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.
Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
And that would be fine, if conditions to stay in the NHL are to harsh then they need to go where it is best for them. But you seem to think it's the responsibility of the leagues franchises to go into the red to make the players happy.
Not at all. I think I'm arguing for cutting losses, and that some of the losses won't be fixed with this CBA. Regardless of the path you choose as far as total number of teams, I am saying that there will be consequences to the structure the NHL puts in place, and one of those would lead to a potential further erosion of European content.
What you cite as agreements are only relevant to existing contracts. If the KHL can get younger players under contract earlier and these are higher than the ELCs NHL teams offer, then more players will simply stay home. Keep in mind the taxation and agent fees as well. The KHL has an advantage because the NHL has chosen a path that tries to restrict younger players' salaries for as long as possible. It will only pay for the elite players to eventually leave-- the guys who can get maximum deals for the 5-7 yr terms being discussed. I think it's also material whether that figure is five or seven yrs.
I'm not sure how many NA kids or RFAs would choose the European leagues, but given the total non-NA content right now, it's still a significant number of players. The numbers were starting to decline before this type of CBA would take effect. I think it will take another bite out of European content in the NHL. I cannot prove it until it happens.
I brought the contract agreement up because you brought up Radulov - he left mid-contract, not as an unsigned player.
I agree it will likely largely eliminate Russians from the league, but there's only so much cap space they have available - if the RFA level players are taking up more of it then there's less for the ELC players to be given. There's going to definitely be a talent drain, I just disagree where most of it will be from
There's also the question of how willing teams will be to sign KHL stars back to the NHL - based on the different success levels players seem to have between the leagues, are NHL teams going to ink a lot of money on getting another Radulov?
And I would agree with you there. I find the more teams you have talent obviously get's spread more thin over 30 teams. When that happens it seems teams with less talent get overcoached and become defensive "trap" teams and smother the game. I'm not sure the realistic expectations of contraction but I would certainly welcome it.
I hope the the league doesn't plan on going to a 32 team league which has been rumoured by the new teams rumoured in Quebec and Markham. Hopefully they will be relocation teams not expansion.
I think there's plenty of potential talent for a 32-team league, maybe even more. The way you weaken the power of the trap is to go to an international-sized rink. The extra room that gives for offensive creativity makes the game a lot more fun to watch, too.
They played chicken and lost, they were lead by a madman in 2004 and he lead them over a cliff.Now they have a different madman in Fehr. I've been saying the same thing about Fehr since Aug, he will do more harm to your beloved players then good, you will see as long as he can keep the players believing in this "cause"
I'm with you there - I knew this was coming (to one degree or another) from the moment I read they'd hired Fehr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu
That's true, but that deal wasn't available to them in July or August or September, October, or November. No, we had to wait to get to December to get certain elements that were more valuable to THEM than what was offered earlier. It's not always about the money. The lockout is designed to do exactly that-- extract as much as possibly because making X is always higher than making zero.
Maybe we had to wait until December because the PA was stalling so much until then? And perhaps if the PA had agreed to begin negotiations when the league asked over a year ago, that offer would have been on the table long before July or August or September or October or November. Yes, I know lots of people say it still would have stalled along until now, but there's no way to know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu
I'm not sure how many NA kids or RFAs would choose the European leagues, but given the total non-NA content right now, it's still a significant number of players.
OK, here's a serious question. Do the European leagues have a limit on how many foreign players can be on their rosters? That would severely limit the number of North American players to go over there.
I ask because years ago the soccer leagues in England had a rule that only allowed for two North American players to be on their rosters (I don't know if they still have it). Part of the rationale behind this, if I remember correctly, was that teams were starting a trend of bringing North American goalkeepers over because they were raised from childhood playing games with hand/eye coordination (rather than feet/eye) and that gave them a big advantage in that position.
My only point was that percentages are meaningless without context. There is no way the players would ever get 74% of a $3.6 billion business. The only reason it got to 74% was because the NHL was a very small business and a lot of owners treated it like a hobby.
That figure of 74% is only relevant when you have 30 teams and a similar talent pool overall when the figure came about.
So yes, with a smaller league, the overall percentage would be lower, but closer to what those salaries represented of the richer teams' revenues. (For example, $70 MM represents 35% of the Leafs' HRR.)
The average HRR per team would be higher, and what players would end up getting might be higher initially since only the best 400-ish would be kept--- as compared to the 700's rates. Over time, that would adjust to whatever the new competitive dynamics would be between teams.
Nevertheless, that was a competition for a talent pool of size X that yielded that result.
Quote:
They didn't care that they were losing money because they were making a ton of money elsewhere. Bettman wanted the NHL to grow into a big business and since the NHL is driven by the gate, parity was key to growing the sport (but I think you disagree with this?). Lowering the salaries was a huge step in the right direction and going from 74% to 54% in year one was a huge win for the owners. Putting in the escalator to 57% was a huge win for the players, the owners apparently didn't believe in the new system enough to not put in a poison pill if revenues grow faster than expected.
No, I think they wanted cost-certainty. Parity was the alleged by-product, but I still think there was parity before the last era outside the addition of the newest teams. Expansion teams are always the worst in the league for their first few years.
Quote:
The MLB is the closest to a "free" market for players and they are now making around 42% of MLB revenues and they will continue to lose "share" with these new local TV deals that are being signed around the league. The superstars will still get their money, but the rest of the league will continue to lag behind in the money share compared to the owners. That is why there is labor peace in MLB, the owners are making an insane amount of money and they don't have to "share" it with the players. Even the Yankess are cutting payroll. The Dodgers are about to have their entire $200+ million payroll covered by their local TV contract and they don't have to share it with anyone (MLB doesn't share local TV money). The players may soon fall below 40% of MLB revenue.
Yet they have labor peace, the players seem to be happy with the money they get, the owners are profitable and have very high franchise values. Economically, it's a win-win. Some fans seem to grumble, but maybe its the fans who think the grass is greener on the other side. Changing these dynamics further might actually make MLB's product worse. If you can't please everyone, at least the principals are all making a ton of money.
Quote:
Wouldn't this actually hurt the players in an anti-trust case against the NHL? How can they prove that the NHL is a monopoy when most of the players can get jobs overseas and still make a great living? Isn't it already up to around 30% right now and wasn't it almost 66% during the cancelled season?
I don't think this is strictly about proving there's a monopoly, but that competitors are joining together to hurt players' earning ability in this country. Price fixing and the unilateral imposition of conditions on workers is the principle matter. Furthermore, the US laws are about how US companies treat their workers. Given your approach, any company that can point out there are producers in China or India would get around claims of anticompetitive behavior, wouldn't they?
I think there's plenty of potential talent for a 32-team league, maybe even more. The way you weaken the power of the trap is to go to an international-sized rink. The extra room that gives for offensive creativity makes the game a lot more fun to watch, too.
I disagree about the bigger ice. The net is still the same size, and the shooting percentages won't change because you added more room at the edges (or further out). The pressure points are still the same. You box players out to the perimeter and let them shoot from there. They'll get worn out skating around the periphery.
I think you'll see more Radulovs. I think you'll see more European players staying home over taking the lower pay that trickles down due to 50% share and 5 yr contracting limits.
I never suggested that the top players would leave. Try to address my points instead of making sweeping generalizations. Thanks.
Fugu, you're so wrong. The average salary in the KHL is less than 20% of the NHL. Yes, there are russian stars who make millions but on average the players make under 500K per year. If the NHLPA accepts the current NHL offer, the average salary will be ATLEAST triple of that in KHL.
Any player who would go to KHL is because of either 1) not wanting to live in North America or 2) not being able to get a full-time NHL gig.
And Europeans "don't stay at home" if they go to KHL, you simply don't understand how different Russia is compared to western European countries. There are several finnish players who play in KHL but their families stay in Finland, simply because the players don't want to bring their families to Russia.
For just about every western European player, living in North America is much closer to "home" than living in the remote cities of Siberia. Not every player can choose to play in St. Petersburg or Moscow.
I think there's plenty of potential talent for a 32-team league, maybe even more. The way you weaken the power of the trap is to go to an international-sized rink. The extra room that gives for offensive creativity makes the game a lot more fun to watch, too.
You prob could have a 40 team league if you really want to, however I certinly disagree with bigger ice, I don't think international hockey is overly entertaining for that exact reason.
I don't think this is strictly about proving there's a monopoly, but that competitors are joining together to hurt players' earning ability in this country. Price fixing and the unilateral imposition of conditions on workers is the principle matter. Furthermore, the US laws are about how US companies treat their workers. Given your approach, any company that can point out there are producers in China or India would get around claims of anticompetitive behavior, wouldn't they?
I can't see any way an NHL player can claim that the work conditions in the European leagues are a "sweat shop" and the NHL has a monopoly because of work conditions.
I don't see price fixing either, the best players still make the most money. The previous CBA was negotiated with a "price" limit and the NHL owners honored that.
How does Crosby win an anti-trust suit against the NHL?
That's not true across the board. An RFA like Radulov has to accept less than market value due to the CBA restrictions. Top stars accept less than market value because of restrictions like caps and player mobility-- but they still would make the most in the NHL. That economic landscape was for the just completed CBA. If the owners were to get their 50% and contract limits with 5 yrs, I think the lower and middle class players stand to make much less, which may seriously bridge the gap for some of them between the NHL and some European leagues, especially for ELC and RFA contracts.
RFA only means the player likely doesn't move locations due to the teams ability to match. He can still get a decent contract - in fact most do. Who was the last RFA who received significantly less than they should have received?
Radulov was only an RFA this July. He wasn't getting offered less due to his RFA status (Nashville even said they'd trade his rights). He was getting offered less (if there were any real offers) due to his antics, and perceived work ethics. Prior to that he was on an ELC that he didn't complete before bolting to Russia. Had he not left (and assuming there were no issues between him and the club) I would suspect that he would have received a healthy raise over his ELC - just like other young talented goal scoring forwards in his situation received.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
That's true, but that deal wasn't available to them in July or August or September, October, or November. No, we had to wait to get to December to get certain elements that were more valuable to THEM than what was offered earlier. It's not always about the money. The lockout is designed to do exactly that-- extract as much as possibly because making X is always higher than making zero.
You're making an assumption that had the PA actually negotiated off of the NHL's offer instead of constantly offering them completely de-linked options, that the NHL wouldn't have moved from their previous position.
The KHL cap was 36M this year, right? Unless that goes up dramatically there's only so many young stars who will be making more in the KHL that the cap will allow for. Unless all the players will be taking pay cuts for them, in which case the nhl might start to look attractive again for those players. It's not an even playing field unless the KHL ups their cap dramatically.
Fugu, you're so wrong. The average salary in the KHL is less than 20% of the NHL. Yes, there are russian stars who make millions but on average the players make under 500K per year. If the NHLPA accepts the current NHL offer, the average salary will be ATLEAST triple of that in KHL.
Any player who would go to KHL is because of either 1) not wanting to live in North America or 2) not being able to get a full-time NHL gig.
And Europeans "don't stay at home" if they go to KHL, you simply don't understand how different Russia is compared to western European countries. There are several finnish players who play in KHL but their families stay in Finland, simply because the players don't want to bring their families to Russia.
For just about every western European player, living in North America is much closer to "home" than living in the remote cities of Siberia. Not every player can choose to play in St. Petersburg or Moscow.
Therefore you will see finnish, german clubs in KHL sooner than later.
Have you ever heard about KHL stipediums for juniors, who are not count againt salary cap?
I disagree about the bigger ice. The net is still the same size, and the shooting percentages won't change because you added more room at the edges (or further out). The pressure points are still the same. You box players out to the perimeter and let them shoot from there. They'll get worn out skating around the periphery.
Wrong Fugu. If there's more room, players will get more and better chances. They get around d-men more and thus get better chances.
If we follow your logic, the shooting percentage would be the same if the rink was squeezed to 20 feet in width. Doesn't sound that probably, does it?
You're making an assumption that had the PA actually negotiated off of the NHL's offer instead of constantly offering them completely de-linked options, that the NHL wouldn't have moved from their previous position.
That's my biggest frustration with this "process" The PA could have bargained off the oct. offer, full season and bargained for better numbers for the players. That's all the players really wanted....
But instead Fehr goes in with the de-linked crap. But in hindsight it makes total sense, he knew if he proposes a delinked offer the league would never take it......so he could continue to stall. And another reason would be if he could manage to get a delinked deal he could do as much damage to the league as he can and the players salaries wouldn't be linked to falling revenue.
I disagree about the bigger ice. The net is still the same size, and the shooting percentages won't change because you added more room at the edges (or further out). The pressure points are still the same. You box players out to the perimeter and let them shoot from there. They'll get worn out skating around the periphery.
Well, that's one view, but I'm getting up there in age and don't get worn out on the bigger ice (admittedly at a lot slower speeds than the pros). And I always will pick a college game to watch over an NHL game if the college game is played on 100-foot ice. The point is not to keep the puck to the outside, but to use the room to move it to open seams to get shots from the inside. The best college teams do it masterfully and frankly, it's just more fun to watch than the NHL.
That's my biggest frustration with this "process" The PA could have bargained off the oct. offer, full season and bargained for better numbers for the players. That's all the players really wanted....
But instead Fehr goes in with the de-linked crap. But in hindsight it makes total sense, he knew if he proposes a delinked offer the league would never take it......so he could continue to stall. And another reason would be if he could manage to get a delinked deal he could do as much damage to the league as he can and the players salaries wouldn't be linked to falling revenue.
Give it a rest.
Bottom line is this:
Players have given on every meaningful issue.
Owners haven't given up a thing of consequence.
Don Fehr or not -- That is the reason why we're in this mess.
Wrong Fugu. If there's more room, players will get more and better chances. They get around d-men more and thus get better chances.
If we follow your logic, the shooting percentage would be the same if the rink was squeezed to 20 feet in width. Doesn't sound that probably, does it?
Does international hockey have alot more scoring that I don't know about? A bigger rink has never shown to increase scoring that I am aware of. Besides I don't think bigger rinks has been given much consideration for a relistic change anyhow.
[QUOTE=Captain Bob;56569191]Give it a rest.
Bottom line is this:
Players have given on every meaningful issue.
Owners haven't given up a thing of consequence.
Don Fehr or not -- That is the reason why we're in this mess.[/QUOTE]
No, Don Fehr is completly the reason why we are still are in this situation.Even last week when they were getting close to a deal, Fehr came in and blew it up.
Give it a rest, This isn't a concession exchange, it's about doing what's best for the league to have healthy franchises. That's more inportant then having man love for players.
Does international hockey have alot more scoring that I don't know about? A bigger rink has never shown to increase scoring that I am aware of. Besides I don't think bigger rinks has been given much consideration for a relistic change anyhow.
It's not so much more scoring, as more skating and less clogging up. Depends on the kind of hockey one prefers to watch, I guess.
Does international hockey have alot more scoring that I don't know about? A bigger rink has never shown to increase scoring that I am aware of. Besides I don't think bigger rinks has been given much consideration for a relistic change anyhow.
Have the best players in the world ever played in olympic-sized rinks in a 30 team league? No. Apples to oranges.
Ask yourself this: would there be more scoring in the NHL if the width of the rink was say 200 feet compared to a rink width of 20 feet?
