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, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

NHLPA Given Authority to File Disclaimer of Interest

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-22-2012, 01:31 AM
  #101
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,059
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Answering my "complaint" were you? Do you not read the articles & reports posted in the sticky section atop the BOH Board? Its not "my complaint", its an observation, an opinion espoused by those who have been in the room, witnessed the breakdowns. I dont have any skin in this game. Nothing whatsoever to do with the NHLPA nor the NHL, any of its member teams.... what about you pepty? Do you have a business relationship with an NHL club, the league itself, any of its sponsors, a sub-contractor perhaps?
Are you seriously asking me this? I wouldn't have expected that of you killion.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:32 AM
  #102
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 30,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
If your scenario happens they would not only not have a union, they wouldn't have a league.

Anyone believing the owners would pay out gigantic anti-trust penalties while having no revenue and then decide to continue running the league for players to thrive in under conditions that are worse than the ones that gave players more than 70% of revenue might be surprised when the owners say they're not all that interested.

I think you might be surprised that businessman would walk away from an industry that can yield $2, 3+ billion in revenue.

If you leave money on the table, it's guaranteed that someone will come along and take it.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:34 AM
  #103
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
Then was your point entirely irrelevant to begin with?
Well then, why are any of us hockey fans? We're only supporting the continued abuse of these poor boys who've been forced into this profession by their parents. Let's set them free, and simply not buy the League's product any more. If there's no league, there's no where for the parents to want to force them to play.

Time to stop the abuse of young men forced to play hockey!!

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:34 AM
  #104
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
If this is what Fehr is selling. then the players are living in a dream world.

Under this scenario the league would contract sharply. There would be many fewer jobs and thought the top player pay would go up the rest of the players would take whatever they were offered and many would never find a job.
.
Instead of a growing game there would be a smaller footprint as the league contracted and it wold be harder to get lucrative broadcasting rights.

it might not kill the league but it would be a blow and the players would pay the price for many years to come.
I don't think the NHL needs the NHLPA to help them kill the league. The NHL is doing a pretty good job of that all by itself.

The NHLPA didn't put losing franchises with incompetent management in hopeless markets. The NHL did that.

Nobody makes the NHL look stupid as well as the NHL does that itself.

Just open any American newspaper and read about it . . . or not.

Mork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:35 AM
  #105
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 30,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
If this is what Fehr is selling. then the players are living in a dream world.

Under this scenario the league would contract sharply. There would be many fewer jobs and thought the top player pay would go up the rest of the players would take whatever they were offered and many would never find a job.
.
Instead of a growing game there would be a smaller footprint as the league contracted and it wold be harder to get lucrative broadcasting rights.

it might not kill the league but it would be a blow and the players would pay the price for many years to come.
How small of a league?

I disagree with these dire predictions because the league has survived at a size larger than six for decades before we got to things like salary caps or the national TV deal that's keeping the NHL in business.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:37 AM
  #106
mitchy22
Registered User
 
mitchy22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You see, I'm not really convinced that it would be worse for players.

What exactly do unions provide to players any longer? I understand why they were needed back when Lindsay and Flood were fighting against the reserve clauses and other ploys by owners to restrict their options, forever. We're past those days now and the court system is much more transparent. With players earning millions, they actually can afford legal counsel to keep owners on the right side of the antitrust laws.

In return for giving up a lot of salary under a collective bargaining process overall, what do players get in return for being unionized? Many of the things that unions fight for are interpretations of player rights when a gray area of CBA is exposed. It seems you only need a union to police the CBA?

Let's say we actually get down to a fully free market, how about this...

The idea of an SPC or anything that comes along with. Any protection for a contract built into the CBA is immediately gone and has to be individually bargained for.

No guaranteed arbitration. You want to sue your team? Have fun in regular courts or getting them to agree to binding arbitration. Contracts will no longer be automatically compared when players are in different markets. Market price is no longer based on a closed market system. This hurts and helps players, but I'd suggest it helps top talent more than it helps average players (just like in the real market.)

No guaranteed rights to not be sent down without automatic repercussions to the team. Are you a 3rd or 4th liner who still wants to play in North America? Guess what, the AHL is only a step away, and don't think the team can't make a 2-way contract.

Related to the above, players can be fired at any time for lack of performance. Welcome to the real world. The cream of the crop might be able to get guaranteed contracts. Teams aren't going to insure the contracts of every player through a pool anymore (or it surely won't be the same kind of situation.)

Players not covered as a perk can insure their own contracts; NHL teams may simply insure for the loss of certain players. The whole idea of insurance is now split into the two different parts of the equation. A player's performance can now be insured by a team. Teams would insure against the risk of losing special players, maybe even before they're playing for the team. It's amazing what you can insure these days.

ELC, get your ELC here! While the top players will be heavily competed for, they're also going to have to deal with less of a guarantee for many players. Maxed out 1st round (what's a round? ) aren't going to be the same. You might have a team blow money to secure a "1st round pick" for 5 years, but that kid can also get fired if he doesn't pan out. On the flip side, the second that contract is up, we're back to full free agency.

I'd suggest that shorter contracts will be the norm for the average player, especially now that NHL teams can "draft" anyone they wish with dollars.

The NHL will still have some rules in place regarding roster management, but they're going to look a lot different.

I'm not even scratching the surface. Trust me, the NHLPA doesn't want to end up not being the NHLPA again when this is all over. I'm not sure how the rights of the trade association differ at this point in time, but neither side wants to face this in court. The reason why you have these agreements is for some kind of colluded consistency for a set number of years. Yes, that's collusion between the NHL and NHLPA. Just like the international agreements are collusion between leagues.

Truly free trade? It wouldn't have transfer agreements. A player could quit or get fired. A player could hold out and then have a court force damages on them (though I'd doubt they'd force performance since that's pretty much close to indentured servitude.) Everything has a lot more uncertainty. In a riskier environment, you're not going to see a lot of the types of contracts the players are guaranteed. You'll also see a handful of teams jump to the top while a separate batch are eliminated.

Eliminated teams...less NHL jobs. Takes time to get that equilibrium back, so plenty of players will have just taken a paycut even if several get bigger contracts from the handful of teams that can afford payrolls above the previous cap. Maybe a new league even opens up. Maybe AHL players get bounced to other leagues. Maybe ECHL players get bounced altogether. Who knows how this would have an effect on the college hockey programs in the United States? I'd also suggest that the cost of keeping players in the CHL when the PHPA's next agreement comes up just skyrocketed, and you might end up seeing a lot more 18 and 19 year olds in the NHL. That might push some older players out of the league early, as well.

But yeah, I could fill all of HFBoards' server space with all of the potential scenarios. I'll just stop now though. I'll be utterly shocked if the two sides don't eventually come to an agreement, even if it's a year down the road.

,
Mitch


Last edited by mitchy22: 12-22-2012 at 01:50 AM. Reason: brain farts, typos, etc.
mitchy22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:38 AM
  #107
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Are you seriously asking me this?
So are you pleadin the fifth? One two tree for fift?

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:41 AM
  #108
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 30,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
There is no way that 97% of players want to file a DOI, hell I bet less than 50% do.

The NHLPA does, however, want to use the treat of DOI to get a better deal.
That was the result of the vote. Or do you have better sources than TSN or LeBrun?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
No one should ever say that being a hockey player is easy or that it's something that just anyone can do, and it's not a soft life. But hey man, you make it sound as though they're suffering miners working in coal mines from 90 years ago. God bless the hockey coal miners.

Hockey players aren't forced into playing hockey,... get out there son, sacrifice for your family, play hockey to help support the family... Hockey players are doing what they love, what they dedicated themselves to do. And in this day and age, they earn very good money, have excellent benefits, and the like. Yes, it's difficult, tough, and all that, but it's not generally a life chosen because they're forced into it due to life circumstances beyond their control.
The people who are the best at doing something that garners billions in revenue, be it movie actors, singers, bands, athletes, benefit to a far greater degree from that product because they are that product.

It's not up to us to decide what anyone earns in a salary, but what they indeed get is based on supply and demand--- except that sports leagues have always attempted to retain more of that money through artificial restraints (reserve clauses, drafts and so on).

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:41 AM
  #109
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
How could this be advantageous to the players in any way?

If two years are lost then many teams will also be lost , careers and jobs would go down the drain and the owners would find some way to reconstitute a probably smaller league under a new system that would not be so kind to players..
I don't think Fehr actually wants to permanently kill the union. He believes in unions.

What he wants is an accommodation where the players maximize their earnings but the league remains a stable source of employment. Essentially, he wants league profits to be just enough to keep it going, and revenues shared around so that all 700 union jobs are kept intact.

BUT, on the other hand, if he thinks that the players would be better off without a union than with the deal the league is prepared to give him, then he may very well choose for the players to go without a union.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:44 AM
  #110
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,837
vCash: 500
If the existing contracts are tied to a valid CBA, this tactic by the players wont end well for them. Their antitrust suits may fall short of their lofty expectations. Unsigned players like Subban will get nothing. Given the losses incurred by the players to date, I dont see how they can come out ahead in this. Important to note that the executive board of the PA doesnt need to disclaim anything, they are in charge, they can fire Fehr anytime or vote against any of his proposals. Fehr could disclaim or just quit. Therefore, a judge will not look upon this DOI filing favourably given that it was NOT the intent of the law. Decertification is what the players need to do. DOI is just a stall tactic that is transparent. So decertify right now and get it over with. Or maybe thats just a bluff? How much have you lost so far? Bluffing to get what exactly? If the players so against the cap, watch teams start to fold. The bottom 20% need a wake up call.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:45 AM
  #111
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The people who are the best at doing something that garners billions in revenue, be it movie actors, singers, bands, athletes, benefit to a far greater degree from that product because they are that product.

It's not up to us to decide what anyone earns in a salary, but what they indeed get is based on supply and demand--- except that sports leagues have always attempted to retain more of that money through artificial restraints (reserve clauses, drafts and so on).
Why does the NHL have to be any different from the rest? Is the NHL a richer league which can afford to pay its players without the limits of other leagues or at higher % of revenue than other leagues? Why does the NHL have to be the sacrificial league lamb for the further benefit of its players?

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:45 AM
  #112
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchy22 View Post
Let's say we actually get down to a fully free market, how about this...

The idea of an SPC or anything that comes along with. Any protection for a contract built into the CBA is immediately gone and has to be individually bargained for.

No guaranteed arbitration. You want to sue your team? Have fun in regular courts or getting them to agree to binding arbitration. Contracts will no longer be automatically compared when players are in different markets. Market price is no longer based on a closed market system. This hurts and helps players, but I'd suggest it helps top talent more than it helps average players (just like in the real market.)

No guaranNteed rights to not be sent down without automatic repercussions to the team. Are you a 3rd or 4th liner who still wants to play in North America? Guess what, the AHL is only a step away, and don't think the team can't make a 2-way contract.

Related to the above, players can be fired at any time for lack of performance. Welcome to the real world. The cream of the crop might be able to get guaranteed contracts. Teams aren't going to insure the contracts of every player through a pool anymore (or it surely won't be the same kind of situation.)

Players not covered as a perk can insure their own contracts; NHL teams may simply insure for the loss of certain players. The whole idea of insurance is now split into the two different parts of the equation. A player's performance can now be insured by a team. Teams would insure against the risk of losing special players, maybe even before they're playing for the team. It's amazing what you can insure these days.

ELC, get your ELC here! While the top players will be heavily competed for, they're also going to have to deal with less of a guarantee for many players. Maxed out 1st round (what's a round? ) aren't going to be the same. You might have a team blow money to secure a 1st round pick for 5 years, but that kid can also get fired if he doesn't pan out. On the flip side, the second that contract is up, we're back to full free agency.

I'd suggest that shorter contracts will be the norm for the average player, especially now that NHL teams can "draft" anyone they wish with dollars.

The NHL will still have some rules in place regarding roster management, but they're going to look a lot different.

I'm not even scratching the surface. Trust me, the NHLPA doesn't want to end up not being the NHLPA again when this is all over. I'm not sure how the rights of the trade association differ at this point in time, but neither side wants to face this in court. The reason why you have these agreements is for some kind of colluded consistency for a set number of years. Yes, that's collusion between the NHL and NHLPA. Just like the international agreements are collusion between leagues.

Truly free trade? It wouldn't have transfer agreements. A player could quit or get fired. A player could hold out and then have a court force performance. Everything has a lot more uncertainty. In a riskier environment, you're not going to see a lot of the types of contracts the players are guaranteed. You'll also see a handful of teams jump to the top while a separate batch are eliminated.

Eliminated teams...less NHL jobs. Takes time to get that equilibrium back, so plenty of players will have just taken a paycut even if several get a bigger contracts from the handful of teams that can afford payrolls above the previous cap. Maybe a new league even opens up. Maybe AHL players get bounced to other leagues. Maybe ECHL players get bounced altogether. Who knows how this would have an effect on the college hockey programs in the United States. I'd also suggest that the cost of keeping players in the CHL when the PHPA's next agreement comes up just skyrocketed, and you might end up seeing a lot more 18 and 19 year olds in the NHL. That might push some older players out of the league early, as well.

But yeah, I got fill all of HFBoards' server space with all of the potential scenarios. I'll just stop now though. I'll be utterly shocked if the two sides don't eventually come to an agreement, even if it's a year down the road.

,
Mitch
Player agents will negotiate all these things in most contracts.

If player contracts were like other employment contracts, the player could just as easily quit and walk across the street to take a better offer from another team. It works both ways. Employees quit to take better offers every day.

That's why player agents and management will negotiate terms that limit movement during the term of the contract, and even call for [GASP] guaranteed contracts.

NFL players don't get guaranteed contracts because their bargaining agent, the union, collectively bargained them out of their CBA. Lotta good that did NFL players. NFL players would be also be better off without a union at all than the fluff-ball they have negotiating for them now.

Mork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:48 AM
  #113
Freudian
Classless IMO
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 32,809
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think you might be surprised that businessman would walk away from an industry that can yield $2, 3+ billion in revenue.

If you leave money on the table, it's guaranteed that someone will come along and take it.
If the industry would generate more than that in costs, it would be very easy to walk away. I know this because a little Twinkie told me.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:53 AM
  #114
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
It's a legitimate question for me, pepty. What exactly do unions provide at this point that make it worth accepting the artificial salary restraint systems (including the contracting and movement rights)?

I may be overlooking something important.
What you're overlooking is what we're talking about, a CBA. Without a CBA the league wouldn't survive very long.

There would be no draft, no cap, no rev sharing, and no max number of contracts a team could have, which would cause many teams to fold. I know you say you want that, but it wouldn't just stop at a few teams. It would continue till there were only a few profitable teams left.

There would also be no min salary, no cap floor, and no guaranteed contracts, no standard benefits for health and travel ect. which the players would hate and would prolly lead to Europeans staying home.

So now there are only a few teams left which will kill fan interest because no one want's to see TOR, NYR and MTL play each other 41 times a year. Now those teas can't afford all the contracts they handed out so they have to make cuts. ect. ect. ect.

IMO, the league would fold within 10-20 years w/o a CBA.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:59 AM
  #115
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 30,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchy22 View Post
Let's say we actually get down to a fully free market, how about this...
Hi Mitch, good to see some "what if" propositions. I think there are pros and cons to every system, and to varying degrees depending on who you are.

What I will say though is that agents will have a great deal of information on player salaries and contract structures. I don't think anything stops them from talking to peers to and making sure they're looking out for their clients.

Quote:
The idea of an SPC or anything that comes along with. Any protection for a contract built into the CBA is immediately gone and has to be individually bargained for.
Yes, but nothing says that you cannot bargain for it, or even MORE than is allowed right now. An elite guy can demand housing, a yacht, a piece of the team.......

Quote:
No guaranteed arbitration. You want to sue your team? Have fun in regular courts or getting them to agree to binding arbitration. Contracts will no longer be automatically compared when players are in different markets. Market price is no longer based on a closed market system. This hurts and helps players, but I'd suggest it helps top talent more than it helps average players (just like in the real market.)
No need for arbitration because everyone will be a free agent. I agree that it will help top players the most, and then it will trickle down.
Quote:
No guaranteed rights to not be sent down without automatic repercussions to the team. Are you a 3rd or 4th liner who still wants to play in North America? Guess what, the AHL is only a step away, and don't think the team can't make a 2-way contract.
They cannot make it a two-way contract unless you sign a two-way contract. If I were an agent, I'd always have the 'opt out' clause for my client, in case he doesn't care about the rest of the contract and just wants out.

Quote:
Related to the above, players can be fired at any time for lack of performance. Welcome to the real world. The cream of the crop might be able to get guaranteed contracts. Teams aren't going to insure the contracts of every player through a pool anymore (or it surely won't be the same kind of situation.)
Some players, who have performance clauses and/or no guarantees will certainly be susceptible. How about players who build in bonuses for exceeding performance metrics? What about clauses that say, sure, you can let me go, but you must pay me for the next X months, or a severance pay? Who can get what will depend on the player's perceived market value and how badly a team needs that player. Agents will have to do a much better job than the boiler template deals now.

Quote:
Players not covered as a perk can insure their own contracts; NHL teams may simply insure for the loss of certain players. The whole idea of insurance is now split into the two different parts of the equation. A player's performance can now be insured by a team. Teams would insure against the risk of losing special players, maybe even before they're playing for the team. It's amazing what you can insure these days.
Of course. NHL teams wouldn't insure a contract unless it's guaranteed. This will affect both sides.

Quote:
ELC, get your ELC here! While the top players will be heavily competed for, they're also going to have to deal with less of a guarantee for many players. Maxed out 1st round (what's a round? ) aren't going to be the same. You might have a team blow money to secure a 1st round pick for 5 years, but that kid can also get fired if he doesn't pan out. On the flip side, the second that contract is up, we're back to full free agency.
There will be no draft, so teams will have to scramble to find prospects to sign. Elite prospects will get a lot more money much sooner.

Quote:
I'd suggest that shorter contracts will be the norm for the average player, especially now that NHL teams can "draft" anyone they wish with dollars.
I think we'll see a split. Very long contracts once a team knows they have someone special and they will try to lock that player up offering security, guaranteed, over what they might get on the fully open market. I'd think GMs would offer 1-2 yr deals to the lower level players.

Quote:
The NHL will still have some rules in place regarding roster management, but they're going to look a lot different.
The rules cannot affect how labor is priced nor put limits on contract length, structure.


Quote:
Truly free trade? It wouldn't have transfer agreements. A player could quit or get fired. A player could hold out and then have a court force damages on them (though I'd doubt they'd force performance since that's pretty much close to indentured servitude.) Everything has a lot more uncertainty. In a riskier environment, you're not going to see a lot of the types of contracts the players are guaranteed. You'll also see a handful of teams jump to the top while a separate batch are eliminated.
This might be good.

I think some teams may be eliminated. I'm not convinced it's more than the teams that are massively struggling right now.

Quote:
Eliminated teams...less NHL jobs. Takes time to get that equilibrium back, so plenty of players will have just taken a paycut even if several get bigger contracts from the handful of teams that can afford payrolls above the previous cap. Maybe a new league even opens up. Maybe AHL players get bounced to other leagues. Maybe ECHL players get bounced altogether. Who knows how this would have an effect on the college hockey programs in the United States. I'd also suggest that the cost of keeping players in the CHL when the PHPA's next agreement comes up just skyrocketed, and you might end up seeing a lot more 18 and 19 year olds in the NHL. That might push some older players out of the league early, as well.
I like an equilibrium that is set by free market conditions. I may not know what it will look like, but I know I will like it.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 02:00 AM
  #116
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 30,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
If the industry would generate more than that in costs, it would be very easy to walk away. I know this because a little Twinkie told me.

Of course, but you're convinced that it's about costs, and I disagree. I think the teams that have a revenue:cost issue aren't the majority.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 02:00 AM
  #117
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
What you're overlooking is what we're talking about, a CBA. Without a CBA the league wouldn't survive very long.

There would be no draft, no cap, no rev sharing, and no max number of contracts a team could have, which would cause many teams to fold. I know you say you want that, but it wouldn't just stop at a few teams. It would continue till there were only a few profitable teams left.

There would also be no min salary, no cap floor, and no guaranteed contracts, no standard benefits for health and travel ect. which the players would hate and would prolly lead to Europeans staying home.

So now there are only a few teams left which will kill fan interest because no one want's to see TOR, NYR and MTL play each other 41 times a year. Now those teas can't afford all the contracts they handed out so they have to make cuts. ect. ect. ect.

IMO, the league would fold within 10-20 years w/o a CBA.
Oh, so doomsday.

There would be a CBA in the future - just one that provides maximum benefits to the players.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 02:02 AM
  #118
Octavius
Next #18?
 
Octavius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 378
vCash: 500
NHL can still restructure into a single company and the NHLPA anti-trust lawsuits go out the window. It wouldn't be such a big step as the NHL already owns all the brands and has the leadership structure in place. And they can institute the draft back as internal rules.


Plus a lot of you are mistaken if you think that the players who would lose their jobs if some franchises folded could find easy work in Europe. Those players aren't any better then their local counterparts now; plus they aren't familiar with the system being played as much, as they haven't grown up with it.

Octavius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 02:03 AM
  #119
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
What you're overlooking is what we're talking about, a CBA. Without a CBA the league wouldn't survive very long.

There would be no draft, no cap, no rev sharing, and no max number of contracts a team could have, which would cause many teams to fold. I know you say you want that, but it wouldn't just stop at a few teams. It would continue till there were only a few profitable teams left.

There would also be no min salary, no cap floor, and no guaranteed contracts, no standard benefits for health and travel ect. which the players would hate and would prolly lead to Europeans staying home.

So now there are only a few teams left which will kill fan interest because no one want's to see TOR, NYR and MTL play each other 41 times a year. Now those teas can't afford all the contracts they handed out so they have to make cuts. ect. ect. ect.

IMO, the league would fold within 10-20 years w/o a CBA.
Very interesting concept.

If the NHL needs the union to exist, then it should stop treating the union like the enemy and start treating it like a valued business partner.

Who needs the lockout after lockout after lockout that the NHL gives the union?

Mork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 02:03 AM
  #120
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 30,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Why does the NHL have to be any different from the rest? Is the NHL a richer league which can afford to pay its players without the limits of other leagues or at higher % of revenue than other leagues? Why does the NHL have to be the sacrificial league lamb for the further benefit of its players?
It's just an economic reality. Why the other unions choose to 'play along' may simply be a matter of evolution. We didn't always have unions. We didn't always have strikes. Or lockouts. Or caps and linkage.

This just may be the next step in the evolution of sports business in NA. If we still had the reserve clause, no one would know what a lockout is.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 02:05 AM
  #121
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
IMO, the league would fold within 10-20 years w/o a CBA.
Thats a pretty dire forecast Ragamuffin. The NHL doesnt operate in a complete vacuum. Any number of systems & templates can be applied absent a CBA that would even the playing field to some degree, be it voluntary or mandated. All kinds of interesting possibilities actually.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 02:05 AM
  #122
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I like an equilibrium that is set by free market conditions. I may not know what it will look like, but I know I will like it.
This is growing on me too, Fugu, but more importantly I think the players might be thinking the same way too. More power to them.

Mork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 02:09 AM
  #123
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 30,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octavius View Post
NHL can still restructure into a single company and the NHLPA anti-trust lawsuits go out the window. It wouldn't be such a big step as the NHL already owns all the brands and has the leadership structure in place. And they can institute the draft back as internal rules.


Plus a lot of you are mistaken if you think that the players who would lose their jobs if some franchises folded could find easy work in Europe. Those players aren't any better then their local counterparts now; plus they aren't familiar with the system being played as much, as they haven't grown up with it.

It would be far more difficult for the NHL to simply restructure into a single business entity. How you'd valuate 30 separate businesses, get their owners to let a central authority run their teams, leases, their contracts, employees and so on....and they may run into antitrust laws in this instance as well. MLS was set up this way from it's inception, I don't think it's easy to do with 30 separate legal entities.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 02:10 AM
  #124
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Would stripping away the league's ability to act as a collusive whole have any impact on the ability of team's to ignore the head office and relocate willy-nilly?

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 02:11 AM
  #125
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octavius View Post
NHL can still restructure into a single company and the NHLPA anti-trust lawsuits go out the window. It wouldn't be such a big step as the NHL already owns all the brands and has the leadership structure in place. And they can institute the draft back as internal rules.
The creation of this type of monopoly might give rise to an even stronger anti-trust suit. Monopolies and oligopolies are what U.S. anti-trust laws were designed to address in the first place.

Quote:
Plus a lot of you are mistaken if you think that the players who would lose their jobs if some franchises folded could find easy work in Europe. Those players aren't any better then their local counterparts now; plus they aren't familiar with the system being played as much, as they haven't grown up with it.
Big deal. If some teams fold and some players are displaced, that's the way the market works. Maybe after the weak teams are eliminated, new stronger teams will grow elsewhere. Teams losing money in losing markets don't help anyone.

Mork is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:26 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.