2458 replies to this topic

[frankgrimes]

Today on TSN's OTR, the entire show dealt with the lockout; mighty good interviews and a couple of surprises.

Really nice *lol* I think even Daily would be a better commissioner than thiis stupid midget at least he acknowledged some sorts of the partnership but absolutely refused an answer for the Phoenix fiasco. Sure all owners might have raised their hand for a lockout but I am sure not all are happy with it.

Also Teemu Selanne has dedicated a nice blog to the overall so loved midget called "Bettman what gives?"

[ami]

No they don't, they just want more money. Profits are up by over 50% since the last lockout.

First, no, you're wrong, revenue is up 50% not profit.
Second, it matters what they want more money for - owners need more money to cover increased expenses, where players just want guaranteed money. business doesn't work like this.

[haroldsnepsts]

First, no, you're wrong, revenue is up 50% not profit.
Second, it matters what they want more money for - owners need more money to cover increased expenses, where players just want guaranteed money. business doesn't work like this.

Business also doesn't typically have a lottery to pick its employees as 18 year olds and tell them which franchise they work for, own their rights to be employed, or trade their employees for compensation.

You're really oversimplifying how a professional sports league works.

[Nightfall]

Honestly them asking for rollbacks doesn't surprise me either. I was just surprised at how outrageous their proposal is.

Had they made a more reasonable proposal for a rollback, they probably could've gotten it by now. Instead they went nuclear.

52% seems like a good number. Get the players to give up 5%, but then make the concession that CBA term has to be longer like the league wants. Then when that ends, re-evaluate how many franchises are still struggling and why. The NHL's proposal was as if the league was in a massive financial crisis. It's not.

Like I said from the beginning, a group of knowledgeable hockey fans and hockey reporters could get together and knock out a a pretty equitable CBA in a day. This should have been the smoothest negotiations of all of them. I have to wonder if the owners saw the other league's negotiations and the players share under 50% and started licking their chops.

You and I are in total agreement. Greed on the owners side was definitely a factor in these negotiations.

I know we don't see eye to eye on this subject when it comes to player fault, but I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post.

Thats what I was thinking too after reading their so called proposal. I understand you should aim high at the beginning but the league simply has gone overboard with the initial offer. The only one close to a somewhat okayish starting point has been there resent one.

Players showed they are willing to give up some piece of the cake so lets say if they give up 5 %, the NHL gets plus 1 year on the CBA and other stuff like ELC, UFA and arbitration rights are staying we should have a deal by now? Both sides would make some concessions but keeping their face and if on top of that the struggling franchises still can't turn into decent ones relocate them.

Read a midget quote like "we need a CBA that is fair to all 30 franchises" I can call BS this will never happen. A fair CBA for owners like Wang would mean his players are having no rights at all and all are s slightly paid above league minimu.

Just for clarification, the players didn't give up 5% on a permanent basis. Now, if they did reduce their offer from 57 to 52 percent for the entire 5 years, then I would be totally on the players side. The fact of the matter is that the players didn't give up anything permanently. They did take the high road on their initial offer by not lowballing the league, and I respect them for that. I know that negotiations dictate that you put forward your best proposal first and work your way down. The fact of the matter is that neither side really moved away from their initial proposal.

This is a no brainer thing to hammer out IMHO. The greed on both sides is just disgusting. I know that everyone loves it when we job the owners here, but the players have some fault too. We have to have two leaders that are willing to work it out and concede things they have that the other wants.

[cusimano_brothers]

Really nice *lol* I think even Daily would be a better commissioner than thiis stupid midget at least he acknowledged some sorts of the partnership but absolutely refused an answer for the Phoenix fiasco. Sure all owners might have raised their hand for a lockout but I am sure not all are happy with it.

Also Teemu Selanne has dedicated a nice blog to the overall so loved midget called "Bettman what gives?"

Bruce Arthur's story about Uncle Gary's reference to the Mafia's organization and how it controls underlings in a university thesis was funny .

[sibiriak]

First, no, you're wrong, revenue is up 50% not profit.
Second, it matters what they want more money for - owners need more money to cover increased expenses, where players just want guaranteed money. business doesn't work like this.

Who would you sympathize with In any other business, if when revenues grow by 50% in 7 years, the management would try to cut employees pay by 25%? I would definitely side with workers in such a case.

[Buppy]

...

Just for clarification, the players didn't give up 5% on a permanent basis. Now, if they did reduce their offer from 57 to 52 percent for the entire 5 years, then I would be totally on the players side. The fact of the matter is that the players didn't give up anything permanently. They did take the high road on their initial offer by not lowballing the league, and I respect them for that. I know that negotiations dictate that you put forward your best proposal first and work your way down. The fact of the matter is that neither side really moved away from their initial proposal.

This is a no brainer thing to hammer out IMHO. The greed on both sides is just disgusting. I know that everyone loves it when we job the owners here, but the players have some fault too. We have to have two leaders that are willing to work it out and concede things they have that the other wants.

I take it you still have not looked at the players last proposal. The option year at 57% is gone. It is a reduced share for the entire 5 year term, though it would likely be around 4% depending on actual growth. At most they could get 57% of new revenue growth in the last two years, but that's far different from 57% of total revenue.

[frankgrimes]

The players agreed to help out and give some concessions over time but the midget said he wanted an immediate paycut + rollback + their ridiculous playerright terms which will never happen.

Fehr did a good job explaining the players starting offer, basically it came down to - 4,5 % over 3 years and if revenue keeps increasing go up again which is a really fair one in my mind.

Bruce Arthur's story about Uncle Gary's reference to the Mafia's organization and how it controls underlings in a university thesis was funny .

*lol* yeah laughed at that and really I think it is an accurate one.

[Buppy]

...
And I gave an example of protecting membership on somebody esle's expense. All unions have a lot in common.

And, yes, I don't like unions in general. This lockout is one more (one too many, actually) prove that my dislike has some ground.

Many talks about so well established purpose of unions in profesional sport, but few tried to elaborate...



And the league has reasons to believe, it is impossible to have viable business with current level of expenses.

Look at baseball in the mid-80s; Owners paid players $280M to settle three charges of collusion. There have been other charges since. And that's with a union, imagine what the owners might get away with if there was no union.

Fact is, without a union, everything the owners are asking for would be illegal. The only reason the salary cap, max salaries, etc. aren't considered collusion is because the players union agreed to those terms. Without the union, there would be no CBA and each team would decide by themselves what they consider fair compensation to players. Any agreements between teams to limit pay or contract terms to a player would be illegal. I'm sure the players would love that system; it was the owners that fought so hard to get the limits.

[Rivalred]

As others have mentioned, I may be shifting my attention to different types of hockey such as College or AHL.

The NHL is leaving a bitter taste in my mouth and I am not sure how I feel about the whole situation. It does make me not really want to support such antics due to the drama.

Owners know if they put a product out there that is entertaining, folks will watch. The owners and NHL could care less about the fans as they know for each fan they lose, another will pop up. I firmly believe that is what they think....

What is sad are the other businesses that rely on the game also and this economy is scotched tape together as is...

The fans have a right to be upset....

[Hatethedrake!]

Bettman is lazy and he sucks.

[ami]

Who would you sympathize with In any other business, if when revenues grow by 50% in 7 years, the management would try to cut employees pay by 25%? I would definitely side with workers in such a case.

First of all, it is not a matter of like or dislike.

Second, it is not enough information here: increase in revenue does not alway mean increase in profit. I don't know anything about their expenses (btw, PA knows for sure). It wouldn't be matter if revenue skyrocketed, while expenses grow even faster. Look at some public companies' Form-10k for last 2-3 year. Many of them show increase in revenue, and decrease in profit. I haven't see nhl teams financial documents, however, I can reasonably assume they wont be far from the pattern I just mentioned. It is also indirectly proved by persistant talks about small market teams suffering despite inscreased revenue.

Fact is, without a union, everything the owners are asking for would be illegal...

Wow! Thats a bold statement. AFAIU, you refer to professional sports only, because I know plenty examples of businesses operating without unions and not concidered illegal. So, tell me, what is/are such drastic difference(s) that make operating proffesional sport team without a union illegal?

I think if there is no PA, there would be no CBA, salary cap, max salaries, etc and lockouts... Any contract would be negotiated and signed by a team and a players, no one would force another to sign, etc.

Yes, you are right owners come up with idea of cap to restrict PA growing power. However, in the free market, they would love to pay what they think is reasonable and players are free to sign or reject.

Business also doesn't typically have a lottery to pick its employees as 18 year olds and tell them which franchise they work for, own their rights to be employed, or trade their employees for compensation.

You're really oversimplifying how a professional sports league works.

I haven't had a single conclusion about league operating complexity... I just said that businesses intend to generated profit, otherwise they'll eventually die.

Edited by ami, 18 September 2012 - 11:45 AM.

[frankgrimes]

Ami mind discussing your hate for unions in the politics session of this board? Thought we should only discuss the lockout not the cons and pros of unions.

[sleepwalker]

First of all, it is not a matter of like or dislike.

Second, it is not enough information here: increase in revenue does not alway mean increase in profit. I don't know anything about their expenses

Thats funny, considering you emphatically state over and over that, and I quote, "owners need more money to cover increased expenses".

So even though you admittedly have absolutely no clue what the expenses are, your argument is that you just somehow know that the increased expenses are so severe that they require a nearly 50% rollback of player salaries over the last 2 CBAs while revenues simultaneously have risen by over 50%.

Also funny that the owners aren't even really arguing that themselves, they are simply saying that they think the players are overpaid and that the league should have at least a 50% share, and that is why they want salary rollbacks.

Ami mind discussing your hate for unions in the politics session of this board? Thought we should only discuss the lockout not the cons and pros of unions.

You must have not been around for a while. The politics forum got axed a while back, like several months ago.

But I agree, Ami is letting his hatered for all unions (which he already stated in his post that got deleted) blind him to the discussion at hand here.

In general, I am also not a fan of unions, but even I can see that the GMs are just being completely greedy assholes here, and the players are in the right this time. (I was on the GMs side last CBA)

[cusimano_brothers]

Who does the "overpaying"?

[Hatethedrake!]

Who does the "overpaying"?

Minnesota.

[sleepwalker]

Minnesota.

Those crazy contracts we saw over the summer were essentially just sham contracts though, as the owners had absolutely zero intent of actually honoring them, as we can clearly see now.

Thats why I can see this lockout going on indefinitely. The owners signed crazy contracts thinking they'd just get the players to roll over with the CBA and they wouldn't have to pay them out. While the players, are refusing the bend over and just take it up the rear like they did last time. And the only reason they even did last time, was that it was assumed since the league got everything they wanted, they wouldn't have to deal with that s*** again this time around.

Edited by sleepwalker, 18 September 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[Nightfall]

http://penslabyrinth...a-negotiations/

I know this came from a Pittsburgh source, but man is it funny.

From the article

---

Bettman wants the house in the Hamptons, the Pokémon collectibles (definitely Bettman), and the McLaren F1. That’s alright with Fehr, he takes the crib in Malibu and the 747. As the mediator takes cover under the table, they are reminded the Mansion in St. Thomas and the one-hundred-thirty foot Yacht must be divided between them. Obscenities echo about the room as the dog fight begins…

In the end, personal concessions will be made by both sides as they choose partnership instead of the perceived ‘divorce’. Bettman and Fehr will recall their minions and leave the daily posturing and laughable proposals on the battlefield. The “negotiations”, however flawed and rudimentary we view them to be, are much more a belligerent staring contest than a simplistic debate. Divorce Court is nasty, just watch it on TV. We look at the X’s and Y’s and say ‘hey, stop being unrealistic, these concessions in those categories will square everything away’. I’d imagine the Suits are fully aware, but this is high-stakes gambling, not gin-rummy with grandma. No one wants to fold first. The parties are sensitive; they’d be better off with therapists heaped around the room, massaging each figurehead’s ego into a blissful state before conversing. Now that is the “Art” I would introduce to CBA negotiations.

----

Edited by Nightfall, 18 September 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[sibiriak]

First of all, it is not a matter of like or dislike.

Second, it is not enough information here: increase in revenue does not alway mean increase in profit. I don't know anything about their expenses (btw, PA knows for sure). It wouldn't be matter if revenue skyrocketed, while expenses grow even faster. Look at some public companies' Form-10k for last 2-3 year. Many of them show increase in revenue, and decrease in profit. I haven't see nhl teams financial documents, however, I can reasonably assume they wont be far from the pattern I just mentioned. It is also indirectly proved by persistant talks about small market teams suffering despite inscreased revenue.

You are correct, there is not enough info to know. However, since the player personnel cost was a fixed 57% share of the revenue, then for profits to fall while revenues increase by 50%, the other expenses would have to have risen almost twice as fast as revenue (at the very least significantly faster than 50%). So what costs of hockey operations could have increased by about 70-100% in 7 years? Non-player personnel? In this economy? Are you kidding me? Electricity? No. Arena rentals? No, they are usually set in a looong term lease. Taxes? No. And often the teams get tax breaks anyway. Adsvertizing? There were no radical increases there either. So where would the alleged cost increases come from? I don't see it. There are indeed teams that lose money, but their problems are not in high non-player costs, they usually have weak fan bases and have committed to unsustainable (fort their markets) player contracts.

Wow! Thats a bold statement. AFAIU, you refer to professional sports only, because I know plenty examples of businesses operating without unions and not concidered illegal. So, tell me, what is/are such drastic difference(s) that make operating proffesional sport team without a union illegal?

I think if there is no PA, there would be no CBA, salary cap, max salaries, etc and lockouts... Any contract would be negotiated and signed by a team and a players, no one would force another to sign, etc.

Yes, you are right owners come up with idea of cap to restrict PA growing power. However, in the free market, they would love to pay what they think is reasonable and players are free to sign or reject.

I haven't had a single conclusion about league operating complexity... I just said that businesses intend to generated profit, otherwise they'll eventually die.

So you think that in a free market players would get less than in a market with a salary cap? Seriously?
Owners didn't install the cap to "restrict PA growing power". (They crushed the union the last time, remember?)
The owners put the cap in to save themselves from themselves. Each owner has an incentive to pay more to attract better players, so their team wins and more fans come to see their team play. But collectively as a group, such actions will inevitably lead to bidding up player salaries. Hence, the cap. Without the cap, player salaries reached 70% of revenue mark before the last lockout.

And if there were no CBA and no union to negotiate with, the owners couldn't renege on their contract obligations like they are trying to do now, they would have been sued for breach of contract.
That is why the owner current behavior would have been illegal in any non-unionized, non anti-trust exempted industry.

[evilzyme]

not sure where else to post this or to make a new thread but considering it involves the lockout no.need for. a new thread. sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nail-yakupov-other-nhl-players-facing-iihf-transfer-174309411--nhl.html;_ylt=Ar7LrFK_OGCZCLEEwe4vlzmRbcp_;_ylu=X3oDMTE4NWRia245BG1pdANCbG9ncyBJbmRleARwb3MDMQRzZWMDTWVkaWFCbG9nSW5kZXg-;_ylg=X3oDMTFpMm9iMzh1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANibG9nBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

apparently the iihf isnt approving nhl players transfer cards that is required to play in the iihf leagues including the khl. they bring up how the nhl has "pressured" the khl and has a strong hold on them influence wise so this may be a tatic from the league to prevent its locked out players from playing hockey in general. things turning.into a giant gongshow here boys