Why? In what other business do workers get 57% of total income and pay none of the costs of production?
In many businesses. In some businesses, the workers get more than 100% of the revenue and the owner is losing money.
Let's keep in mind that this was suggested by the owners in order to prevent free market operations. They are putting a 50% cap on salaries. Imagine this was done in other places, both businesses and governments.
You go get a job as a clerk for your town for $50,000 on the assumption that the town's tax revenue is $50 million. All of a sudden, tax revenue goes down to $30 million and you have to write the town a check for $20,000. How would you like that? Can you imagine that working?
But just to play devil's advocate, if you took the best 2nd tier/non-NHL players in the world and stuck them in Ranger jersey's reading Richards/Gaborik/Lundqvist/etc, how long do you think it'd take the fans to notice?
Alot of fans out there just root for a piece of laundry. And its the owners that support that piece of laundry and everything that goes with it.
Eh, I think that's a stretch. The Rangers might also be more of an exception to the rule. Pittsburgh's fan base shrank considerably when they were icing mediocre or bad teams. Add a few superstars and now everyone is a die hard fan. Substitute Chad Kolarik for Sidney Crosby and I think people are going to notice.
Look at the WNBA. Talented in their own right, but people prefer the NBA. Same goes for MLS. Talented guys, but still playing second fiddle to the elite leagues of the world. Hell, even 2nd tier referees in the NFL ended up inspiring a huge backlash from the fans. Are many fans ignorant to the intricacies of the games they watch? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean they don't recognize talent.
You go get a job as a clerk for your town for $50,000 on the assumption that the town's tax revenue is $50 million. All of a sudden, tax revenue goes down to $30 million and you have to write the town a check for $20,000. How would you like that? Can you imagine that working?
I can't imagine tax revenue suddenly going down 40%, but if it did, you can be sure that the town is going to try to cut wages by about 40% too--either by wage reductions or lay-offs.
Look at the WNBA. Talented in their own right, but people prefer the NBA. Same goes for MLS. Talented guys, but still playing second fiddle to the elite leagues of the world. Hell, even 2nd tier referees in the NFL ended up inspiring a huge backlash from the fans. Are many fans ignorant to the intricacies of the games they watch? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean they don't recognize talent.
To play devils advocate: There would be no jumbotron without the owners.. without the owners these guys would be teachers, bankers, hotel managers etc...
Not necessarily. Team ownership doesn't always equate to ownership of the building. Without the NHL, these guys might be playing overseas, or in the AHL, which could then very well fill the void left by the NHL. Like I said, if you want to be the best, you have to pay to be the best. That's the way business works (with a few exceptions of course).
Quote:
You have to draw the line somewhere - Set the cap: 50 million, 70 million, 90 million? You can keep saying that these guys only get a few years to make their money, but at what point does it become excessive? You could also say that owners should be capable of spending money and not needing a cap. I could also say that the haves would outspend the have nots and hurt competitive balance/the league. I could also say that the average fan will be shelling out more and more.. I guess the whole argument is moot...
There is plenty of money there. They both need each other. I'm tired of the nonsense - 50/50 split and let's go.
I certainly agree with you for the most part. I'm not taking the players side, I'm simply saying that people are a little over-the-top with their assessment of their position.
It depends on your point of view. On one hand, the players are the product. Without the players you don't have the league. On the other hand, it's the owners who are laying out the money to run the league, provide arena's etc...
I'd say a 50/50 split is fair. However, I could certainly see either side feeling that their worth is more than the other.
I want to get something straight. Is the cap itself 50% of the revenue or is the mid-point between the cap and the floor 50%? Because if the cap is 50%, then the owners will get significantly more than the players. The cap is 50%, the floor is 36% (it was a 14% gap last time), so the mid-point would be 42% of the revenue to the players.
From what I understand, the last time, the cap was 57%, the floor was 43% and the mid-point was 50%, so really, the last CBA from 2005 was actually 50-50. This one is almost 60-40 in favor of the owners. Am I wrong?
personally speaking...to me the league would be a lot healthier, from a fans perspective, if the players made a helluva lot less, and tickets were a helluva lot cheaper.
personally speaking...to me the league would be a lot healthier, from a fans perspective, if the players made a helluva lot less, and tickets were a helluva lot cheaper.
thats just my opinion.
For sure, but those are two separate issues.
Owners aren't going to reduce ticket prices just because salaries are lower.
Owners (anywhere, not just pro sports) will charge as much as people will pay and pay out as little as people will accept.
personally speaking...to me the league would be a lot healthier, from a fans perspective, if the players made a helluva lot less, and tickets were a helluva lot cheaper.
thats just my opinion.
If the players made a lot less, many would go to the KHL and we wouldn't be the borderline uncontested top league in the world any more.
Not necessarily. Team ownership doesn't always equate to ownership of the building. Without the NHL, these guys might be playing overseas, or in the AHL, which could then very well fill the void left by the NHL. Like I said, if you want to be the best, you have to pay to be the best. That's the way business works (with a few exceptions of course)
Good point. And it goes both ways.
How did the NHL become (and stay) the best hockey league in the world? Why are there so many more players coming overseas to play here than vice versa? Theres many reasons - but one of the big ones is that most ownership groups run a first class operation -- when not squabbling over the CBA of course.
If players are so willing to jump ship from the NHL, why dont they ask Ryan McDonagh about his experiences first.
I want to get something straight. Is the cap itself 50% of the revenue or is the mid-point between the cap and the floor 50%? Because if the cap is 50%, then the owners will get significantly more than the players. The cap is 50%, the floor is 36% (it was a 14% gap last time), so the mid-point would be 42% of the revenue to the players.
From what I understand, the last time, the cap was 57%, the floor was 43% and the mid-point was 50%, so really, the last CBA from 2005 was actually 50-50. This one is almost 60-40 in favor of the owners. Am I wrong?
Mid point is set at players' share (57% this "season"). Then escrow is used to actualize how teams spend (or don't spend) to the cap.
__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
If the players made a lot less, many would go to the KHL and we wouldn't be the borderline uncontested top league in the world any more.
maybe...maybe not. maybe instead of the average player making 2 mil he makes 1 mil. maybe instead of making 9 or 10 min a season the best players make 6 or 7.
and maybe instead of 50 dollars for a nosebleed ticket it costs 30 dollars.
this is why ill never forgive the NHL for allowing the Thrashers to leave atlanta. it only costed 5-15 bucks to see a game per person here...and since my friends were all STH i usually saw the Rangers for free since they always had leftover tickets.
getting to see live hockey for an affordable price was quite appealing.
Well, so much for a resolution to this any time soon. Are the players really going to take this to the courts and aim for the jugular? Good luck to them if they do. It would certainly have a dramatic impact on the future of the game.
Well, so much for a resolution to this any time soon. Are the players really going to take this to the courts and aim for the jugular? Good luck to them if they do. It would certainly have a dramatic impact on the future of the game.
It depends on your point of view. On one hand, the players are the product. Without the players you don't have the league. On the other hand, it's the owners who are laying out the money to run the league, provide arena's etc...
I'd say a 50/50 split is fair. However, I could certainly see either side feeling that their worth is more than the other.
1.5 million is not enough to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle for the rest of your life in NY, but tell me exactly how it's the owners responsibility to ensure that a borderline NHLer who plays 3 years at the league minimum is paid enough to never have to work again another day in his life? - I generally fall on the side of the players, but this idea is ridiculous to me. John Smith who plays 3 seasons as an Islanders 4th liner and is out of league by age 25 is supposed to be guaranteed enough money to be set for life?
I'm no Dolan fan, but maybe he should get more money. He owns the team. He owns the Garden. He's laying out 70+million in player salaries, plus scouts, plus coaches, plus Garden employees. Why shouldn't he be entitled to 50%? Now forget Dolan and pretend your Wang - who doesn't own one of the 3-4 most profitable franchises in the league. Should this guy be scraping by? If I'm him I say screw it. This is a business. I'm here to make a profit. Don't forget that the salaries aren't made up mostly of minimum wage players - it's the players making 4+million a year.
At this point, I really don't care either way. Both parties will be paid in the end. I just want hockey.
First off I just want to say 50/50 split is fair, the players were at that point a long time before the owners put it forward masked in a whole lot of other BS.
As for the bold, that's not what I was arguing for. They don't need to be set for life, but I don't like it when people pretend these guys have regular career paths. The regular guy works for 40ish years while expecting to make a fairly regular to increasing wage throughout that time. Of course that varies from occupation to occupation, but that's generally the normal worker's expectation. So you expect to make about 2.5% of your lifetime earnings a year (roughly). The pro-athlete is very different. Many of these guys will make a significantly higher % during their playing years than they will afterwards. They need to make their money while they're viable. An injury can cut a guy down at any time. They know that. An injury can hinder their future earnings inside and outside the sport. That's part of the game. That's why you need to make all the money you can while you can. It's true most of the guys don't face that terrible injury, but they're all aware that the chance is out there. You should always plan financially for the worst. That's what they try to do. And I can't blame them for that.
The idea that the pro sports biz is just going to intentionally make less money to be nice to the fans isn't about to happen. So either the money will be divided between the players and owners. I'd rather it go to the guys who are 1) less wealthy and 2) actually give me what I'm watching.
This part is less important but I think it should be noted based on some of the comments here, being an owner for the most part is easy. Most of these guys are filthy rich from other businesses and they hire people to run the day to day hockey and business operations. So this idea that they're providing such a service to us by owning the team is bs. The players are risking a lot more by trying to be pro athletes.
Saying the players should take less just because they are well off makes as much sense as the owners assuming losses just because they are rich.
This lockout boils down to two issues. Lowering the player share to 50%. Essentially agreed upon, mission accomplished. The NHL viability issue. The other was to end back diving contracts. Players agreed to the framework including a cap on years and variance.
Is the league willing to lose a year to gain a few years on both? Doubtful.
They are testing the union to see if more is conceded or if Fehr is removed. Merely a set up for the next round, how much the league will ask for relative to this deal.
Player salaries are determined by the team and player. Not cost of living.
Beyond just the lockout we've lost some big time players the opportunities to go after records. What did we lose Stamkos 50 goals off his career totals?
My stance has always been: Fehr and Bettman, though acting like children, are educated, rational-thinking people. The gap is way too small and there is way too much to lose in cancelling the season.
In many businesses. In some businesses, the workers get more than 100% of the revenue and the owner is losing money.
Let's keep in mind that this was suggested by the owners in order to prevent free market operations. They are putting a 50% cap on salaries. Imagine this was done in other places, both businesses and governments.
You go get a job as a clerk for your town for $50,000 on the assumption that the town's tax revenue is $50 million. All of a sudden, tax revenue goes down to $30 million and you have to write the town a check for $20,000. How would you like that? Can you imagine that working?
Yes but... Can you imagine a town whose tax revenue was assumed to be 50 million and the revenue comes in at 70 million so the clerks share the additional 20 million (50/50) with the town?
