[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

[frankgrimes 1,836]

This lockout to me at least is just bogus. Players offered to continue under the old CBA till a new one is finalized, league declined add to that the shameful lowball starting offer, I don't even have to think about whom to side with.

I watch the players not a bunch of havanna smoking CEO types, who aren't in this business to win it but to make a quick buck. I am glad the best owner in all of sports is against RS and all that crap just shows us how lucky we as Red Wings fans can be, to have such an outstanding person running the show. Let's not forget this is an owners - BOG? - lockout.

Yes, the money has to go to someone but I'd rather see it going to the guys who are giving their all each and every night, risking injuries and are working their asses off just to entertain us, instead of a bunch of "we are losing money" guys who at the same time are buying secondary mansions worth 20 m$.

Edited November 28, 2012 by frankgrimes

[chances14 227]

This lockout to me at least is just bogus. Players offered to continue under the old CBA till a new one is finalized, league declined add to that the shameful lowball starting offer, I don't even have to think about whom to side with.

I watch the players not a bunch of havanna smoking CEO types, who aren't in this business to win it but to make a quick buck. I am glad the best owner in all of sports is against RS and all that crap just shows us how lucky we as Red Wings fans can be, to have such an outstanding person running the show. Let's not forget this is an owners - BOG? - lockout.

Yes, the money has to go to someone but I'd rather see it going to the guys who are giving their all each and every night, risking injuries and are working their asses off just to entertain us, instead of a bunch of "we are losing money" guys who at the same time are buying secondary mansions worth 20 m$.

Of course the players were willing to play under old CBA, They were raking in the money. if the players felt the same way about the current CBA as the owners do, we would have seen a strike. And with fehr's history of striking during the playoffs, there was no way the league was going to risk getting the playoffs (their biggest revenue making part of the season) wiped out. That would have given the players basically all the leverage. Back in 1992, bob goodenow led the players on a strike on the eve of the playoffs. Bettman was promptly brought in the following year.

I know that the players are the ones who put on the entertainment, but without the owners, the players wouldn't be able to put on that entertainment in the same capacity as we have now. They pay the players and they assume all the financial risks that comes along with putting the product out on the ice. Bottom line, the players and owners both need each other in order to survive and prosper.

[55fan 5,133]

This lockout to me at least is just bogus. Players offered to continue under the old CBA till a new one is finalized, league declined add to that the shameful lowball starting offer, I don't even have to think about whom to side with.

I watch the players not a bunch of havanna smoking CEO types, who aren't in this business to win it but to make a quick buck. I am glad the best owner in all of sports is against RS and all that crap just shows us how lucky we as Red Wings fans can be, to have such an outstanding person running the show. Let's not forget this is an owners - BOG? - lockout.

Yes, the money has to go to someone but I'd rather see it going to the guys who are giving their all each and every night, risking injuries and are working their asses off just to entertain us, instead of a bunch of "we are losing money" guys who at the same time are buying secondary mansions worth 20 m$.

Not to mention that the last time the league locked the players out, the players were forced to accept the current terms and conditions of their employment or risk losing another season. Unfortunately for the League, profits grew and so did the cap, which means that the players are getting more money.

I am baffled that the League would insist on a rollback and a salary cap then, and now blame the players for being greedy because they're making more money now than they did then.

Last time I sympathized with the owners for the reasons that many have cited here: They take the financial risks and take the losses if they fail, so they should reap the profits if they succeed. The players are employees.

However, now that the employees have agreed to what the owners wanted, they should be paid that which the owners set forth as allowable in the last CBA for contracts that were signed under that CBA.

I got to thinking last night about this. The League wants the players to take a smaller share of the smaller pie. The players want contracts honoured. This won't work out for some teams as this means that the cap will go down.

Would this be possible? Agree that each team may spend up to the cap on 23 players (at a time, IR is another kettle of fish). However, current contracts must be honoured first. If the team reaches the cap without filling the 23-man roster, that team may extend above the cap by filling its roster only with league-minimum players until they either trade some of their higher-paid guys or until the current contracts end. After that, they must be cap-compliant.

This would screw the ones who rushed out and signed huge contracts anticipating a rollback and reward those who planned wisely. It would also mean that the players would get the money they agreed to.

I would also do away with escrow. If the league miscalculates the cap, or if owners spend right up to it and the league and/or team doesn't rake in as much as they thought they would, then tough titties. They still have to pay what they said they would and it would have to come out of the owner's pocket who gambled that it would be covered.

Just some thoughts that entered my head.

(EDIT for clarity)

Edited November 28, 2012 by 55fan

[Z Winged Dangler 2,082]

...and I just lost all respect for Ryan Miller...

Decertify the Union and return to the good old days of owners actually "owning" players....

Everyone out there who thinks the Union is the bad seed here please go watch the movie "Net Worth."

The owners are no different than the CEO's of this world...If Hostess hads't taught you anything then nothing will...liqiudate the company and STILL award CEO's and Top managment MILLIONS of dollars in bonuses...They sure were hurting for money, eh?

That's the exact thing I was talking about with my dad a couple days ago. Ted Lindsay started the NHLPA because guys were getting injured and getting dumped by their teams and they were paying for their own moves when they got traded from team to team and the last straw for Lindsay was when an old teammate of his died in his car after he got cast from the team due to injuries. The union was brought in to give the players their HUMAN RIGHTS, not to make it so they can use things like decertifying the union to take the cowards way out of the lockout and try to basically scam the owners, which will tie the lockout up in court and we'll be lucky to see hockey next year let alone this year.

I'd love to hear what Terrible Ted has to say about decertification. Maybe a pioneer of the game that used to make $7,000 per year to be one of the greats can talk some sense into the millionaires. I've been on the players side from the beginning, but i'll lose the players respect if they decertify the union that's given them so much over the years.

[drwscc 212]

I really hope they do decertify the union. Just blow everything up, and take it to the courts for years and years. You want to talk about some rancor between the players and ownership now? Just wait until the 3rd and 4th liners get released when they get hurt, or take below current league minimum since that will be gone, because you know they're not going to have the pull a Crosby or a Datsyuk has, and 3rd/4th line talent is everywhere.

Ryan Miller is a star, so of course he'll be fine. But Justin Abdelkader is going to have to be very careful under that system.

However, I think it's really moot. The league will just argue that the players are doing it for leverage, and the courts will throw it out. You can't be a union when it suits you, and then not be a union when it gets tough. Plus, as soon as the lockout ended, they'd just reform the union. It's posturing.

[Dabura 12,206]

I'll be amazed if they decertify. I'll be even more amazed if it actually gets them anywhere.

[StormJH1 231]

This whole thing is so sickening. Even though I feel like the NHLPA still has some measure of additional support from the public/media as compared to the owners...it feels like even the people who support the NHLPA have allowed this entire debate to be stuffed into the framework laid out by the NHL. The idea that "we have to get to 50/50", which is really just a completely arbitrary distribution that SOUNDS non-arbitrary, necessarily called for a massive reduction in player revenues and a lockout. What rationale could there possibly be for completely shutting down the product and asking the players to shift hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue back to the owners, when the product (as a whole) was actually generating far more money than seemed possible in 2005?

We don't see the actual numbers behind these purported losses by the 18 NHL franchises. What part does the players share of revenues have in the fact that about half of the league can't operate at a profit...any more than the players have to do with the fact that some other franchises have turned CONSIDERABLE profits? Moreover, if the cap floor is fixed at $16 million below the cap maximum, why don't we see 15-20 teams bottoming out as close to that floor as they possibly can, if they're hurting for money so bad anyways? Heck, you have a greater chance of making the playoffs as you do missing the playoffs anyway (16 out of 30), why not just save $10 million a year by bottoming out and hoping that enough other teams do the same? If Nashville and Phoenix can make the playoffs multiple times with all the issues they have financially, couldn't anybody?

The surprising truth is that most owners actually want to win. They want to win so badly that they will cheat their own CBA provisions as much as they can, waste money on stashed minor leaguers, backloaded deals, and bonuses that don't even appear in the cap, and overpay undeserving players like Ville Leino, Mike Cammileleri, and Jeff Finger chasing the dream. Then, when the bubble bursts again, they'll just ask for more money every 7 years. I'm sorry, but that's not the way to run a business. I don't blame Jeff Finger for taking huge money to play a game he loves, to support a career that could be over tomorrow if he crashes into the boards wrong. I do blame the guys who thought paying that money was a good idea, and drooled over expansion fees without putting any type of revenue sharing in place to support struggling teams.

[chances14 227]

according to forbes, 13 teams are losing money

Our data illustrates the league’s conundrum. Fueled by a 9% increase in overall revenue to $3.4 billion during the 2011-12 season, the average National Hockey League team is now worth $282 million, 18% more than a year ago.

But the spread between the rich and poor teams is dramatic. The five most valuable teams–the Maple Leafs ($1 billion), New York Rangers ($750 million), Montreal Canadiens ($575 million), Chicago Blackhawks ($350 million) and Boston Bruins ($348 million)–are worth $605 million, on average. The five least valuable–the Carolina Hurricanes ($162 million), New York Islanders ($155 million), Columbus Blue Jackets ($145 million), Phoenix Coyotes ($134 million) and St. Louis Blues ($130 million)–are worth just $145 million, on average.

There is also an incredible bifurcation of cash flow. Overall operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) almost doubled during the 2011-12 season, to $250 million. But the sport’s three most profitable teams–the Maple Leafs ($81.9 million), Rangers ($74 million), Canadians ($51.6 million)–accounted for 83% of the league’s income, while 13 of 30 teams lost money, before non-cash expenses and interest payments.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

according to forbes, 13 teams are losing money

People keep repeating that but it's not true.

According to Forbes analysis with the financial info they have available to them, those teams have a negative operating income before things like taxes, depreciation and amortization. But it's inaccurate for them to simply say they're losing money.

These owners have multiple corporations with revenue and expenses moving between one and the other. The goal with corps is not to show a huge profit because you want to reduce your tax burden.

Clearly there are teams that are struggling financially but the Forbes report isn't a complete or accurate financial picture. In 2004 Bettman had an extensive audit of franchises to show in irrefutable detail how many were losing money. Strange how he didn't do that this time.

There's the secondary issue of how much it's actually the players fault that these franchises aren't profitable. Unlike 2005 the real issue is the disparity of the franchises, not the un-capped costs of player salaries.

[Guest Playmaker]

I gotta agree though...Outside of playing a kids game - what do these players offer to society, or the workforce?

Nothing against them, but the players must realise that they're placed atop of a pedestal by us fans, and outside of playing the great game of ice hockey - they pretty much offer little else.

Apparently, they do enough to entice you to come to a message board to comment on them even when they aren't even playing.

[Jedi 1,865]

LeBrun's tweeting that the meeting is still going on, as of about an hour ago. He also speculated that we won't hear much in the way of news updates from today's meeting...

[chances14 227]

nhl sponsor client rips into the league

“The league has become known for lying to its fans, to its sponsors,” said Ed O’Hara, senior partner of New York-based SME Branding, which helped devise the strategy for the NHL eight years ago and still counts the league among its clients.

and here's an article which points out a good example of why i think all the bettman hate is misguided. it needs to be directed towards the owners like jacobs.

also, a great read by ted lindsay

Edited November 28, 2012 by chances14

[sibiriak 84]

according to forbes, 13 teams are losing money

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.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Today was my annual visit to Toronto and the HHoF. Here are the highlights, in a recreated Q&A, if Uncle Gary was doing the Q:

Q: How was it?

A: Great, as always.

Q: How much did you spend that adds to the League's HRR totals?

A: Squadoosh.

Q: How does that make you feel?

A: I feel better than James Brown. I feel better now.

[chances14 227]

NHL AND NHLPA RESUME CBA TALKS, THIS TIME WITH MEDIATION

It's a good thing U.S. federal mediators aren't seeking to determine right and wrong while meeting with the NHL and NHL Players' Association this week.

According to sports management professor Aubrey Kent of Temple University, both sides have a valid reason to claim that they are in the right when it comes to their ongoing labour dispute.

"

For me, the whole issue comes down to perspective," Kent said Wednesday in an interview. "Players feel as though they're being bullied and strong-armed and having things taken away -- I can see that that's a legitimate perspective. Owners feel from a dollar-value perspective that the next seven years they've offered would be far more lucrative than the previous seven years were, even as good as that was.

"And if you crunch the numbers, that's actually true as well."

One reason for the gap is the clause in the proposal that stated the players' share couldn't go down from year to year -- a mechanism meant to protect them in the event revenues fall. NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr said last week that it was a good tradeoff since the players' share would drop from 57 per cent to 50 per cent in the new deal, but Kent doesn't believe the NHL would ever accept those terms.

"I know why the players would offer that, (but) in principle it doesn't seem like it's a deal that anyone in their right mind would accept -- where you get half of everything that grows and you don't take any risk on it not growing," he said.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410437

[Jedi 1,865]

LeBrun says both sides are meeting again today at 11am, mediators included again.

And Puck Daddy had a funny little snippet from Fehr's comments to the media about mediators (emphasis mine, for comedic value)...

Donald Fehr, on mediators: "The presence of an outsider can give you a perspective perhaps that is not immediately ascertainable when you're on the inside and that would be helpful. But I don't want to kid anybody, a mediator has no special powers, he can't order anyone to do anything, he can't say this is the contract." No special powers? I knew we should have gotten sorcerers.

[Nightfall 871]

LeBrun says both sides are meeting again today at 11am, mediators included again.

And Puck Daddy had a funny little snippet from Fehr's comments to the media about mediators (emphasis mine, for comedic value)...

What both sides needed to do to make this right is to agree to binding mediation. Instead, the players and owners greed will not change the outcome. The mediators will see opportunities to end the lockout, and one side or the other will squash them.

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

Report: Pittsburgh area loses $2.1 million per Penguins' game lost

http://prohockeytalk...uins-game-lost/

REPORT: GOOD! I don't like pittsburgh anyways

[Jedi 1,865]

REPORT: GOOD! I don't like pittsburgh anyways

I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly crass thing to say. While it's true the Penguins would receive the majority of that money that's lost, there are other local businesses that are suffering because of the lockout. Ordinary, hardworking people that are losing money through no fault of their own. THEY are the true victims of this lockout.

[StormJH1 231]

Clearly there are teams that are struggling financially but the Forbes report isn't a complete or accurate financial picture. In 2004 Bettman had an extensive audit of franchises to show in irrefutable detail how many were losing money. Strange how he didn't do that this time.

There's the secondary issue of how much it's actually the players fault that these franchises aren't profitable. Unlike 2005 the real issue is the disparity of the franchises, not the un-capped costs of player salaries.

That second point is what I think the majority of people I argue with don't seem to understand. To solve a problem, your solution actually has to address the root cause of that problem. Otherwise, it's like trying to bandage on your finger to cure a headache - it doesn't make any sense.

In 2004/05, there was an idea that player salaries had gotten out of control. Even thought the fans personally identified with the players more than a bunch of suits who own and operate the teams, public sentiment was largely on the side of the owners. A lot of people, myself included, assumed that if you put a reasonable cap in place, ALL teams would have to spend more responsibly. More importantly, the disparity in budget between the "haves" and "have nots", by definition could not be more than $16 million (difference between cap floor and cap ceiling).

The new CBA really could have succeeded. But two things happened between 2005 and 2012 that really destroyed any chance for smaller markets to compete again. The first was that the revenues of the game grew, which meant that the cap increased:

Raise your hand if you really thought we would nearly DOUBLE the salary cap by 2012 (oh, and by the way, in the midst of a massive worldwide recession). Oh, and by the way, teams like the Detroit Red Wings, who were derisively referred to as the "Yankees" of the NHL, actually didn't spend more than the current salary cap amount before the new CBA, except for one season (2003-04). That "all-star" team that one the 2001-02 Cup with something like 11 Hall of Famers on it? Their payroll of $66 million would've fit easily into the Cap for the 2012-13 season. Of course, the problem was getting worse and worse without a Cap, and I agreed at the time that Salary Cap was necessary. Unfortunately, the implementation of that did nothing to slow the increase of salaries. It simply reset the clock for a few years, which is necessary anyway after you sit out a whole season and disillusion much of your fanbase.

The second thing that happened, of course, was the backdiving contracts and owners/GM's figuring out ways to spend more on players than the team's cap figure would seem to imply. This is significant financially because if you're handing out money to minor league stashes, bonuses, and actual payments to players larger than their cap hit would suggest, then the salary cap really isn't doing much to limit spending, which was supposed to be the whole point of this fiscal responsibility push in 2004-05 in the first place.

Long story short, the system was fundamentally flawed, and the combination of the increased cap and "cheater" contracts that payed more than they appear to led to sustained spending on players. Those problems do need to be fixed so that spending can't get out of control again.

But if you're Phoenix, or Nashville, or Dallas, or whatever...people still need to want to BUY your product, or you'll never make money like the big boys. Even worse, the CBA that is supposed to help all teams by controlling spending actually hurts franchises by putting a cap FLOOR on those teams. Many of those franchises are going to draw 10,000 to 12,000 per game whether they spend $25 million or $50 million on payroll. There just aren't enough fans to support the product long-term in those markets, and that has nothing to do with the players or how much revenue they get.

Edited November 29, 2012 by StormJH1

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly crass thing to say. While it's true the Penguins would receive the majority of that money that's lost, there are other local businesses that are suffering because of the lockout. Ordinary, hardworking people that are losing money through no fault of their own. THEY are the true victims of this lockout.

Sorry, I meant the team, the hard working people of the surrounding businesses, arena employees, and others affected by this have my sympathy.

[chances14 227]

a couple more good articles

one by grange of sportsnet and another by kuppa of detroit news

Edited November 29, 2012 by chances14

[Jedi 1,865]

As expected, still not much word leaking from today's meeting, other than LeBrun tweeting that it's still going on at this time...

No news is good news, hopefully...

[Jedi 1,865]

As expected, still not much word leaking from today's meeting, other than LeBrun tweeting that it's still going on at this time...

No news is good news, hopefully...

Or not... LeBrun's now tweeting that talks are over, and there's reportedly been no progress. No more talks with mediators planned at the moment.

[Nightfall 871]

https://twitter.com/...262874149498880

Looks like the season is toast.

Also, LeBrun says that no mediators will be used in the negotiations. Apparently, they didn't work.

They just need to deep six the season now. Both sides can go jump off a cliff.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Nightfall