.
NFL contracts can include guaranteed money and the rookie cap has been in effect for years. It still didn't stop Young and Russell from getting paid millions for doing nothing.
Again as the poster I replied to tried to claim, how did the NFLPA get screwed over more than the NHLPA?
Utter nonsense.
It was definitely changed in the last CBA. I don't remember how. There is guaranteed money, but unlike NHL contracts, not all of the money is guaranteed.
How about the fact that any day they can lose their job without any warning? Also, they make a lower percentage of revenue, albeit a lower piece of a vastly larger pie
- not cancelling real games (non-preseason)
- not cancelling November games
- not cancelling WC
Stay tuned for
- they won't cancel December games
and the much anticipated
- they would never cancel the season
Edit: Didnt mean to say I think owners will / would cancel the whole season by American Thanksgiving. I think Dec will come soon, and season comes late Dec / early Jan.
Last edited by MacOfNiagara: 11-14-2012 at 03:04 PM.
I think they should fax over a complete CBA. And tell them no more talks until there is a player vote. The league is quite sure what they have on the table would pass.
Exactly. Make it publicly known that you are doing it to. Include the linked 50-50 with make whole that was proposed last week, no cap on contract length, 5% variance over the term and leave UFA and ELC's as well as arbitration.
The players would go for it, they would be stupid not to. It's a good deal.
Most wouldn't. Any labor stoppage has dual responsibility. Fehr refused to negotiate and still hasn't started moving from his delinked proposals.
Sounds like you are. And I don't think it's easy for any player to say "yes" to losing a year of salary.
Dual responsibility? Sure. Fore the process itself, but not for a onesided decision like a strike or lockout. Fehr did not refuse to negotiate. The players do not want to give (much) more than falling down to 50-50. I can't blame them for that. The league came closer and closer and closer to the PA side after that ridiculous first offer in July. Fehr is just staying put and will probably 'win' from the PA's point of view. Or the season will be canceled and everyone loses.
Because they would get the economic upswings, why should they be exempt from the downswing?
Because players are entitled to a wage that they believe is fair. Players always play hard and try their best no matter what the economic conditions are, therefore their salaries should of course be exemt from any 'economic decline'. It is the responsibility of the owners to keep the players happy.
Because players are entitled to a wage that they believe is fair. Players always play hard and try their best no matter what the economic conditions are, therefore their salaries should of course be exemt from any 'economic decline'. It is the responsibility of the owners to keep the players happy.
Completely incorrect. They may be entitled to a wage that IS fair, but absolutely nobody is entitled to a wage they THINK is fair. All they are entitled to is the ability to ASK for a wage they think is fair, there is no legal or ethical basis for having to provide them with what their personal opinion demands however.
As far as the owners keeping the players happy, they aren't their parents in a nanny state. It's a ridiculous statement that absolves the players of personal responsibility. Nobody is responsible for keeping anyone happy - that's a personal responsibility. It may be smart business to keep your employees happy, but its not a responsibility.
Last edited by mouser: 11-14-2012 at 04:02 PM.
Reason: qdp
Dual responsibility? Sure. Fore the process itself, but not for a onesided decision like a strike or lockout. Fehr did not refuse to negotiate. The players do not want to give (much) more than falling down to 50-50. I can't blame them for that. The league came closer and closer and closer to the PA side after that ridiculous first offer in July. Fehr is just staying put and will probably 'win' from the PA's point of view. Or the season will be canceled and everyone loses.
Fehr has lost already wasting this much time.
a Win in principle, but financially the players have lost more by not just negotiating of the original 50/50 proposal given a month ago.
Fehr implies that "someone has to pay for the damages" my guess is he's gonna try and get the owners to give the full 1.8b even with half a season. Utter garbage.
They'll win on paper, lose in actual financial reality. There is nowhere for the players to go now that will make them gain more money than they could've over a month ago.
Dual responsibility? Sure. Fore the process itself, but not for a onesided decision like a strike or lockout. Fehr did not refuse to negotiate. The players do not want to give (much) more than falling down to 50-50. I can't blame them for that. The league came closer and closer and closer to the PA side after that ridiculous first offer in July. Fehr is just staying put and will probably 'win' from the PA's point of view. Or the season will be canceled and everyone loses.
That's silly and shortsighted.
He did, last year.
League won't go any further, and the fact that you admit Fehr is staying put shows his unwillingness to negotiate.
Because the money which pays the organizations that pay the players is tied to those economic factors, it isn't delivered by magical unicorns. When you design a league where magical unicorns deliver the money, then your post would make sense.
So what it was still the PA's idea. If they were so opposed to the idea they should have never offered it. Plus it was not 7 months that offer is what started the real negotiation that came to the agreement.
Again, you want to talk about facts, but completely miss the boat and have your facts completely wrong.
That offer was made in Dec '04. It was a last ditch effort to prevent the cap from the PA side. It in no way, shape or form started the negotiating that ended the lockout.
Seven months later, Bettman brought it back to the table and FORCED the PA to take the rollback along with the cap. He got what he wanted (the cap), but he wanted to stick it to BG, who had no leverage left. So it was accept the cap AND rollback, or no deal.
Yet we have people who can't understand why the PA brought in Fehr to deal with a guy like Bettman who pulls **** like that... Why the players don't trust him... And most importantly why the PA refuses to show their hand this time.
Fehr is the end result of how Bettman had to have his blood back in the Summer of '05.
Because players are entitled to a wage that they believe is fair. Players always play hard and try their best no matter what the economic conditions are, therefore their salaries should of course be exemt from any 'economic decline'. It is the responsibility of the owners to keep the players happy.
No, they are not entitled to a wage they deem fair. That's not how any business operates. How is it the responsibility of the owners to ensure the happiness of their employees? If I work hard and try my best regardless of economic conditions, should I be protected from the whims of the economy?
Because players are entitled to a wage that they believe is fair. Players always play hard and try their best no matter what the economic conditions are, therefore their salaries should of course be exemt from any 'economic decline'. It is the responsibility of the owners to keep the players happy.
a Win in principle, but financially the players have lost more by not just negotiating of the original 50/50 proposal given a month ago.
Fehr implies that "someone has to pay for the damages" my guess is he's gonna try and get the owners to give the full 1.8b even with half a season. Utter garbage.
They'll win on paper, lose in actual financial reality. There is nowhere for the players to go now that will make them gain more money than they could've over a month ago.
Garbage or not. That's his tactic to get most out of the owners. But i agree, as i have written, that the players might only feel as the winners.
This is the best post I've seen in this thread thus far. The real cause of the lockout is Bettman period.
Actually it isn't Bettman, Bettman wanted to negotiate last winter, but they didn't.
Blame is on both sides, and due to the strike for baseball, that's why we don't have hockey right now.
Also, just because someone's model says "This will work" doesn't mean it does in the real world. The CBA each time should be tweaked, sometimes giving more to one side then the other.
Also, I think expansion has been good, Nashville, Anaheim, Carolina, San Jose are all good.
Most posters I think would agree that Phoenix isn't a good spot for hockey, but if having the team there eventually leads to a huge NBC/CBS/FOX type deal for hockey then let's lose a few hundred mil to make a billion.
No, they are not entitled to a wage they deem fair. That's not how any business operates. How is it the responsibility of the owners to ensure the happiness of their employees? If I work hard and try my best regardless of economic conditions, should I be protected from the whims of the economy?
If an owner does not make sure that a player is happy then a player will not play for that particular team. It is the responsibility of an owner that the needs of a player as well as their families are taken care of. The players are not cattle, they are instead an exceptional group of individuals that must be honoured.
Fugu won't accept those numbers. I understand why, even if I do not agree with him as in my mind its the best numbers we have.
But there is no evidence to the contrary (supporting his position), so we can agree to disagree.
The best numbers we have don't confer any legitimacy to numbers that attempt to profess profit levels from thin air.
If you want to avoid using accepted financial and accounting standards for deriving profit, you may make that choice. Just don't expect your obfuscation to pass with people who understand how those figures are derived.
It was definitely changed in the last CBA. I don't remember how. There is guaranteed money, but unlike NHL contracts, not all of the money is guaranteed.
How about the fact that any day they can lose their job without any warning? Also, they make a lower percentage of revenue, albeit a lower piece of a vastly larger pie
Players can get cut anytime, which is why NFL contracts are front loaded and come with big signing bonuses (which are 100% guaranteed). Now many of these contracts have a majority of the yearly salary guaranteed as well.
So once again, how did the NFLPA get screwed more than the NHLPA?
Trying to tell me that Tagliabue had an easier time implementing UFA and a cap system than Bettman, is a flat out misrepresentation of the facts.
The difference was between the approach these two men took. One understood that protecting the integrity of his league was essential, while another allowed his league to become a laughingstock and a disgrace. And he is still doing it...
League won't go any further, and the fact that you admit Fehr is staying put shows his unwillingness to negotiate.
You're buying into the owners' posturing again. They said the same thing last month, waited a week, then made further concessions. It's a tactic to get the players to come down some off of their demands.
Eventually, both sides will reduce their asking price, so to speak. It's only a matter of time. Buying into the business BS now isn't going to help.
Their revenue is not and will not be decreasing any time soon (current lock-out excluded).
History has shown that revenue will increase by 5% (or more): This is unreasonable in some way? The real problem is that you're buying Bettman's "poor me" attitude.
As stated before: HRR does not include all revenue that it could (and should).
The whole 'it's grown this much over this period of time so you should have no problem assuming that its going to grow at the same growth in the future' is just a bad argument. Did you buy a house in 2007 thinking 'gee, real estate prices have done nothing but go up over the last decade, how could I go wrong?'. And why is anyone buying anything but Apple Stock right now?! Have you seen how much its grown over the last 7 years? There's no way it does anything different over the next 7!
You're buying into the owners' posturing again. They said the same thing last month, waited a week, then made further concessions. It's a tactic to get the players to come down some off of their demands.
Eventually, both sides will reduce their asking price, so to speak. It's only a matter of time. Buying into the business BS now isn't going to help.
No, I'm not. I'm buying into what I actually believe. I think it would be asinine to make any more concessions from a bargaining standpoint.
