sibiriak

I'm afraid you are absolutely right. It was fairly clear to any bystander that he players were likely to lose in a showdown ith the owners, if only because of the vast disparity in resources. But being pro athletes, the players HATE to lose. In anything. And they all believe that they lost in the last lockout. So I fear this is no longer about the money on the players part. This is about victory. At this point, even if the owners accept the players proposal today, the players will never recoupe the lost salaries. The rational reasons for the players stubborness are exausted. But this is not about the money. Probably never was.

+1 Except, Bettman doesn't get pads

Reading this, I can't help thinking that Forbes data set is seriously flawed. Economics 101 would teach you that the value of a financial asset is roughly proportional to the income that this asset provides, with some caveats. If that is true, then Forbes numbers make no sense. Teams that lose money should not be worth anything,let alone $145 mil. This suggests to me that not all income that the hockey teams provde to their owners is accounted for here. There must be some creative accounting going on. And even if we accepted these numbers, still, the league made $250 mil. in income. ($8 mil.+ per team). That suggests either expanded revenue sharing or a drastic contraction of the money losing teams are in order. Since teams that lose money are still spending more on salaries than they have to due to the cap floor, the problem is not labor costs, but irresponsible financial management.

Nice to see when a guy sticks to his word ,... not! http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410001

Based on my personal impressions from watching NHL, KHL, AHL, Czech league and Swedish league. And I have been watching hockey for about 40 years now, so I have some basis for comparison. It's a fair point. One thing to kep in mind, it seems that the emotional value of Olympic participation to the players is very high, much higher than any costs the owners incur because of the Olympic stoppage. So it is likely that the Olympic participation will be included in the new CBA, as it costs the owners little as a concession, and means a lot to the players.

Whatever the IIHF policy is, I have really hard time imagining the IIHF barring Russian stars from playing in Sochi (Russia) Olympics. The Russian hockey federation will have a very strong position as a host. I just don't see the IIHF messing with them on this issue.

KHL is not as good as the NHL, but is ways better than AHL or any other league. And a salary that's 60% of NHL is actually a net after taxes. If you take into account all the federal ,state, and local taxes that the NHL players pay, the salaries are actually about equal. And they can play at home and will have no problem getting permission to play at the Worlds and the Olympics.

He is contracted to play for the Caps in exchange for 9.7 mil. (IIRC) per year. If the Caps won't pay him the agreed salary, why should he be bound by the contract?

If the players have the goal to improve their position in a new CBA, then whyever would they submit any proposal that makes their position worse? What if the owners accept one of those offers? When Fehr "done it before" did he submit a proposal that was worse for his players than the status quo, and then called a strike demanding better conditions than the status quo? That wouldn't make any sense. And if the players did plan something like that, it would have become known to the other side, there's no way 900 people can keep a secret.

This alleged strategy would be in order to get what? If they were already playing under the old CBA, then the strike would only make sense to get something better for the players than the old CBA. But all players proposals so far were worse for them than the old CBA, they are not asking for more, just hoping to give up less. And in that case the ploy you allege doesn't make any logical sense.

The PA is on record wanting to play under the terms of the expired CBA until a new one is worked out. In any event, in order to strike, they would have to have an existing CBA. Otherwise there's nothing to strike against.

It seems that your definition of a "free market" is "when there's no union". That is called a "right to work" state or industry. A free market is a market that is as free as possible from any government involvement and where there's no monopoly or collusion between producers, as well as no labor unions. As I pointed out, you can't cherry pick what elements of a free market you allow in your hypothetical union-free NHL. If you mean to say that if the NHL would exist just as it is except there would be no union. then the following would have to happen. 1. Since there's no union, then it is illegal for the owners to collectively set labor conditions and salaries in any way, shape or form. Therefore, the draft is illegal. The salary cap is illegal. The RFA status is illegal, after the contract is over, all players are UFA. No waivers rules. All contracts are legally binding, and the only way to cut a player salary is by mutual consent, or through courts. No escrow, that's illegal. No minimum salary, no maximum salary for any type of player. The end result of all of this, would be as follows: The top talent would make way more money than they do now. The 3-4th liners might make less. The owners would bid the salaries up much faster than now, with overall players' share of the revenue climbing to 65-70% as it did before the last lockout, when there was no salary cap. Top rookies will make 10 times what they make now with rookie minimum. If you believe what the owners claim about their financial troubles, most of the teams would have to go bankrupt under those conditions. Therefore no NHL would be in existence now to even have a lockout. 2. If you take your fantasy a step further and remove anti-trust laws from the equation, then the NHL would be able to set salary cap and do draft etc, but that situation already existed (in most part) before the 2004 lockout. The owners still managed to spend themselves into financial trouble. The only relevant differences the existence of the union and the CBA made then, were the minimum salary, and the fact that the players didn't have to stay indentured servants for their teams forever, but got to become free agents eventually. Is that what you would like to see gone? Remember, that even in that hypothetical situation, the top players would still have the option of playing overseas, so the owners couldn't really lowball them too much.

I think that you are being deliberately obtuse, to avoid admitting that your idea of dissolving the NHLPA is totally clueless. There's NOTHING about an NHL team that is even close to "free market". If you offered the NHL owners an option to get rid of all non "free-market" elements in their business, they would run you out of town on a rail. Here's how a typical NHL team operates. 1. Their arena is built with all or majority government financing, with few exceptions (most of them in Canada). "Free market" would force the owners to shell out their own money. 2. When they don't own the arena, they are usually paying subsidized rent etc. Local law enforcement usually helps to provide security in and around the arena, while the team never pays full cost of that. 3. Their local taxes are way lower then for any other business, when they pay any. 4. Their employees can not choose their place of employment and have to play for the team that drafted them until they are more than halfway into their careers. In a "free-market" there can not be a draft or restricted free agency. 5. They can collude with other owners to set limits on employee compensation and labor conditions. Again, in a "free-market" that would not be possible. 6. They can prevent any other team from coming into "their" geographically (very broadly) defined market. Try that in a "free-market". 7. In a "free-market", the owners couldn't renege on the already signed contracts short of declaring bankruptcy, which is what they are trying to do now. 8. In a non "free-market", the players can get together to defend their interests, just like the owners are now free to collectively conspire to limit the players compensation, In a "free-market", neither could occur. You can not pick and choose what elements of a "free-market" you want to have and which you want to get rid of. It's an all or nothing deal. So in real life, given the existing laws, if there is no union, then the salary cap, the draft, the RFA, waivers draft all have to go. In a "free-market", there wouldn't be a players' union, but the league would have gone bankrupt years ago, because the owners repeatedly demonstrated their inability to stick to their budgets when signing players. Again, before 2004, when there was no salary cap and no guaranteed players share of the revenue, the salaries rose very fast and the players share of the revenue went up to 70%+ just before the last lockout. That was not the union doing. That was the owners signing ridiculous contracts.

IMO, geography has little to do with troubles of the teams in Miami, Columbus and Phoenix, when Tampa, Carolina, Dallas, Nashville and California teams are doing OK. It all comes down to how good the management is. Phoenix put their rink in the middle of nowhere, so it's little wonder that their attendance suffers. Columbus was unable to ice a winning team for 10 out of 11 years of its history, drafted abysmally, and now traded away the face of their franchise. Why would the fans keep coming? Phoenix has become a playoff team while under the league management. I wonder why it could not do that under the old management?

Given that the franchise value of even the most money losing NHL team would be around $200 mil., it would require several (as in at least 5) lost seasons so it would make economic sense for the owner of such team to give up his franchise for next to nothing. I somehow doubt that the other owners are willing to give up this many seasons just to save themselves few mil./year in revenue sharing. It would take decades for the profitable teams to recoup such losses. It would be much cheaper for the league to just buy those franchises out at their current values.

Thank you. This is very helpful.

I am not an expert on anti-trust, but I believe that there are certain obligations the pro sports leagues have, in exchange for waiving anti-trust laws for pro sports. Among them, the obligation to bargain collectively. I may be wrong on that. I disagree. I don't see how the union harmed the league's development. The new rules were instituted with a lot of input from the PA. The on-ice product is, well, players. All the financial problems are owner made I don't see any "in spite of". The union didn't cause the lockout. See the thread above for ample evidence for that. The league might have done without the union, but since it is legal to form one, I don't see why the players shouldn't unionize to protect their interests. The league couldn't exist without the players, and the players have interests and the right to pursue them. Ergo, in real life the existence of a league leads inevitably to forming of a union. If you imagine some abstract situation where you would have NHL but no player unions, why stop halfway and not imagine a world where player play for free altogether.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "fiscal obstacles". The union is a counterpart in the new CBA negotiation. It will take time. BUT: If there were no union and thus no CBA, the owners would have to honor existing contracts. To the letter. No rollbacks, no escrow. All players would be free agents, negotiating for themselves. So no RFA compensation, no rookie minimum, no draft etc. Old CBA is NOT the reason some teams lose money. Without it, and its salary cap and revenue sharing provisions, poorer teams would lose even more money and have even harder time keeping elite players.

You really need to read back this thread. Your misconceptions were exhaustively addressed earlier. In short, without the union, what the owners are doing would be illegal. They would have no way of getting out of the already signed player contracts, without going to court and paying penalties for breach of contract or declaring bankruptcy. Without a salary cap the owners would (and did) spend much more on salaries relative to revenue then they do now. Without the pro sports antitrust law exemption, (that is if they had to operate like any other industry in America) it would have been illegal for the owners to consult with each other on hiring/salary decisions, let alone bargain as a single unit. And lastly, the union's existence has nothing whatsoever to do with the owners spending insane amounts of money to get free agents. If you run a restaurant and hire a famous chef for $$ millions, but your revenue stream isn't enough to pay him, you don't get to leach off of more successful/better-run restaurants, nor can you lock out the chef and force him to accept lower salary. The owners do not and absolutely don't want to live under real free market conditions. They get the best of both worlds now.

And in a few years the owners will lock the replacement players out so they can cut their pay even more.

You need a better contract lawyer. NHL contracts can not be modified without changing the CBA. They are etched in stone.

You are absolutely right. The players will not recoupe their lost income even if they eventually "win". This is not as much about the money for the players, as It is about standing up to owners attempt to "unguarantee' the signed contracts.

link? The only stats on NHL.com are for past years, not this season. Are you sure you weren't looking at Malkin's WHC stats from last year? In any case, your stats were wrong, for one thing neither Dats nor Malkin have played in as many KHL games as you said yet.

I don't understand that quote, what difference does it make where Ryan or any other NHL player spends the lockout? He's not on the negotiating committee, IIRC? And skype and/or teleconferencing works just about anywhere in the world these days.

From khl.ru the officila KHL site: 2012-2013 season GP G A Pts +/- Kovalchuk 4 1 6 7 4 Ovechkin 6 2 4 6 1 Malkin 7 1 7 8 -2 Datsyuk 5 2 4 6 3 Radulov 13 4 9 13 2 Where did you get your stats? All those guys average about 1 pt/gm in the NHL, same as they average in the KHL, so far.