HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Lockout V: Take the Long Way Home

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-18-2012, 01:17 PM
  #226
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
They made 57% under the old CBA. That CBA expired so the players are currently getting 0%. You can't "give up" something you don't have.
Yup. And last time I checked 50% of something is more than 0% of nothing.

du5566* is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:17 PM
  #227
RedMenace
Zero ***** Given
 
RedMenace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Under the Bridge
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Correct but they are working people who have a talent that many people want to see. They don't owe the owners the right to exploit that talent for whatever price they name. Hockey is their job. Most people want to maximize the income earned from their job. Why is it okay for billionaire owners to seek maximum benefit but not the players? For the players hockey is their livelihood. For owners their franchises are very expensive toys.
That's the point many people seem to miss. The PA is holding out, at this point, due to principle. That money they've lost is gone. The only thing they are good at is being withheld from them because a smaller group wants more money.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If an NHL owner is relying on his/her/their franchise as a primary source of income, they should NOT be in the business world. Any "losses" that franchise incurs shouldn't be a detriment to that owner/group. Losses that the players incur, on the other hand, are a detriment to that player's livelihood, and will more than likely never be recouped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I think the people here that don't like Fehr think that he ruined MLB (I happen to agree) and that his proposals on behalf of the players aren't based in economic reality. I also don't think he minds taking this into the courts because he hates the idea of a salary cap. Again, he is not being realistic.
See, this is where my disconnect lies: I really couldn't care less about MLB, or watching any baseball for that matter. I don't have any of this preexisting animus toward Fehr, and am only going on the basis of this specific lockout and CBA negotiation. Hell, I'm not even that concerned with the last negotiation, because it honestly has little bearing on present day (other than a basic framework within which to work).

As far as economic reality, well, reality is based on perception after all.


Last edited by RedMenace: 12-18-2012 at 01:23 PM.
RedMenace is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:17 PM
  #228
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
So "make whole" isn't a give on the owners' side?
My understanding is that "make whole" is solely in reference to existing contracts. Contracts that would otherwise have to be restructured under a new CBA.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:18 PM
  #229
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,379
vCash: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Correct but they are working people who have a talent that many people want to see. They don't owe the owners the right to exploit that talent for whatever price they name. Hockey is their job. Most people want to maximize the income earned from their job. Why is it okay for billionaire owners to seek maximum benefit but not the players? For the players hockey is their livelihood. For owners their franchises are very expensive toys.
But not enough people want to see. There's the rub. If the NHL had sky-high ratings, arenas were being packed everywhere and you didn't have to give tickets away in a lot of places...sure, pay the players whatever they want. Right now the the sport doesn't have enough traction in the US. If the sport doesn't bring in top dollar revenues why pay the athletes top dollar salaries? You adjust accordingly. 7%.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:18 PM
  #230
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Presumably they will play hockey again. At that point they will do the same job for a smaller percentage of a smaller pot. Most employees wouldn't want to do that.
That's life. I've lost a job before because I made too much money for the position. Schiesse happens.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:23 PM
  #231
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
It's an entirely different topic, but a lot of the resentment of unions in the U.S. starts with public employee unions and their political power, which is a big conflict of interest. There is a good deal of unhappiness that remains regarding the auto bailout as well where the auto unions were "made whole" and investors who legally should have been first in line got the shaft.

I think the people here that don't like Fehr think that he ruined MLB (I happen to agree) and that his proposals on behalf of the players aren't based in economic reality. I also don't think he minds taking this into the courts because he hates the idea of a salary cap. Again, he is not being realistic.
The auto "bailout" was a loan which has been paid back with interest. The investors were going to lose anyway because hired gun CEOs ran the companies into bankruptcy. The difference is that many, many jobs were saved. I have a close friend who works for the state as an engineer with 20 years tenure. He has taken hit after hit in terms of wage and benefit cuts with no end in site. This trend is fueled by low information voters who are afraid someone is going to get something that they aren't.

Capsized is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:24 PM
  #232
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,379
vCash: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMenace View Post
That's the point many people seem to miss. The PA is holding out, at this point, due to principle. That money they've lost is gone. The only thing they are good at is being withheld from them because a smaller group wants more money.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If an NHL owner is relying on his/her/their franchise as a primary source of income, they should NOT be in the business world. Any "losses" that franchise incurs shouldn't be a detriment to that owner/group. Losses that the players incur, on the other hand, are a detriment to that player's livelihood, and will more than likely never be recouped.
But I'll say again, the wealth of an owner, and any non-hockey assets he possesses or operates, shouldn't be a factor when negotiating a CBA. Just as the individual wealth of a player and any non-hockey assets (or marketable skills he has for that matter) shouldn't be factored in.

You don't negotiate a professional sports CBA, or any CBA, that way.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:28 PM
  #233
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post
But not enough people want to see. There's the rub. If the NHL had sky-high ratings, arenas were being packed everywhere and you didn't have to give tickets away in a lot of places...sure, pay the players whatever they want. Right now the the sport doesn't have enough traction in the US. If the sport doesn't bring in top dollar revenues why pay the athletes top dollar salaries? You adjust accordingly. 7%.
If you don't relocate the teams that are dragging the whole thing down then the players will never be able to concede enough. Of course either way, the owners will never stop asking for more and they will never stop locking out players to get more.

Capsized is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:30 PM
  #234
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
That's life. I've lost a job before because I made too much money for the position. Schiesse happens.
Why didn't you volunteer to do the job for whatever the employer was willing to pay? That is what you are asking the players to do.

Capsized is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:31 PM
  #235
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Why didn't you volunteer to do the job for whatever the employer was willing to pay? That is what you are asking the players to do.
I wasn't given the option. I was simply laid off along with the rest of the top earners. I got a new job. That's life.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:32 PM
  #236
marcel snapshot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
57 percent is ridiculous. The precedent was set by the NBA and NFL. A 50/50 split of revenue is what it should be and what everyone already knew it was going to be. That "7 percent" wasn't a "give up" by the players it was a necessity to keep the league moving forward.
By the logic of "industry precedent", the players shouldn't have agreed to a hard cap in 2004/05. The NBA had a soft cap. And while the NFL had a hard cap, it also had a massive amount of revenue sharing.

The "7 percent wasn't a give up but was necessary to keep the league moving forward" argument is viable only if you accept the league's view that NFL-type revenue sharing is not an option for buttressing the stability of losing teams and sketchy markets. And it's perfectly fine to decide that in a gate-driven league, that's not an option - but you can't then turn around and cherry-pick your favorite pieces of "industry standard" CBAs if your league is an outlier in terms of revenue sharing.


Last edited by marcel snapshot: 12-18-2012 at 01:35 PM. Reason: typo
marcel snapshot is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:35 PM
  #237
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post
But I'll say again, the wealth of an owner, and any non-hockey assets he possesses or operates, shouldn't be a factor when negotiating a CBA. Just as the individual wealth of a player and any non-hockey assets (or marketable skills he has for that matter) shouldn't be factored in.

You don't negotiate a professional sports CBA, or any CBA, that way.
Nobody forced owners to buy hockey franchises in places like Arizona. They wanted the toy so bad that they ignored the fact that it was a stupid decision to buy it. Now that they have made that stupid decision they want people with less to take the hit so that they can continue to play with their toy.

Capsized is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:37 PM
  #238
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
The best offer would have come before Sept 15 had the PA wanted to actually negotiate. They could have had everything the NHL has offered (and still willing to give) and then some (some escrow protection as things are stepped down or for a temporary decrease in revenue during the CBA term etc). And done it all while not costing the players hundreds of millions they will never get back.

Yet here we are and Fehr is still asking only for upward linkage and various schemes to have money going to the players outside the system.
Really? Go look at what Bettman had on the table in September and what was put on the table in October and November. Even Bettman thought the September 15 deadline was BS.

Escrow protection. Escrow cap. The NBA has an escrow cap. It comes out of the PLAYERS share.

The NHL had compliance buyouts in the 2005. Was that a scheme too? The NBA has 1 amnesty buyout per team.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:38 PM
  #239
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
I'm talking about living off the earnings they already have. They all have plenty of money and are going to survive comfortably for one or two seasons if need be. If need be, they could always get a job too.
And that's why the PA had to authorize 10k a month stipends right? Because they can cope well off their previous earnings?

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:41 PM
  #240
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Really? Go look at what Bettman had on the table in September and what was put on the table in October and November. Even Bettman thought the September 15 deadline was BS.

Escrow protection. Escrow cap. The NBA has an escrow cap. It comes out of the PLAYERS share.

The NHL had compliance buyouts in the 2005. Was that a scheme too? The NBA has 1 amnesty buyout per team.
It is also interesting that all these people hate that the players hired Fehr but don't have anything to say about the owners hiring Bettman. Who has been involved in the last 3 lockouts?

Capsized is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:45 PM
  #241
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,379
vCash: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
If you don't relocate the teams that are dragging the whole thing down then the players will never be able to concede enough. Of course either way, the owners will never stop asking for more and they will never stop locking out players to get more.
How many teams do you think could be relocated successfully? Two? Three? How many more 'Winnipegs' are there out there? I don't think there are enough. Even if there are say 5, then we go from what...15 teams that are losing money to 10 teams that are losing money? IMHO 10 is still too many.

Players will always get paid as long as there's a season, and it's hard to argue that they are underpaid, or have had poor working conditions, in the modern NHL. Whether it be an average of 1.7m/y in 2003, 1.4m/y in 2005, or 2.5m/y in 2011. NHL players have always been very well compensated for their abilities and the amount attendance and TV viewers they draw in. As long as you focus on actual dollars and not the movement of percentages which is behind these arguments of principles.

My armchair solution, would be along the lines of $350m in revenue sharing, movement of perhaps two teams, and 50/50. Player salaries will probably be back up to 2.5m in about two years anyways; what we want to avoid is them being at 3m which is probably the trajectory right now. When the NHL is a $5b/year or so revenue machine then the salaries can be 3+m.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:47 PM
  #242
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I wasn't given the option. I was simply laid off along with the rest of the top earners. I got a new job. That's life.
So by that rational the players shouldn't fight for the best deal they can get?

Capsized is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:47 PM
  #243
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcel snapshot View Post
By the logic of "industry precedent", the players shouldn't have agreed to a hard cap in 2004/05. The NBA had a soft cap. And while the NFL had a hard cap, it also had a massive amount of revenue sharing.

The "7 percent wasn't a give up but was necessary to keep the league moving forward" argument is viable only if you accept the league's view that NFL-type revenue sharing is not an option for buttressing the stability of losing teams and sketchy markets. And it's perfectly fine to decide that in a gate-driven league, that's not an option - but you can't then turn around and cherry-pick your favorite pieces of "industry standard" CBAs if your league is an outlier in terms of revenue sharing.
That's fair. But the league needs a hard cap, a 50/50 split and revenue sharing to survive.

du5566* is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:48 PM
  #244
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 9,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
It is also interesting that all these people hate that the players hired Fehr but don't have anything to say about the owners hiring Bettman. Who has been involved in the last 3 lockouts?
um... the NHLPA?

Every single time.

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:49 PM
  #245
RedMenace
Zero ***** Given
 
RedMenace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Under the Bridge
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post
But I'll say again, the wealth of an owner, and any non-hockey assets he possesses or operates, shouldn't be a factor when negotiating a CBA. Just as the individual wealth of a player and any non-hockey assets (or marketable skills he has for that matter) shouldn't be factored in.

You don't negotiate a professional sports CBA, or any CBA, that way.
See, but because the public demands more transparency when it comes to businesses, an unintended side effect is that people DO take that sort of stuff into account -- at least when it comes to perception.

Now, the fact that external ventures/wealth isn't taken into account and that the only numbers we see for these teams is based on an outfit like Forbes' guesswork, is what's causing a lot of this divisiveness in the first place. The business world isn't as black and white as you're making it out to be; these owners, these groups who pay the players, they're likely all in this for other reasons* -- now whether or not those other plans pan out is an entirely different situation, but can have a massive effect on the NHL and its employees. If a person or group purchases a team to leverage a lucrative arena, land development, or other deal out of it, is it good for the League when those deals don't work out and those teams fold or relocate?

I really don't know what I'm getting at here... I'm just rambling at this point. I have no business experience at all, and a lot of these decisions and arguments just don't seem like common sense to me. I suppose I'm just tossing my thoughts out there in order to find out why I'm wrong (or right, if the case may be).

* - purely speculation on my part.

RedMenace is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:50 PM
  #246
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Why didn't you volunteer to do the job for whatever the employer was willing to pay? That is what you are asking the players to do.
If my boss offered me the choice of having my job at 12% less (what 57-50% equates to), but would give me raises in future years inline with company growth... or would lay me off and I could seek work elsewhere (and I'm vastly overpaid - I admit that (and I'm unionized)), I'd take the paycut in a heart beat.

I'd try and fight it... but the moment they laid those two options on the table, I'd take the paycut, and get back to work.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:51 PM
  #247
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
It is also interesting that all these people hate that the players hired Fehr but don't have anything to say about the owners hiring Bettman. Who has been involved in the last 3 lockouts?
Perhaps because we can look at how things are better now than they were when he took over?

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:53 PM
  #248
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
And that's why the PA had to authorize 10k a month stipends right? Because they can cope well off their previous earnings?
I'm assuming the PA fund works much like EI. You pay into EI and if the need arises, you get paid during unemployment with money that you contributed to the system.

It's their money being paid back to them I would guess and if that's the case, then they are coping off their previous earnings (and the previous earnings of retired and injured players who pay into the fund but aren't getting the stipened from it).

Ari91 is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:53 PM
  #249
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
So by that rational the players shouldn't fight for the best deal they can get?
Fight all you want, but don't whinge when you don't get it. And don't whinge about "how unfair it is" that the owners don't want to lose money in order to give you what you want. The goose that lays the golden eggs CAN be killed and 57% of the revenues to the players is the bullet that has the potential to do the deed.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:54 PM
  #250
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
If my boss offered me the choice of having my job at 12% less (what 57-50% equates to), but would give me raises in future years inline with company growth... or would lay me off and I could seek work elsewhere (and I'm vastly overpaid - I admit that (and I'm unionized)), I'd take the paycut in a heart beat.

I'd try and fight it... but the moment they laid those two options on the table, I'd take the paycut, and get back to work.
And what if your unionized job was one of a kind. That's the other thing here the players would take more than a 12% cut if the league was to dissolve and they had to play in Europe. Most people faced with that reality would take the offer.

du5566* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.