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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHLPA starts another 'disclaimer' vote

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2013, 05:41 PM
  #201
IME
Registered User
 
IME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Cloud
Country: Canada
Posts: 576
vCash: 3582
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I don't know where you're going with that, but if anything, a good case can be made that the NHL's more restricted revenue stream and similar fixed costs suggests that the NHL should have offered its players less. I made a thread a little while back asking the pro-PA crowd to tell me what the differences are that imply that NHL players should get more than their brethren in other sports, and I didn't count one single serious reply. If you can tell me what the difference is between the NHL and the NBA that implies that hockey players should get more money, kudos to you.
My point is that the entire league structure is different. Different concerns, different player movements/transactions, and different issues. It is not as simple as citing the 50/50 split and ignoring everything else. The CBA is way too complex to do that because you end up ignoring crucial clauses that also raise or lower a player's monetary compensation.

Just a quick example. Early NHL proposals had a 50/50 split, but with other clauses (make whole, pensions, etc) that 50/50 isn't really 50/50.

But to give you a quick reply, I thin they should get more because the market is willing to pay them more. The owners gave out contracts in the past two years that would pay players in excess of what they are being offered now. These negotiations are simply trying to put up more barriers in this semi-artificial market.

IME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 05:42 PM
  #202
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosehead81 View Post
Actually, the way this has gone I believe the man is capable of saying anything to get closer to his end game, whatever the hell that is.
And that's exactly my point. Bettman saying that wouldn't get him any closer to this end game, just the opposite.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 05:44 PM
  #203
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Has the NHL ever actually said this is our final offer? Honest question, the league has only said that the current offer will be off the table if NHLPA doesn't agree. But final offer?
Nope. They'd said "this is pretty much the best we can do". But invited the PA to discuss tweaks here and there.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 05:46 PM
  #204
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Yes, those are mutually exclusive from NHL's point of view.

Everytime a GM gives a player a grossly overpaid contract, the "extra" money comes out of the pockets of other players because the players get fixed % of the revenues. It doesn't make the league itself any healthier/less healthy.

NHL is claiming that players get too much of the revenues collectively, they don't care about individual contracts (except for the very long, heavily front-loaded contracts which circumvent the cap rules)

NHLPA can argue in the court that by Bettman's alleged admission, NHL's lock-out is only about trying to fix the mistakes of some stupid GMs instead of NHL's claim it's trying to improve the health of overall team economics.
I don't know how to argue this with you. 5-10 GMs believe they're paying too much for their players because they made "stupid decisions." All GMs are incentivized to make stupid financial decisions if they want to compete, or else you become the 2007-08 Buffalo Sabres and just watch your players walk. So when enough GMs make enough "stupid decisions" that the financial health of the game is in jeopardy, the teams collectively try to negotiate rules that hold them all more in check. That absolutely has to do with the overall financial health of the game, and it's absolutely compatible with the idea that individual GMs might have individual problems, too.

Just because it's a collective action problem doesn't mean that the individuals within it don't regret the position they're in.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 05:47 PM
  #205
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
I am not saying that the players did not lose a lot. I am just saying Fehr will try to recover as much as possible from these losses. Owners have lost a lot too.
Owners made ~300M collectively in profits last season. Players made 1.89B last season.

How can any union leader tell his members that losing 6 times more than the other side is ok? How can any union leader tell his members that losing anywhere from 500M to 750M (this missed season alone) of their money is okay when the otherside is losing 100-200M at the same time?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 05:49 PM
  #206
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IME View Post
My point is that the entire league structure is different. Different concerns, different player movements/transactions, and different issues. It is not as simple as citing the 50/50 split and ignoring everything else. The CBA is way too complex to do that because you end up ignoring crucial clauses that also raise or lower a player's monetary compensation.

Just a quick example. Early NHL proposals had a 50/50 split, but with other clauses (make whole, pensions, etc) that 50/50 isn't really 50/50.

But to give you a quick reply, I thin they should get more because the market is willing to pay them more. The owners gave out contracts in the past two years that would pay players in excess of what they are being offered now. These negotiations are simply trying to put up more barriers in this semi-artificial market.
Okay, the first paragraph of your post just listed a series of features of any league without explaining how they're different or how that difference cuts in the favor of the NHLPA.

The second paragraph stated that 50% isn't really what's on the table. I agree. Don't see the relevance.

The final para of your post stated that NHL teams are willing to pay their players more than NBA teams are. There's no evidence of that. The NBA negotiated a cap for the same damn reasons the NHL did.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 05:51 PM
  #207
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
Nope. They'd said "this is pretty much the best we can do". But invited the PA to discuss tweaks here and there.
I don't doubt you but do you have a direct quote on that?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 05:58 PM
  #208
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
I don't doubt you but do you have a direct quote on that?
Here you go, from Bettman:

Quote:
“The proposal we made (on Tuesday) was the best we could do,'' Bettman said during a news conference in Toronto. “We gave it our best shot. It is our best offer. We gave the Players Association what we had to give.

“We indicated we're prepared to look for tweaks or adjustments, but this is the deal we believe this league needs to get the games going.''
http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index...._has_made.html

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:04 PM
  #209
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I don't know how to argue this with you. 5-10 GMs believe they're paying too much for their players because they made "stupid decisions." All GMs are incentivized to make stupid financial decisions if they want to compete, or else you become the 2007-08 Buffalo Sabres and just watch your players walk.
No. They become "stupid decisions" only when you have put your team in a position that they become "stupid decisions".

Absolutely nobody/nothing forced Sabres to give Leino 4.5M per year. If some other GM was willing to offer 4.4M to Leino and you had the choice of walking out or upping that offer, you can't blame anybody but the GM who upped that offer to 4.5M.

The only reason for overpaying the likes of Leino is that you want a quick fix. That comes with a price. If the owner pressured GM to make quick fixes, the blame lies largely at the feet of the owner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
So when enough GMs make enough "stupid decisions" that the financial health of the game is in jeopardy, the teams collectively try to negotiate rules that hold them all more in check.
No, you're wrong. Players get a fixed share of the pot, so even if all GMs go stupid, it doesn't affec the overall financial health of the league because it would be balanced through escrow. But if say 20 teams were in cap hell because of stupid decisions, they would have to make panic moves and the 10 teams with smart GMs would benefit from that.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:06 PM
  #210
NJDevs26
Moderator
No more status quo?!
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,008
vCash: 50
Nick Kypreos ‏@RealKyper
Believed #NHLPA has already received 75% needed votes to file disclaimer to #NHL once again. As of now, no internal date has been set.

NJDevs26 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:10 PM
  #211
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
No, you're wrong. Players get a fixed share of the pot, so even if all GMs go stupid, it doesn't affec the overall financial health of the league because it would be balanced through escrow. But if say 20 teams were in cap hell because of stupid decisions, they would have to make panic moves and the 10 teams with smart GMs would benefit from that.
And if the player's fixed share of the pot is too high, it encourages and enables GMs to spend more than they can afford.

I'm not even sure how this makes sense in your head: you can't have a league where, collectively, all the teams can't afford to pay what they're paying, without having a bunch of individual teams that are each paying more than they can afford to be paying.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:10 PM
  #212
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
"The proposal we made (on Tuesday) was the best we could do"

Yes but that doesn't say it was the final offer.

If Ulain Bolt says 9.85 was the best he could do after Olympics 100M, does that mean he can't go faster that that?

It's semantics, I know, that but these are lawyers speaking, they have their own language and a guy like Bettman doesn't utter a single word without thinking the longer-term repercussions.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:13 PM
  #213
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
"The proposal we made (on Tuesday) was the best we could do"

Yes but that doesn't say it was the final offer.

If Ulain Bolt says 9.85 was the best he could do after Olympics 100M, does that mean he can't go faster that that?

It's semantics, I know, that but these are lawyers speaking, they have their own language and a guy like Bettman doesn't utter a single word without thinking the longer-term repercussions.
I don't even understand the point of analyzing the words one side or the other used. Don Fehr could end every meeting by saying "and a black pox on you and all your firstborn, for this is the last offer the NHLPA will ever have to make!" And if every time he said that, he came back with a better offer a week later, I'd just give him credit for being a ballsy negotiator.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:16 PM
  #214
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 16,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
I am not saying that the players did not lose a lot. I am just saying Fehr will try to recover as much as possible from these losses. Owners have lost a lot too.
If there is no season, the players lose 1.8B and the owners lose approx 250M.........so we can all understand why the PA get on twitter and act like spoiled kids....and we all know who can wait it out, longer....

BLONG7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:21 PM
  #215
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
"The proposal we made (on Tuesday) was the best we could do"

Yes but that doesn't say it was the final offer.

If Ulain Bolt says 9.85 was the best he could do after Olympics 100M, does that mean he can't go faster that that?

It's semantics, I know, that but these are lawyers speaking, they have their own language and a guy like Bettman doesn't utter a single word without thinking the longer-term repercussions.
I know. That's what I said. Those words ("this is our final offer") were never used, as far as I know.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:21 PM
  #216
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
And if the player's fixed share of the pot is too high, it encourages and enables GMs to spend more than they can afford.
Huh? How can the GMs spend more than they can afford? I assume you're talking about cap dollars, not actual dollars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I'm not even sure how this makes sense in your head: you can't have a league where, collectively, all the teams can't afford to pay what they're paying, without having a bunch of individual teams that are each paying more than they can afford to be paying.
Okay, I'll have to admit that I didn't get that one. Please clarify.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:26 PM
  #217
IME
Registered User
 
IME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Cloud
Country: Canada
Posts: 576
vCash: 3582
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Okay, the first paragraph of your post just listed a series of features of any league without explaining how they're different or how that difference cuts in the favor of the NHLPA.

The second paragraph stated that 50% isn't really what's on the table. I agree. Don't see the relevance.

The final para of your post stated that NHL teams are willing to pay their players more than NBA teams are. There's no evidence of that. The NBA negotiated a cap for the same damn reasons the NHL did.
1. I'm not going to explain the myriad of differences between basketball and hockey (is that you, Bettman?) I'm not even saying that the differences cut in favor of the PA. I just stated that they are different.

2. The misleading "50%" is relevant because while the NBA got a similar split, there are many other clauses that would skew that number up or down. Thus, saying the NHLPA players should get the same split the NBAPA got ignores the actual value of what they are being paid.

3. The evidence is the contracts the players received prior to the lockout. Of course both leagues' owners negotiate to lower spending! That doesn't change the fact that prior to the lockout, the NHL player market was higher than what your NBA proposal would give them.

IME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:26 PM
  #218
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I don't even understand the point of analyzing the words one side or the other used. Don Fehr could end every meeting by saying "and a black pox on you and all your firstborn, for this is the last offer the NHLPA will ever have to make!" And if every time he said that, he came back with a better offer a week later, I'd just give him credit for being a ballsy negotiator.
Like I said, it's semantics but when it comes to lawyers, legal cases etc., everything they say can be used against them.

This is not about me and you arguing about the value of used hockey stick, this is a billion dollar business with million dollar lawyers we're talking about. Everything counts.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:28 PM
  #219
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Huh? How can the GMs spend more than they can afford? I assume you're talking about cap dollars, not actual dollars.

Okay, I'll have to admit that I didn't get that one. Please clarify.
How can anyone spend more than they can afford? You spend money that the franchise doesn't have to spend on players. The most popular way of doing it is picking the owner's pocket, i.e., running the franchise at a loss.

You're saying the league as a whole can't afford to spend what it's putting out for players. And Gary Bettman comes along saying some individual teams are spending more than they can afford on players. And you're saying those ideas are logically incompatible. They're not. You can't have a group of 30 people losing money collectively unless a few of them are also losing money individually.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:34 PM
  #220
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Like I said, it's semantics but when it comes to lawyers, legal cases etc., everything they say can be used against them.

This is not about me and you arguing about the value of used hockey stick, this is a billion dollar business with million dollar lawyers we're talking about. Everything counts.
As long as you're making it about legality, there's nothing illegal about declaring that something is your final offer, whether it is or isn't. The law doesn't impose a requirement that people offer things that they can't afford to, and it doesn't impose a prohibition against telling the other side that you aren't willing to give more even if you are.

People keep using whatever colloquial definition of "negotiating" they have in their head and imagining a court is going to come out and say, "NHL, if you were really negotiating, you'd have offered X or Y or you wouldn't have taken so long between this offer or that offer or you'd have sat in this meeting or that meeting." The court is going do nothing of the sort. They're going to take a very liberal view of the question of whether or not each side engaged in a process - any process - designed to facilitate an agreement (any agreement) between the parties in good faith (meaning without fraud, essentially).

I absolutely, swallow-my-nut-if-I'm-wrong, drop dead guarantee you no court will find that the NHL hasn't been negotiating.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:41 PM
  #221
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IME View Post
1. I'm not going to explain the myriad of differences between basketball and hockey (is that you, Bettman?) I'm not even saying that the differences cut in favor of the PA. I just stated that they are different.

2. The misleading "50%" is relevant because while the NBA got a similar split, there are many other clauses that would skew that number up or down. Thus, saying the NHLPA players should get the same split the NBAPA got ignores the actual value of what they are being paid.

3. The evidence is the contracts the players received prior to the lockout. Of course both leagues' owners negotiate to lower spending! That doesn't change the fact that prior to the lockout, the NHL player market was higher than what your NBA proposal would give them.

Okay, so here's where we stand. I stated that the NHL offered the same deal (in terms of the revenue split) that the NBA offered. You said this isn't relevant because the NBA is different from the NHL. I said in what way is the NBA different from the NHL that tends to cut in favor of the players. I still haven't heard one. Somehow you're suggesting that the NHL player market is higher than the NBA player market, but you cite zilch for that idea. You also state that the current NHL offer isn't 50%, which I agree with, but has no relevance here in terms of whether or not the NBA and NHL have comparable financials, and hence, whether the NBA's deal is a good comparison to judge the fairness of the NHL's offers.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:43 PM
  #222
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
How can anyone spend more than they can afford? You spend money that the franchise doesn't have to spend on players. The most popular way of doing it is picking the owner's pocket, i.e., running the franchise at a loss.
So who decides what the team can afford to spend? GMs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
You're saying the league as a whole can't afford to spend what it's putting out for players. And Gary Bettman comes along saying some individual teams are spending more than they can afford on players. And you're saying those ideas are logically incompatible. They're not. You can't have a group of 30 people losing money collectively unless a few of them are also losing money individually.
Did Gary Bettman say that?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:46 PM
  #223
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So who decides what the team can afford to spend? GMs?
Does it matter? They're employed to perform in the owner's interest. Either the owner decides or, if he's a hands-off guy, maybe the GM decides, but either way, they're supposed to have the same interests, and if they don't, one gets fired.

Quote:
Did Gary Bettman say that?
Essentially.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:55 PM
  #224
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 30,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So who decides what the team can afford to spend? GMs? Did Gary Bettman say that?
Where exactly are you going with this train Pepper? Its common knowledge Ownership sets budgets, and Gary Bettman makes a lot of nebulous comments that are "essentially" meaningless as is this case with the one that haseoke alluded to & confirmed in duplicate.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 07:08 PM
  #225
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
As long as you're making it about legality, there's nothing illegal about declaring that something is your final offer, whether it is or isn't. The law doesn't impose a requirement that people offer things that they can't afford to, and it doesn't impose a prohibition against telling the other side that you aren't willing to give more even if you are.
I wasn't talking about court cases, I was talking about this board where people keep repeating "NHL has made their final offers one after another".

Pepper 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 04:13 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.