2458 replies to this topic

[Pskov Wings Fan]

Please explain the point of this statement - it seems to just be confusing the debate. You are saying that it would have been entirely legal for owners to institute a league wide salary cap... without union involvement, correct? If so, you are proving my point in that the union is entirely unnecessary. Everything that was accomplished to salvage the NHL (grow league revenues) was done in spite of the union, not because of it.

So, please explain why we need a players union causing lockouts? What tangible benefits do us fans receive as a result of the NHLPA? The league could exist without the NHLPA... but not the other way around.

The word you are looking for is "collusion". The same reason why anti-poaching agreements between Silicon Valley companies are illegal. I believe 'sibiriak' is saying that without CBA and union there can be no league-wide salary cap.

NHLPA is meant to provide "tangible benefits" to its members, the NHL hockey players. Without players there is no league.

[sibiriak]

Please explain the point of this statement - it seems to just be confusing the debate. You are saying that it would have been entirely legal for owners to institute a league wide salary cap... without union involvement, correct? If so, you are proving my point in that the union is entirely unnecessary.

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.

Everything that was accomplished to salvage the NHL (grow league revenues) was done in spite of the union, not because of it.

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".

Everything that was accomplished to salvage the NHL (grow league revenues) was done in spite of the union, not because of it.
So, please explain why we need a players union causing lockouts? What tangible benefits do us fans receive as a result of the NHLPA? The league could exist without the NHLPA... but not the other way around.

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.

Edited by sibiriak, 08 October 2012 - 03:11 PM.

[Nightfall]

Please explain the point of this statement - it seems to just be confusing the debate. You are saying that it would have been entirely legal for owners to institute a league wide salary cap... without union involvement, correct? If so, you are proving my point in that the union is entirely unnecessary. Everything that was accomplished to salvage the NHL (grow league revenues) was done in spite of the union, not because of it.

So, please explain why we need a players union causing lockouts? What tangible benefits do us fans receive as a result of the NHLPA? The league could exist without the NHLPA... but not the other way around.

I am not for or against unions in any way. I have family members who are part of unions in fact, and some that hate unions as a whole. I mention that because some people are quickly labeled either for or against unions just based on their opinions. I am pretty much in the middle.

IMHO, we can't put the fault on one side or the other. The fault is strictly on both sides.

So why do we need a players union? The players union is there to make sure the players are treated fairly. The union is there to make sure they have benefits, retirement, disability, and so on. I would say that the union is there to protect the players from being taken advantage of.

Do we as fans benefit from the players union? I can't think of any benefits.

That being said, do I think the union is not necessary? I think they serve their purpose.

I just don't believe that one side or the other is able to say that they are free from blame in the lockout.

Edited by Nightfall, 08 October 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[rrasco]

Without a union, there would be no lockout. Without a union, there wouldn't have been the need to negotiate a salary cap... and therefore there wouldn't have been a lockout last time.

Without a league, there would be no lockout. What's your point?

The salary cap was instituted to protect the owners from themselves, because they demonstrated they cannot control their spending. Do you believe the PA proposed the salary cap last time which led to a lockout? The cap is not the reason for this lockout, and the salary cap isn't even the core of the negotiations. They're negotiating the definition of HRR and how that revenue will be split between the owners and players. If in any way shape or form the salary cap relates to overspending, it's the cap floor, and some franchises trying to reach the floor will spend more than a player is worth in the process, thus inflating salaries.

I'm beginning to think you're not familiar with the core issues about the league, PA, or CBA at all. You just seem to be bashing the PA without any apparent base.

[haroldsnepsts]

Without a union, there would be no lockout. Without a union, there wouldn't have been the need to negotiate a salary cap... and therefore there wouldn't have been a lockout last time.

Owners spending more than they can afford is a complicated topic, but without question the current CBA largely contributes to it. Without a union, there is no need for a CBA. If you believe the core problem with the leagues finances is rich clubs driving up the players salaries... how does the union solve that problem? I would argue that the NHLPA contributes to that problem, through forcing a CBA.

Get rid of Bettman and there's no lockout.

Without Bettman, there wouldn't have been a lockout in 95 that cost half a season, and we wouldn't have lost a whole season ten years later. Just let the true free market decide, no cap, and owners pay whatever they want to players. Then for those franchises that aren't profitable, let 'em fail.

See how easy that is?

Saying getting rid of unions equals no lockouts is a massive oversimplification of what's going on. First, every major pro sport has a union. It's a reality of the beast. And hockey is entertainment, entertainers also typically have unions.

If there wasn't a union and the NHL owners put together any deal they wanted, one of two things (or possibly both) would likely happen. The players would organize a union because they'd see they were getting a ridiculously small portion of the billions in revenue they generate. Or a lot of players would leave the NHL play in other leagues.

If this current group of owners and Bettman ran the league however they wanted back in 2004, it's pretty safe to say the Red Wings would have lost most of their European contingent.

Lidstrom would've gone back to Sweden. Dats back to Russia. So long guys! I'm sure they scrubs that couldn't crack the NHL when you were playing will be just as entertaining. Anyone can do what those guys do.

[Buppy]

Please explain the point of this statement - it seems to just be confusing the debate. You are saying that it would have been entirely legal for owners to institute a league wide salary cap... without union involvement, correct? If so, you are proving my point in that the union is entirely unnecessary. Everything that was accomplished to salvage the NHL (grow league revenues) was done in spite of the union, not because of it.

So, please explain why we need a players union causing lockouts? What tangible benefits do us fans receive as a result of the NHLPA? The league could exist without the NHLPA... but not the other way around.

There is no actual "pro sports anti-trust exemption". MLB was exempt until 1998, but now it's a limited exemption. The NFL has a limited exemption as well. The Clayton Act contained a labor exemption, which basically made unions exempt from anti-trust liability.

That exemption was used to derive the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption. That basically says that a CBA takes precedence over anti-trust laws. i.e. A CBA can contain terms that would otherwise violate labor laws.

Since that exemption requires a CBA, and a CBA requires a union...the union is in fact entirely necessary. Without the union agreeing to the hard cap, half or more of the league's teams would likely have gone bankrupt by now.

Edited by Buppy, 08 October 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[King Crane]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I wanted to relay an interesting theory I heard from a friend of mine who works closely with the Red Wings Association.

The owners are purposefully creating this lockout and have no intention of resolving negotiations anytime in the near future.
Why?
Force out the weak franchises.
As most of you know only 8 teams were profitable last year.
Why not just cut the 6 least profitable teams?
That would involve costly buyouts of the current owners. The lockout will hurt all the NHL teams, but the more successful owners are willing take a temporary hit and force out the weak teams by strangling the last of their worth.
A lot of owners feel they are currently subsidizing the weak teams and need a long term solution. The lockout is an alternative solution, albeit a desperate solution, to eliminate teams without having to abide by league rules in regards to franchise closings.

This is not meant to be a rumor or a conspiracy theory. I just thought it was an interesting rational to why the owners would risk lost profits for another dissolved season.
I don't think it really answers the question of why the owners are taking on the risk of losing fan support, but nothing in the NHL organization seems to make much sense lately. As NBA is on the rise, the NHL continues to completely misunderstand their target audience; fixated on gimmicks and specific players.

Thanks for reading, can't wait to hear your replies.

[sibiriak]

There is no actual "pro sports anti-trust exemption". MLB was exempt until 1998, but now it's a limited exemption. The NFL has a limited exemption as well. The Clayton Act contained a labor exemption, which basically made unions exempt from anti-trust liability.

That exemption was used to derive the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption. That basically says that a CBA takes precedence over anti-trust laws. i.e. A CBA can contain terms that would otherwise violate labor laws.

Since that exemption requires a CBA, and a CBA requires a union...the union is in fact entirely necessary. Without the union agreeing to the hard cap, half or more of the league's teams would likely have gone bankrupt by now.

Thank you. This is very helpful.

[frankgrimes]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I wanted to relay an interesting theory I heard from a friend of mine who works closely with the Red Wings Association.

The owners are purposefully creating this lockout and have no intention of resolving negotiations anytime in the near future.
Why?
Force out the weak franchises.
As most of you know only 8 teams were profitable last year.
Why not just cut the 6 least profitable teams?
That would involve costly buyouts of the current owners. The lockout will hurt all the NHL teams, but the more successful owners are willing take a temporary hit and force out the weak teams by strangling the last of their worth.
A lot of owners feel they are currently subsidizing the weak teams and need a long term solution. The lockout is an alternative solution, albeit a desperate solution, to eliminate teams without having to abide by league rules in regards to franchise closings.

This is not meant to be a rumor or a conspiracy theory. I just thought it was an interesting rational to why the owners would risk lost profits for another dissolved season.
I don't think it really answers the question of why the owners are taking on the risk of losing fan support, but nothing in the NHL organization seems to make much sense lately. As NBA is on the rise, the NHL continues to completely misunderstand their target audience; fixated on gimmicks and specific players.

Thanks for reading, can't wait to hear your replies.

It is an interesting idea really, but there are a couple of problems:

Why did the owners at first agree to put these teams into such markets? No one can tell me, that they didn't hire some highly educated research experts and other stuff before voting yes. Cutting some of these franchises could be done easier:

Put the non cap world on the table again and decrease revenue sharing, teams who can't even make it with rs are going to be non existant in no time, midget would have to bite the bullet and relocate them.

Granted it is just a theory, but I think there are better ways to do that if that is really what some owners are going for.

[haroldsnepsts]

I saw the headline and assumed it's an old article. It's not. When the two sides meet later this week, they once again won't be discussing the central issue that is holding up the season.

The NHL and NHL Players' Association likely won't discuss economics when collective bargaining talks resume this week.
The sides have agreed to sit down together in New York on Wednesday and Thursday, but deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Monday that he expects the conversation to cover secondary issues, including "health and safety, medical care, drug testing, rent and mortgage reimbursements (and) grievances."

Fehr insists it's good the two sides are still talking even if it's not about the main issue. I guess it is better than nothing, but still seems kind of absurd.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407017

[toby91_ca]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I wanted to relay an interesting theory I heard from a friend of mine who works closely with the Red Wings Association.

The owners are purposefully creating this lockout and have no intention of resolving negotiations anytime in the near future.
Why?
Force out the weak franchises.
As most of you know only 8 teams were profitable last year.
Why not just cut the 6 least profitable teams?
That would involve costly buyouts of the current owners. The lockout will hurt all the NHL teams, but the more successful owners are willing take a temporary hit and force out the weak teams by strangling the last of their worth.
A lot of owners feel they are currently subsidizing the weak teams and need a long term solution. The lockout is an alternative solution, albeit a desperate solution, to eliminate teams without having to abide by league rules in regards to franchise closings.

This is not meant to be a rumor or a conspiracy theory. I just thought it was an interesting rational to why the owners would risk lost profits for another dissolved season.
I don't think it really answers the question of why the owners are taking on the risk of losing fan support, but nothing in the NHL organization seems to make much sense lately. As NBA is on the rise, the NHL continues to completely misunderstand their target audience; fixated on gimmicks and specific players.

Thanks for reading, can't wait to hear your replies.

I just don't see the logic in this at all. How would the lockout force out weak franchises? I almost see the opposite as well, the lockout is entirely to help the weak franchises....although I don't see how the NHL's proposals help those franchises other than in the very short term.

[King Crane]

I just don't see the logic in this at all. How would the lockout force out weak franchises? I almost see the opposite as well, the lockout is entirely to help the weak franchises....although I don't see how the NHL's proposals help those franchises other than in the very short term.

No season = No ticket sales and decrease in commodoty sales = No profit
...that simple.
The contents of the contracts are irrelevant when the theory stems from simply trying to starve weak teams.

It is an interesting idea really, but there are a couple of problems: Why did the owners at first agree to put these teams into such markets? No one can tell me, that they didn't hire some highly educated research experts and other stuff before voting yes. Cutting some of these franchises could be done easier: Put the non cap world on the table again and decrease revenue sharing, teams who can't even make it with rs are going to be non existant in no time, midget would have to bite the bullet and relocate them. Granted it is just a theory, but I think there are better ways to do that if that is really what some owners are going for.

The theory behind any expansion is that they saw a potential market and took a chance. I think the owners bit off more than they could chew. They thought that (A) the debt would be short term, and (B) the expansion would grow the popularity of the sport by giving more people the opportunity to attend games. In reality, a lot of owners were hesitant to include more cities. Additionally, they carried out the expansion poorly, going back to the pitfalls of the NHL marketing team. "Gee where is a good place to play ICE HOCKEY? The desert? The tropics? GENIUS! ...oh wait...dumbest idea ever". I think they expanded to places that already had good sports franchises, but didn't fully consider the idea that people from those areas might not know the sport well enough to care. Florida and Arizona could have been successes, but the NHL needed to be more popular before they planted teams there.

[sibiriak]

No season = No ticket sales and decrease in commodoty sales = No profit
...that simple.
The contents of the contracts are irrelevant when the theory stems from simply trying to starve weak teams.

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.

[sibiriak]

The theory behind any expansion is that they saw a potential market and took a chance. I think the owners bit off more than they could chew. They thought that (A) the debt would be short term, and (B) the expansion would grow the popularity of the sport by giving more people the opportunity to attend games. In reality, a lot of owners were hesitant to include more cities. Additionally, they carried out the expansion poorly, going back to the pitfalls of the NHL marketing team. "Gee where is a good place to play ICE HOCKEY? The desert? The tropics? GENIUS! ...oh wait...dumbest idea ever". I think they expanded to places that already had good sports franchises, but didn't fully consider the idea that people from those areas might not know the sport well enough to care. Florida and Arizona could have been successes, but the NHL needed to be more popular before they planted teams there.

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?

Edited by sibiriak, 08 October 2012 - 10:32 PM.

[rrasco]

I have a request: can we keep news quotes from being highlighted in grey? It's killing my eyes.

[chances14]

I saw the headline and assumed it's an old article. It's not. When the two sides meet later this week, they once again won't be discussing the central issue that is holding up the season.



Fehr insists it's good the two sides are still talking even if it's not about the main issue. I guess it is better than nothing, but still seems kind of absurd.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407017

I figured that since both sides urged each other to produce new proposals at last weeks meetings that they would have begin talking about economics this week but I guess not. Ridiculous.

So I assume that neither side is willing to move even a little bit so that they can even being to talk about economic issues. And this is where both sides are at fault. No urgency to get this deal done

[The Axe]

Bettman just said Crosby gets 175 pts this year no matter what.

[cusimano_brothers]

I have a request: can we keep news quotes from being highlighted in grey? It's killing my eyes.

Do you notice a "common thread" between all the quotes? There's your answer. Don't kill the messenger.

[RedWingsDad]

Without a league, there would be no lockout. What's your point?

The salary cap was instituted to protect the owners from themselves, because they demonstrated they cannot control their spending. Do you believe the PA proposed the salary cap last time which led to a lockout? The cap is not the reason for this lockout, and the salary cap isn't even the core of the negotiations. They're negotiating the definition of HRR and how that revenue will be split between the owners and players. If in any way shape or form the salary cap relates to overspending, it's the cap floor, and some franchises trying to reach the floor will spend more than a player is worth in the process, thus inflating salaries.

I'm beginning to think you're not familiar with the core issues about the league, PA, or CBA at all. You just seem to be bashing the PA without any apparent base.

I believe I am familiar as the next guy about the issue at hand. I seem to have hit a nerve with you, but I do thank you for your explanation for why a salary cap is needed, though you seem to have missed the point I was driving at, which is - what is the necessity of the players union? Unless it violates some labor law, there is no reason why the owners couldn't have agreed amongst themselves to institute a salary cap. Your position seems to be that the owners need the union to protect them from themselves, which is entirely fallacious. Am I misrepresenting your position in some way?

There is no actual "pro sports anti-trust exemption". MLB was exempt until 1998, but now it's a limited exemption. The NFL has a limited exemption as well. The Clayton Act contained a labor exemption, which basically made unions exempt from anti-trust liability.

That exemption was used to derive the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption. That basically says that a CBA takes precedence over anti-trust laws. i.e. A CBA can contain terms that would otherwise violate labor laws.

Since that exemption requires a CBA, and a CBA requires a union...the union is in fact entirely necessary. Without the union agreeing to the hard cap, half or more of the league's teams would likely have gone bankrupt by now.

Thanks for the details - though I am still unconvinced of the necessity of a labor union. Do you know what specific terms a CBA makes possible that would otherwise be illegal due to anti-trust laws? Perhaps that will clear things up. To confirm. you are asserting that without a CBA, a hard cap would have been impossible due to it's illegality?

Edit: I read all the other comments in response to my post, but unfortunately do not have time to address them all as I’m posting from work .

Edited by RedWingsDad, 09 October 2012 - 09:13 AM.

[Buppy]

....
Thanks for the details - though I am still unconvinced of the necessity of a labor union. Do you know what specific terms a CBA makes possible that would otherwise be illegal due to anti-trust laws? Perhaps that will clear things up. To confirm. you are asserting that without a CBA, a hard cap would have been impossible due to it's illegality?
...

Yes, a hard cap would be illegal. It's wage fixing. For that matter, any agreement between two or more teams to place any limits at all on player compensation of any type (salary, term, benefits, etc.) would be illegal collusion. Any team on its own could decide on whatever limits they want, but they couldn't make any agreements with other teams. NHL owners have pretty well proven that in a true open market they will spend themselves into the poorhouse.

MLB owners got busted for collusion in the mid-80s.

During the recent NBA lockout, the players union more or less dissolved itself in order to open the door for an anti-trust suit against the owners. A couple cases were actually filed, but a new CBA was reached before they went anywhere.