After decertification, competitors agreeing on contract limitations league wide would be subject to antitrust law. Labor law would no longer exist to
allow the NHL to operate as a cartel.
The players are dumb if they opt to decertify. I still don't understand why they didn't accept the last offer.
The only thing they care about is the money going into their pockets. They don't seem to care if the proposal is better for the league.
Longer RFA status, 5year limit contract (7 if your own drafted player), more year unders ELC, that helps teams keep some of their own developed players longer making them more competitive. The 5 year limit also helps the league become more interesting in that it will help player movement.
In return the league says there's no burying players in minors anymore..etc..
I mean really, I think everything proposed is better for the league to grow, which means more cash for everybody.
However, players seem too stubborn to even realize it.
All they seem fixated on is the make whole.
really ?
what's the league plans to help the CLB, PHX and other teams like them become profitable ? or at the very least have them break even ?
the ONLY good thing that could come out from this lockout is, profitable teams will not make much more cash as some of the $ saved will be used for the "bigger revenue sharing", and the teams losing money will lose slightly less as they'll get a little more from revenue sharing...
and the 200 or 250 millions profits lost from the top revenue teams will be gone forever...
this "cartel" wouldnt stick, like (for example) TML and their 100 millions a year profits would care much wether CLB is mad they signed a player above what was decided in a meeting...
After decertification, competitors agreeing on contract limitations league wide would be subject to antitrust law. Labor law would no longer exist to
allow the NHL to operate as a cartel.
However, one can also argue that the NHL is one single entity that is divided into 30 geographic divisions. For example:
1. Money collected from TV revenues is shared among all 30 teams.
2. To a certain extent, teams are sharing revenues (a percentage of profits earned by more successful teams are shared with the less profitable teams).
really thats what it will take for you to lose faith, shouldnt child molesters, and drunk drivers only getting 5yrs wouldnt that of caused you to lose faith years ago, our standards are different I guess.
Honestly, it's the stars who drive the negotiations. 7 year contract limits? As if so many players deserve or get more to begin with. Most players who step foot on NHL ice are lucky to play a game. Many end up back in minors. Some are journeymen, some are good enough to stick,some are good enough to make a career in the NHL and lastly some are good enough to have security in 3-5 year deals. After all that, the remainder is the crosbys of the world who are elite and can command top contracting rights. It seems that this still remainder is the one complaining.
There are about 20 players in the entire league that have contracts that fall beyond the parameters suggested for contract length by the league. That is less than 3% of the membership.
The other 97% of the membership would be mostly unaffected. I say mostly, because keeping the contract lengths shorter would actually free up cap space to pay the 97%. For example, the $1 million that Marion Hossa is owed when he is 42 years old would be available to pay other salaries. Unless, of course, you believe that Hossa will still be playing at 42 years of age.
Sometimes I wonder if the players know who they are fighting for.
However, one can also argue that the NHL is one single entity that is divided into 30 geographic divisions. For example:
1. Money collected from TV revenues is shared among all 30 teams.
2. To a certain extent, teams are sharing revenues (a percentage of profits earned by more successful teams are shared with the less profitable teams).
I don't think this argument works from a labor POV. Each team is competing for the same talent.
what's the league plans to help the CLB, PHX and other teams like them become profitable ? or at the very least have them break even ?
the ONLY good thing that could come out from this lockout is, profitable teams will not make much more cash as some of the $ saved will be used for the "bigger revenue sharing", and the teams losing money will lose slightly less as they'll get a little more from revenue sharing...
and the 200 or 250 millions profits lost from the top revenue teams will be gone forever...
And you expect the league to fix everything? Nothing will ever be perfect, there is no such thing.
How is it the league's fault that CLB's management is garbage?
Going down south to a desert like Phoenix was a mistake to begin with, that's another question. But I've already said Bettman should be fired on the grounds that his ''hockey in the south'' idea failed miserably.
However, this should be handled after, not now. Too late for that now.
But limiting contracts so that the richer owners don't necessarily sweep in to take all the big stars with front loaded contracts does help poorer teams.
Making players remain part of their teams at cheaper contracts due to longer ELC and RFA years does also help the poorer teams. They have more time to build their rosters and so by the time their prospects turn into stars, they might have a solid team in place and won't be looking to get out. Not saying it's not doable with the expired CBA, it just gives them more time.
If you decertify, you have a bunch of teams that will cut cost, others will raise them.
You have teams like the Islanders that are -15M on top of spending close to the floor. They'll cut cost just to try to break even, but they'll have a very weak squad, and it'll only be a matter of time before their good players want out.
What's the point in having teams that have to pay three times less in player salaries than some of the other teams? Makes no sense at all. If union decertifies, the league shouldn't have 30 teams.
The NHL cannot be sued as an illegal cartel. It's a sports league, not gas station chains. The nature of a league is to have multiple franchises playing under a single set of rules. Remove the common rules between teams and there's nothing left -- no trophies, no schedule, no standings, no playoffs.
If the NHL is a monopolistic cartel, how is it possible for so many of its players to be currently playing in the KHL and Sweden?
The NHL cannot be sued as an illegal cartel. It's a sports league, not gas station chains. The nature of a league is to have multiple franchises playing under a single set of rules. Remove the common rules between teams and there's nothing left -- no trophies, no schedule, no standings, no playoffs.
If the NHL is a monopolistic cartel, how is it possible for so many of its players to be currently playing in the KHL and Sweden?
Basic sports history:
MLB got in trouble for trying to dampen the free agent market in the 1980s.
And you expect the league to fix everything? Nothing will ever be perfect, there is no such thing.
How is it the league's fault that CLB's management is garbage?
Going down south to a desert like Phoenix was a mistake to begin with, that's another question. But I've already said Bettman should be fired on the grounds that his ''hockey in the south'' idea failed miserably. However, this should be handled after, not now. Too late for that now.
But limiting contracts so that the richer owners don't necessarily sweep in to take all the big stars with front loaded contracts does help poorer teams.
Making players remain part of their teams at cheaper contracts due to longer ELC and RFA years does also help the poorer teams. They have more time to build their rosters and so by the time their prospects turn into stars, they might have a solid team in place and won't be looking to get out. Not saying it's not doable with the expired CBA, it just gives them more time.
If you decertify, you have a bunch of teams that will cut cost, others will raise them. You have teams like the Islanders that are -15M on top of spending close to the floor. They'll cut cost just to try to break even, but they'll have a very weak squad, and it'll only be a matter of time before their good players want out.
What's the point in having teams that have to pay three times less in player salaries than some of the other teams? Makes no sense at all. If union decertifies, the league shouldn't have 30 teams.
not everything, but SOMETHING.
too late now, guess it was too late before as well since they've done NOTHING to help.
and in this new CBA, they may be at -12Mil... YAY!
The NHL cannot be sued as an illegal cartel. It's a sports league, not gas station chains. The nature of a league is to have multiple franchises playing under a single set of rules. Remove the common rules between teams and there's nothing left -- no trophies, no schedule, no standings, no playoffs.
If the NHL is a monopolistic cartel, how is it possible for so many of its players to be currently playing in the KHL and Sweden?
30 competitors, like let's say Rogers, Bell, Videotron are in competition with each others, them being in the same market doesnt authorise them to collude to control salaries for example.
30 competitors, like let's say Rogers, Bell, Videotron are in competition with each others, them being in the same market doesnt authorise them to collude to control salaries for example.
Because the cell phone companies and internet service providers would never collude
MLB got in trouble for trying to dampen the free agent market in the 1980s.
I don't know the details, but I'd guess that was a case of collusion to illegally establish limits on free agents, which defeats the whole point of the free agent concept.
I don't think that's the basis of the lawsuit that would be launched against the NHL. Please clue me in if I'm wrong.
The reason the Islanders, the Predators, and the Blue Jackets among others are losing money is that they're poorly managed.
You sound like some politicians campaigning for bailouts for billionaire incompetents.
Euhhh, I guess you miss the sentence where I said how is it the league's fault if teams like CLB are managed like garbage.
The predators aren't poorly managed btw. If anything they're a good example of a team without cash but well managed, or at least decently.
Agreed for NYI and CLB. But explain how i sound like a bailout millionaire when the other is the one saying the league aren't doing anything to help those poor teams while I'm saying its not the league's fault.
You either did not read my post or getting confused between posters.
Unless your point is to fire those managers and kick their teams out of the league, whose fault it is doesn't matter for squat. You won't see the players invest in doing that now would you? None of their precious revenue is going to go to badly managed teams right and they won't advocate for removing the problem. No what they seem to want is profit from the problem.
I seriously hope this disclaimer of interest isn't a bluff and that the league is blown up so we can finally give those managers the boot and be done with this lockout. It's a vicious circle as long as they are members of the league.
Last edited by vokiel: 12-17-2012 at 05:46 PM.
Reason: can't spell
30 competitors, like let's say Rogers, Bell, Videotron are in competition with each others, them being in the same market doesnt authorise them to collude to control salaries for example.
The 30 NHL franchises aren't competing businesses "in the same market". They're part of a single legal entity called the NHL. Without the 30 franchises there is no NHL.
Rogers, Bell and Videotron try to draw customers away from each other. NHL teams try to draw customers to games played against other NHL teams, both of whom receive revenue from that game. This is the nature of sports leagues. It is not collusion, any more than The Beatles were a collusion of musicians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI
huh, cause they're "closed"... as simple as that.
"Collusion", "cartel" and "monopoly" are words that imply it's impossible to get better wages or employment elsewhere. But NHL players were free to sign with other teams in other leagues for whatever salary they could get. Obviously, an NHL monopoly on hockey would have prevented them from doing that. The players were able to test hockey's free market anywhere they wanted, and the NHL did nothing to stop them.
"Collusion", "cartel" and "monopoly" are words that imply it's impossible to get better wages or employment elsewhere. But NHL players were free to sign with other teams in other leagues for whatever salary they could get. Obviously, an NHL monopoly on hockey would have prevented them from doing that. The players were able to test hockey's free market anywhere they wanted, and the NHL did nothing to stop them.
How many non-NHL hockey teams in North American cities have the inherited arena deals, TV deals, public funding and history of the NHL? Nobody else comes close. The closest is the AHL, a league with direct ties to the NHL. If you eliminate all context, the Wheeling Nailers are free to compete with the New York Rangers, but it's pretty easy to prove that's not really the case.
The reason the Islanders, the Predators, and the Blue Jackets among others are losing money is that they're poorly managed.
You sound like some politicians campaigning for bailouts for billionaire incompetents.
The predators are one of the best managed team in the league IMO, always icing a very competitive team with poor financial means, with great pro and amateur scouting and good hockey decisions.
How many non-NHL hockey teams in North American cities have the inherited arena deals, TV deals, public funding and history of the NHL? Nobody else comes close. The closest in the AHL, a league with direct ties to the NHL. If you eliminate all context, the Wheeling Nailers are free to compete with the New York Rangers, but it's pretty easy to prove that's not really the case.
All that proves is that the NHL is the most successful hockey league. That doesn't stop any player from playing in a junior league, in Russia, Sweden, or anywhere else, if they want. But given the choice, naturally, they'd play for the NHL because it offers all the perks. Which speaks to the quality of the league, not its collusion.
The Leafs have been poorly managed and make a TON of money...so maybe there are other reasons...
This is a mischaracterization imo.
Yes, the Leafs make more profits than other NHL teams, but it costs 1 billion dollars or so to buy the Leafs. As such the baseline profit level for the Leafs to be a worthy investment is much higher. The opportunity cost of investment is not factored into the profit/loss. If you're spending 1 billion dollars you might want to make a lot more than 100 million/year, depends.
Second, even though the Leafs make ~100 million/year now, if they had a deep playoff run or two they would be making 150-200 million/year. You say that they make profits in spite of losing money, but you could also they're losing money by being mismanaged, because they'd be making a lot more money if they were well-managed.
