• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

2,459 posts in this topic

The players gave ground temporarily, but not permanently. Why can't they meet in the middle at 52-48? If the league would have stepped forward and put an offer on the table for 5 years at that figure, then I would believe you. A temporary rollback in year 1, with percentages climbing through year 2 and back up to where we are today at year 3 is a concession, but its not a big one. The greed on the owners side is well known, but the players have to be held to a standard as well. A temporary rollback is not the solution. You make it sound like the players gave a lot of concessions, but in reality, they really threw the ownership a small treat and nothing more.

You and I both agree that two rational parties could have had a CBA hammered out in 2-4 hours. Fehr and Bettman are not rational though.

I concur 100%. Making a deal should not be that hard if both parties would look for a solution which is in the best interest of the league and not in the best interest of the owners or the players.

WizardOfOz30 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players gave ground temporarily, but not permanently. Why can't they meet in the middle at 52-48? If the league would have stepped forward and put an offer on the table for 5 years at that figure, then I would believe you. A temporary rollback in year 1, with percentages climbing through year 2 and back up to where we are today at year 3 is a concession, but its not a big one. The greed on the owners side is well known, but the players have to be held to a standard as well. A temporary rollback is not the solution. You make it sound like the players gave a lot of concessions, but in reality, they really threw the ownership a small treat and nothing more.

You and I both agree that two rational parties could have had a CBA hammered out in 2-4 hours. Fehr and Bettman are not rational though.

Please tell me why you continue to ignore the facts? The only thing temporary about the players proposal is the term, and any agreement is going to have a term. Do you really still not know the players proposal after you've been told several times?

...

Just think of it...owners of the losing teams don't have to pay the players, therefore saving a lot of money.

...

That's not really true. There are still major expenses that have to be paid, and with a lockout a greatly reduced revenue stream to pay them from. Everyone loses money in a lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me why you continue to ignore the facts? The only thing temporary about the players proposal is the term, and any agreement is going to have a term. Do you really still not know the players proposal after you've been told several times?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739

The facts are quite clear. This is a pretty good analysis of the proposals and situation.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just thinking about all the other people that are affected by this lockout....the trainers and other team employees. They aren't getting a paycheck and can't just run to another leauge for work. It's got to be hard on their families because they are pretty much unemployed, maybe they can claim that for a while but will stii cause financial hardship even more than the players.

I don't see this ending anytime soon and the dominoe effect of their unwillingness to even work at trying to come to a compromise is what upsets me. They need to have meetings scheduled at least a few times a week if they are serious about actually getting a contract. You can't just let everyone do their own thing for months hoping someone will cave first when there is no communcation going on between the 2 sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players gave ground temporarily, but not permanently. Why can't they meet in the middle at 52-48? If the league would have stepped forward and put an offer on the table for 5 years at that figure, then I would believe you. A temporary rollback in year 1, with percentages climbing through year 2 and back up to where we are today at year 3 is a concession, but its not a big one. The greed on the owners side is well known, but the players have to be held to a standard as well. A temporary rollback is not the solution. You make it sound like the players gave a lot of concessions, but in reality, they really threw the ownership a small treat and nothing more.

You and I both agree that two rational parties could have had a CBA hammered out in 2-4 hours. Fehr and Bettman are not rational though.

That's patently false when you look at the amount of money they are giving up. They are conceding salary once again in a league that has seen a 50% increase in revenue. Think about that. the league makes over a billion more dollars a year than it did 7 years ago. In spite of that, the players are willing to give up salary instead of wanting more of that giant increase in revenue.

Like I said, it looks like now neither side is budging or only making tiny steps forward, which is true. But it ignores that the league took massive steps backward to begin things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739

The facts are quite clear. This is a pretty good analysis of the proposals and situation.

The facts indeed are quite clear, but you don't seem to understand the players proposal or are ignoring the details of it. They're not asking for an increase in percentage of revenue.

From your link:

Under the NHLPA's plan, the player share of revenue never drops below 52 per cent and tops out at 54.3 per cent. Again, this assumes steady seven per cent growth.

That is a stepped decrease down to the 52% that you speak of. As revenue increases they'll gradually get less and less, which actually is a sensible way to go about reducing their percentage of HRR. Let the revenue grow away from them.

They also have a built in escape valve if for some reason revenue doesn't grow very much. And a built in protection if it goes through the roof. Their proposal also includes "an aggressive revenue sharing plan" which actually addresses the league's biggest problem.

You can ignore the facts as much as you want, but the NHLPA made an incredibly reasonable proposal. Certainly one that could be tweaked and have the finer points negotiated, but is a sensible and thoughtful solution to the NHL's issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts indeed are quite clear, but you don't seem to understand the players proposal or are ignoring the details of it. They're not asking for an increase in percentage of revenue.

From your link:

That is a stepped decrease down to the 52% that you speak of. As revenue increases they'll gradually get less and less, which actually is a sensible way to go about reducing their percentage of HRR. Let the revenue grow away from them.

They also have a built in escape valve if for some reason revenue doesn't grow very much. And a built in protection if it goes through the roof. Their proposal also includes "an aggressive revenue sharing plan" which actually addresses the league's biggest problem.

You can ignore the facts as much as you want, but the NHLPA made an incredibly reasonable proposal. Certainly one that could be tweaked and have the finer points negotiated, but is a sensible and thoughtful solution to the NHL's issues.

I never said that the NHLPA proposal wasn't more reasonable than the NHL's proposal. As you said though, that proposal could be tweaked and negotiated, to which the NHLPA has not been willing to budge off their initial proposal. There is still a $1 billion dollar difference between the two proposals.

Here is a good breakdown between both proposals.

http://www.theglobea...article4541634/

FTA

The league doesn’t like the PA’s system because there’s some uncertainty here and, well, the players share is still 52 per cent or so if revenues grow at the rate they have lately.

The players don’t like the league’s proposal because it’s a whopping $1.9-billion cut over five years from the old agreement of 57 per cent of revenues. (Not that they have a chance of retaining that...)

Overall, as you said, its a good starting point but not the answer to the CBA problem that all NHLPA fans are drooling after. I am saying that the NHL or NHLPA could budge some more in these negotiations, and we don't know the level that the NHLPA and the NHL have budged since their inital proposals. Both sides just need to be shut in a room to figure this out. The problem, as I see it, is communication and concessions on both sides. From the ownership especially. Anyone spouting that the NHLPA has done their due diligence when it comes to these negotiations is talking out of their ass. Plenty of fault on both sides. Which is why I am not paying any money to attend games or buy merchandise for the NHL after this negotiation is over.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good breakdown between both proposals.

http://www.theglobea...article4541634/

The math is suspect in this article. Dropping players share from 57% to 49% in the first year is not an 8% pay cut as the article states, but about 14%.

57% from $3.28B = $1.87B

49% from $3.28B = $1.61B

This is not 8% difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that the NHLPA proposal wasn't more reasonable than the NHL's proposal. As you said though, that proposal could be tweaked and negotiated, to which the NHLPA has not been willing to budge off their initial proposal. There is still a $1 billion dollar difference between the two proposals.

Here is a good breakdown between both proposals.

http://www.theglobea...article4541634/

FTA

Overall, as you said, its a good starting point but not the answer to the CBA problem that all NHLPA fans are drooling after. I am saying that the NHL or NHLPA could budge some more in these negotiations, and we don't know the level that the NHLPA and the NHL have budged since their inital proposals. Both sides just need to be shut in a room to figure this out. The problem, as I see it, is communication and concessions on both sides. From the ownership especially. Anyone spouting that the NHLPA has done their due diligence when it comes to these negotiations is talking out of their ass. Plenty of fault on both sides. Which is why I am not paying any money to attend games or buy merchandise for the NHL after this negotiation is over.

Nevermind. I forgot how pointless this is to discuss with you and was just reminded.

If the NHL was holding 100 apples and the NHLPA was holding 10 apples, you'd probably say they had an equal number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From TSN:

The NHL and NHL Players' Association have agreed to return to the bargaining table.

Deputy commissioner Bill Daly and NHL Players' Association special counsel Steve Fehr had a face-to-face meeting Tuesday in Toronto and scheduled a formal negotiating session between the sides for Friday.

A location for the talks has yet to be determined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The effects that a lockout could have on Detroit's local economy: http://www.mlive.com/business/detroit/index.ssf/2012/09/economist_no_red_wings_games_p.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+detroit-redwings+%28Detroit+Red+Wings+-+MLive.com%29

After hitting rock-bottom throughout the most recent recession and auto crisis, it would really be a shame to watch the local businesses that are helping to rebuild and revitalize Detroit suffer. I wonder how other cities will fare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739

The facts are quite clear. This is a pretty good analysis of the proposals and situation.

Yes, that is a pretty good analysis, and not even anywhere close to what you described in the post I responded to. It basically amounts to around 4% less than they were getting, give or take a little depending on actual growth. $750M+ is a pretty huge concession. Especially considering the league as a whole was already profitable.

So what would you consider a "fair" offer from the players? Seems to me like you just expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree.

Every single number available to us says that what the players are offering is fair, and should push the NHL profit margin above both the NBA and MLB, even though the NHL has lower revenue. If the $16M payroll spread doesn't work for enough teams then it should be the sole responsibility of the owners to adjust the system to accommodate the poor teams. You can't expect the players to accept a less than fair split just because the owners don't want to acknowledge the huge revenue disparity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevermind. I forgot how pointless this is to discuss with you and was just reminded.

If the NHL was holding 100 apples and the NHLPA was holding 10 apples, you'd probably say they had an equal number.

I guess I have to have my head so far up the NHLPA's ass to see what you see in those greedy screwballs. Its all or nothing in your mind. The NHLPA has zero fault while the NHL has 100% fault. I can't just put all the fault on one party, when it most clearly is the fault of both why we are in a lockout right now. As I said before, 60% at fault with the ownership group, but the players carry 40% of the burden easily.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The effects that a lockout could have on Detroit's local economy: http://www.mlive.com/business/detroit/index.ssf/2012/09/economist_no_red_wings_games_p.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+detroit-redwings+%28Detroit+Red+Wings+-+MLive.com%29

After hitting rock-bottom throughout the most recent recession and auto crisis, it would really be a shame to watch the local businesses that are helping to rebuild and revitalize Detroit suffer. I wonder how other cities will fare.

I was just coming here to post this. Does anyone remember/have a cite for how much revenue the city of Detroit lost during the last lockout? I remember it was bad. I love the city so much, and it breaks my heart to think of all the "little people" that are affected by the lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is a pretty good analysis, and not even anywhere close to what you described in the post I responded to. It basically amounts to around 4% less than they were getting, give or take a little depending on actual growth. $750M+ is a pretty huge concession. Especially considering the league as a whole was already profitable.

So what would you consider a "fair" offer from the players? Seems to me like you just expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree.

Every single number available to us says that what the players are offering is fair, and should push the NHL profit margin above both the NBA and MLB, even though the NHL has lower revenue. If the $16M payroll spread doesn't work for enough teams then it should be the sole responsibility of the owners to adjust the system to accommodate the poor teams. You can't expect the players to accept a less than fair split just because the owners don't want to acknowledge the huge revenue disparity.

I think a fair and equitable agreement could be made at 52% for the players and 48% for the owners on the core economics side of things.

I would like to know why you think that I expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree? I have said numerous times that there is room for both sides to give something in these negotiations. The ownership can easily give back to the players just as much as the players can give back to the owners. Its not that hard to see that concessions can be made and they don't have to all come from one side.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an even 50/50 split is fair considering maintaining an ice hockey rink is more expensive than like a basketball court???

Not sure how much all the hockey gear costs??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I don't understand and maybe someone here can educate me.

I believe a fair and equitable agreement can be made between both sides. As has been pointed out numerous times, any two sides who were cooperative and were bargaining honestly could hammer out an agreement in a couple hours. I don't see many people on the sides of the owners here, and on the flip side I see many on the sides of the players. This makes sense due to the offers that were shelled out and Fehr's comments to the press. What I don't understand is why someone has to be either for or against one side. There is no looking at the big picture and seeing faults with both. There is no looking at the offers that were put forward and comparing/contrasting them.

I guess its a lot like religion or political preference. "If you aren't a (insert affiliate name here), then you are wrong" mentality. I guess that its time for fans to get mad, not take sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an even 50/50 split is fair considering maintaining an ice hockey rink is more expensive than like a basketball court???

Not sure how much all the hockey gear costs??

The profit margins for these teams are really razor thin. The people who are for the NHLPA like to think that owners are fine just losing millions per year for their stake in the team. Is that the right mentality? At the same time, is it right for the owners to have to lose money? Shouldn't there be a fair and equitable deal in place in order for both sides to profit equally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I don't understand and maybe someone here can educate me.

I believe a fair and equitable agreement can be made between both sides. As has been pointed out numerous times, any two sides who were cooperative and were bargaining honestly could hammer out an agreement in a couple hours. I don't see many people on the sides of the owners here, and on the flip side I see many on the sides of the players. This makes sense due to the offers that were shelled out and Fehr's comments to the press. What I don't understand is why someone has to be either for or against one side. There is no looking at the big picture and seeing faults with both. There is no looking at the offers that were put forward and comparing/contrasting them.

I guess its a lot like religion or political preference. "If you aren't a (insert affiliate name here), then you are wrong" mentality. I guess that its time for fans to get mad, not take sides.

There are a handful of folks, including members of this board, who believe that both sides are being selfish and need to apply the actual definition of compromise to their "compromises".

On the second point I do agree with you. The owners vs players debate has a lot of political philosophy behind it, and those who identify as strictly republican or democrat may be influenced by their political beliefs when determining what side to support. In that sense it will be a tough sell to get someone to "see the other side".

Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I don't understand and maybe someone here can educate me.

I believe a fair and equitable agreement can be made between both sides. As has been pointed out numerous times, any two sides who were cooperative and were bargaining honestly could hammer out an agreement in a couple hours. I don't see many people on the sides of the owners here, and on the flip side I see many on the sides of the players. This makes sense due to the offers that were shelled out and Fehr's comments to the press. What I don't understand is why someone has to be either for or against one side. There is no looking at the big picture and seeing faults with both. There is no looking at the offers that were put forward and comparing/contrasting them.

I guess its a lot like religion or political preference. "If you aren't a (insert affiliate name here), then you are wrong" mentality. I guess that its time for fans to get mad, not take sides.

I generally support the players because when I go to a hockey game I pay money to see the players. I do not care who the owner is and what his/her financial situation is.

For me as a fan league profits mean that I am paying too much for the tickets. If NHL would have decided to cut ticket prices 24% across the board. Now that would have been a deal I can support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a fair and equitable agreement could be made at 52% for the players and 48% for the owners on the core economics side of things.

I would like to know why you think that I expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree? I have said numerous times that there is room for both sides to give something in these negotiations. The ownership can easily give back to the players just as much as the players can give back to the owners. Its not that hard to see that concessions can be made and they don't have to all come from one side.

Ok, so you think 52% would be fair. One would assume then that if the players were to propose that figure (and also agree to all the non-financial aspects proposed by the owners), and the owners refuse, you would change your stance and consider the owners to be wholly at fault for the continuing lockout.

Would that mean you would then have your head up the PAs ass, or you're some mindless sycophant blindly toeing the party line? You know, the same petty insults you want to hurl at everyone with a different opinion than yours.

By the way, if revenues were to grow at around 7.5%, the players proposal would work out to about 52%. And in any proposal, looked at from the perspective of where they were in the last CBA, ALL concessions are being made by the players. (Or at most, players might get a higher minimum salary, or rookie max. Their likely to give up money or rights on every other issue.) It's not really a concession just because the owners will settle for taking away less than they originally wanted to.

This is what I don't understand and maybe someone here can educate me.

I believe a fair and equitable agreement can be made between both sides. As has been pointed out numerous times, any two sides who were cooperative and were bargaining honestly could hammer out an agreement in a couple hours. I don't see many people on the sides of the owners here, and on the flip side I see many on the sides of the players. This makes sense due to the offers that were shelled out and Fehr's comments to the press. What I don't understand is why someone has to be either for or against one side. There is no looking at the big picture and seeing faults with both. There is no looking at the offers that were put forward and comparing/contrasting them.

I guess its a lot like religion or political preference. "If you aren't a (insert affiliate name here), then you are wrong" mentality. I guess that its time for fans to get mad, not take sides.

What I don't understand is why you think is has to be both sides at fault. Or why you think someone on one side or the other is suggesting that is "has" to be either/or. Speaking for myself, I don't think one side "has" to be right, I just think that in this situation, the PA "is" right. As I stated above, there seems to be a number at which you think the PA would be right, so...what makes your opinion on what that number is any more valid than mine? Who the f*** do you think you are that you want to throw insults at me because my idea of "fair" is a few percentage points higher than yours?

There is no objective "right" answer to a fair split. Personally, I believe the players are responsible for generating more of the revenue than the teams themselves. I think 4-5% is a fair profit margin for the owners, considering the team value is likely to appreciate at a similar rate (possibly higher if the team is profitable). I've looked at the numbers for recent years, and those numbers say that other expenses are around 40% or less of revenue. So I think 55-56% is a "fair" split. Under the PA proposal, it takes around 4.5% growth to realize a 5% margin (3.6 - 4.1% for 4%), which seems to be a realistic (maybe even conservative) growth estimate. (Though the longer the lockout lasts, the less realistic it is likely to be.)

I believe owners should be responsible for sticking to a budget their team can afford, or if they don't, they should accept the losses. I think it is the responsibility of the owners as a group to determine revenue sharing, and then to set the upper and lower limits accordingly to accommodate the revenue disparity between teams. If $8M below the midpoint (player's share) is too high a floor for too many teams, the owners have to lower the floor and raise the cap. Let the rich teams spend more to allow the poor teams to spend less. You shouldn't just ask the players to give up even more.

All that is why I am on the side of the players in this situation. If you want to disagree with my opinions, fine. But please stop insinuating that I (or others of similar opinion) are just mindless PA lickspittles. If you can't debate without resorting to childish insults, don't debate at all.

haroldsnepsts likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.