Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2458 replies to this topic

#1221 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 30 October 2012 - 07:51 PM

You forgot to mention they've had labor peace since that strike. Including new CBA's in 2002 and 2006. Want to guess who was head of the union for those?

Prior to the 1994-5 strike every negotiation had resulted with a work stoppage. 8 times since 1972.

I don't really follow baseball anymore but aside from the obvious problem of equating two very different situations in two very different sports, Fehr played a major role in successfully busting the owners for collusion three times. And since the 1995 strike, MLB has not lost a game. Not exactly the same situation.

Very true.

Between 931-948 games lost in the first MLB strike, but there has been labor peace since then.

Just keep in mind that the score from the leaders of these respective sides should be 0-0. Anything more than that is a travesty.

Fehr - 1
Bettman - 3

AND the players offered to start the season WITHOUT a CBA; owners said no. The preponderance of fault lies with the owners on this one.

The players were the side that benefited the most from the CBA. Its a no brainer why they wanted to keep the season going.

Edited by Nightfall, 30 October 2012 - 09:45 PM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#1222 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 07:51 PM

Fehr - 1
Bettman - 3

AND the players offered to start the season WITHOUT a CBA; owners said no. The preponderance of fault lies with the owners on this one.



fehr has a history of striking in times of the league's biggest revenue making season, the playoffs and also at the time in which the owners have already paid most of their expenses. coincdentally the players do not get paid in the playoffs and have already recieved their checks before then. this gives the players pretty much all the leverage in negotations

let's not forget also, the former pa head bob goodenow led the players on strike back in 1992 on the eve of the stanley cup finals.

i'm pretty sure the owners don't want to go down that road again

#1223 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,872 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 07:57 PM

Very true.

Between 931-948 games lost in the first MLB strike, but there has been labor peace since then.

The first MLB strike was in 1972. Then there was the one in 1981, again in 1985 and then the one in 1994. So I'm not sure what point you're making exactly.

The fact is that Fehr has done something Bettman never has. Negotiated a CBA without a work stoppage. Twice.

#1224 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:00 PM

The writing has been on the wall since 1995. Bettman = lockout.


actually i think the players animosity towards the owners can be traced back even further than that to Alan Eagleson, the most crooked nhlpa head in the history of the union, who was essentially in the owners back pocket.

#1225 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:12 PM

The first MLB strike was in 1972. Then there was the one in 1981, again in 1985 and then the one in 1994. So I'm not sure what point you're making exactly.

The fact is that Fehr has done something Bettman never has. Negotiated a CBA without a work stoppage. Twice.

I was referencing the lockout in 1994-1995 season that wiped out 931-948 games when it was under Fehr's watch.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#1226 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,872 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:17 PM

The players were the side that benefited the most from the CBA. Its a no brainer why they wanted to keep the season going.

You keep saying this but I haven't heard you explain logically how the players who gave up 24% of their salary and and agreed to a hard cap benefitted more than the owners.

#1227 VM1138

VM1138

    Legend

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,516 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:22 PM

Just to praise the Wings during the lockout, I just heard something from my mother. My 11 year old brother is part of their kids club thing and in the past he got a cheap little Red Wings bag as a perk. They called my mom and said that they were lowering the price and offering gloves, a hat and something else as a consolation prize of sorts for the lockout. Pretty classy, I think. Give more for less? Unheard of.
Check out my short e-book on the Red Wings' 1937 Stanley Cup championship entitled: "Nothing Could Keep 'Em Down." Please download it from my profile at Smashwords: https://www.smashwor...ile/view/victor

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

#1228 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,872 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:26 PM

I was referencing the lockout in 1994-1995 season that wiped out 931-948 games when it was under Fehr's watch.

Right. I think you know what Bettman's magic number is. Not to mention MLB plays 80 more games a season.

So if you want to try and equate the two, let's call 1995 for Bettman and Fehr a tie.

That leaves Fehr's two successful CBA negotiations with no work stoppages. Whereas Bettman has two more lockouts. One that cost the entire season and playoffs. A first in history for one of the 4 major sports.

#1229 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:39 PM

You keep saying this but I haven't heard you explain logically how the players who gave up 24% of their salary and and agreed to a hard cap benefitted more than the owners.

I think you know where the sport was back in the lockout. Clubs were spending 76% of their gross revenues on player salaries.

The history lesson is here....

http://en.wikipedia....05_NHL_lockout

If you look at the last 6 years, the players salaries have doubled in that time. The players may have taken those concessions back in 2005, but the 57% of revenues kept the players very happy. By and far, they were making out better than the owners. Which is why its a no brainer why they wanted to keep the gravy train rolling.

Right. I think you know what Bettman's magic number is. Not to mention MLB plays 80 more games a season.

So if you want to try and equate the two, let's call 1995 for Bettman and Fehr a tie.

That leaves Fehr's two successful CBA negotiations with no work stoppages. Whereas Bettman has two more lockouts. One that cost the entire season and playoffs. A first in history for one of the 4 major sports.

Not disputing those facts.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#1230 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Location:Minneapoilis, MN

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:32 PM

I was referencing the lockout in 1994-1995 season that wiped out 931-948 games when it was under Fehr's watch.


Given that MLB has not lost any games to labor disputes since one can argue that it was the price worth paying.

#1231 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Location:Minneapoilis, MN

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:41 PM

If you look at the last 6 years, the players salaries have doubled in that time. The players may have taken those concessions back in 2005, but the 57% of revenues kept the players very happy. By and far, they were making out better than the owners. Which is why its a no brainer why they wanted to keep the gravy train rolling.


Given that players share is a fixed percentage of league revenues and those increased by about 50% since the previous lockout how exactly did players manage to double their salaries?

#1232 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:40 AM

The NHLPA could and should give up something. How much is really up in the air. Yes, they made concessions during the last lockout. The current deal favors the players by far. So for all the concessions they made last time, they have seen great prosperity since the last lockout. The salary of the average NHL player has almost doubled since the players returned to work after the last stoppage. As I have said before I think a 52-48 split is reasonable, but 50/50 would seem to be what the market dictates being as that the NFL and NBA both negotiated successfully last year at that rate. Like it or not, the negotiations of other sports typically do dictate what the NHL is going to do.

Most pro NHLPA fans don't see the timeline as an issue. I do and always will. Nothing is set in stone. No one is able to say for sure if a deal would have been reached or not. To say with all certainty one way or the other is really supposition. My point is simply this.....if more time were given to the negotiations then we may have possibly avoided the lockout. To rob the negotiations of that time doesn't excuse the NHLPA.

Just the fact that you are also willing to pardon Fehr's delays while bashing Bettman's horrible first lowball proposal also shows bias. IMHO, you can't excuse one while bashing the other in good conscience. Which is why I bash them both.

Sorry, but in my opinion both leaders should be canned for the reasons I gave. A new fresh start has to be initiated in order to start a new era of labor peace. Keeping one or both of these guys around will do nothing positive. I would prefer two leaders who have an interest in working together. People who favor one side or the other look at this conflict like a political party system. These aren't Republicans or Democrats we are talking about here. These are two sides that are in need of labor peace. The two sides have to work together, and that takes two uniters. There are no uniters in Fehr and Bettman. If Bettman is fired, the cycle will repeat again in another 6 years or whenever the new CBA hits.

Nice of you to mention Bettman's lockouts, but not mention Fehr's tubing of the World Series. So far, the game of hockey and the MLB have one thing in common, both have lost a championship series due to the morons in command of the players and the league. Is this the type of leadership you want from your leaders in the NHL?

You favor the NHLPA all the way. I am fine with that, but don't defend the actions of the NHLPA like they haven't done anything wrong over the course of the last 6 months. Their actions resulted in where we are today. Just as the NHL actions have also contributed to where we are now.
...

I wasn't referring to the concessions made in the last lockout. Though for the record, total player expenses have increased around 56% from the first year after, and only around 28% from the year before. What I was referring to is the concessions they've made relative the the 57% split they had last year. That split was a real thing. In my view, going from a real 57% split to 54% is a far more meaningful concession than going from an imaginary 57% to 50% (when you had been at 43%).

Negotiations in other sports may influence the NHL, true, but not absolutely dictate. Furthermore, you can't just cherry pick certain terms and say, "we have to have this exactly, right now". Yeah, the NBA has a 50% split, sort of. It was actually 51.15% in year 1, and could be anywhere between 49-51% the remaining years (depending on how close actual revenue comes to the projections). NBA also has a soft cap, which you don't mention. The current cap in the NBA is $58.044M. Current average team salary is ~$66.9M. Slightly higher than it was in 10-11 (just before their new CBA), and below the projected players' share. The reduction in the actual dollars of the players' share wasn't as drastic. NBA has a maximum escrow of 10%, which you don't mention. That could potentially push the players' share higher. You don't mention MLB, which doesn't have a cap at all and does just fine. Point is, there are differences. Furthermore, ending at 50% doesn't seem to be a problem for the PA.

I'll try to explain my take on why I don't care about the timeline again. It really has nothing to do with whether or not more time would have helped. Everything boils down to the offers being made. The only reason to complain about the timeline, or the lack of negotiations, is that you reason that more time or talking would result in better proposals. So your real problem isn't with the time, it's with the proposals. If the sides had put off meeting until 9/14, but reached an agreement that day, you wouldn't be complaining that they only spent a single day on it. I don't have a problem with the proposals from the PA. I thought even their first was good enough to use as a framework. I thought the financials of the second were fine as they were, and should have served as an agreement in principle while the secondary issues were worked out. I think the players' latest offers were good enough that the owners should have taken them without even asking for concessions on contracting rights. In short, I believe the PA got where they needed to be, and got there soon enough that the lockout wasn't necessary. Would more time have been enough to get the owners there? Maybe, but I don't care. Owners had just as much time as the players. If the players got there, the owners should have too. So again, I don't care about the timeline because I think the players' offers are good. You don't, so I understand why you'd be critical. I don't quite understand why you only criticize the PAs delays though, nor do I understand why bashing the owners' apples should make me obligated to bash the players' oranges.

And I would argue that Fehr is exactly the person to help establish peaceful labor relations, as he did exactly that in an even more hostile MLB environment. And I'd like to know how exactly you interpreted the phrase, "Fehr was party to a devastating strike", as "not mentioning" it. Seems like a mention to me. I guess you just missed that part. I don't think a conciliator like Kelly would work. Weak leadership on either side would lose the respect of the people they represent. To have a peace both sides are happy with I think takes leadership that has the confidence of their constituency and the respect of their counterparts. The leaders don't have to be friends, don't need any shiny, happy handshakes. Just respect, maybe a little fear. Cold war style. MAD and all that. I think Fehr has proven himself capable of that in baseball, so he deserves a shot in hockey. What has Gary proven?

(Sidenote: I found this line a little hilarious, from here. "Bettman's mission is simple: Put a stop to labor unrest...". I think it's been mentioned before, but still funny.)

Lastly, you're getting one thing completely backwards. I don't think the way I do because I support the PA. I support the PA because I think the way I do. It's not about what has or hasn't been done wrong on either side, it's what has and hasn't been done right. The PA making the right (IMO) offer, makes any wrongs I might have had a problem with meaningless. They can only be wrong insofar as they contribute to making the offer wrong. If the offer isn't wrong, the actions leading to the offer aren't wrong. The actions themselves are meaningless. All anyone should be concerned with is the offers. You don't agree with the offers. You have your theories on what you think has contributed to those offers (or more accurately, the lack of better ones), but don't let that confuse your true issue.

#1233 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,605 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:33 AM

From TSN:


Locked-out NHL players had the pain of missing their first full pay period offset Tuesday when they received last season's escrow cheque.

Players were returned 7.98 per cent of what they earned last year, plus interest, one day before their second paycheque of the 2012-13 season would have been due, according to a spokesman for the NHL Players' Association

The escrow payments amount to about $80,000 for every million dollars a player earned -- before deductions. For example, New York Rangers forward Brad Richards grossed approximately $960,000 after being the league's highest-paid player last season.


"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#1234 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,872 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:36 AM

I think you know where the sport was back in the lockout. Clubs were spending 76% of their gross revenues on player salaries.

The history lesson is here....

http://en.wikipedia...."05_NHL_lockout

If you look at the last 6 years, the players salaries have doubled in that time. The players may have taken those concessions back in 2005, but the 57% of revenues kept the players very happy. By and far, they were making out better than the owners. Which is why its a no brainer why they wanted to keep the gravy train rolling.


Not disputing those facts.

I don't need a history lesson. I'm not talking about where the sport was. I'm talking about your claim that the players "by and far" were making out better than the owners. You keep saying this but haven't provided any evidence.

The players ended up doing pretty well under this CBA, certainly better than they would've expected after giving up nearly a quarter of their salary and conceding to a salary cap. But that's not the same as "they're making out better than owners."

In 2003-2004 Nick Lidstrom, arguably one of the best players in the game, was making $10 million. 7 years later, the salaries of top players in the league are just now approaching that.

So over the 7 years the owners enjoyed a massive reduction in their greatest cost while experiencing record setting revenues. Claiming the players faired not just better but far better is just too general and baseless of a statement to be meaningful unless you have some proof.

#1235 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:42 AM

I don't need a history lesson. I'm not talking about where the sport was. I'm talking about your claim that the players "by and far" were making out better than the owners. You keep saying this but haven't provided any evidence.

The players ended up doing pretty well under this CBA, certainly better than they would've expected after giving up nearly a quarter of their salary and conceding to a salary cap. But that's not the same as "they're making out better than owners."

In 2003-2004 Nick Lidstrom, arguably one of the best players in the game, was making $10 million. 7 years later, the salaries of top players in the league are just now approaching that.

So over the 7 years the owners enjoyed a massive reduction in their greatest cost while experiencing record setting revenues. Claiming the players faired not just better but far better is just too general and baseless of a statement to be meaningful unless you have some proof.

When you talk about the serious concessions, it helps to understand where we came from. When clubs were spending 76% of their revenue on players, a large rollback was really the only way to keep the sport going. You say you don't need a history lesson, and its readily apparent you do. Many fans were on the side of the owners back then and for obvious reasons.

So, that being said, with salaries increasing over the course of the CBA leading us up to where we are today, I would say that the players have made out very well. Back in 2011, the average salary was $2.45 million. In 2006 after the lockout, it was 1.4 million, which was at 1.8 million before the rollbacks. Looking at the contracts that have been signed in the last two years, its feasable to believe that the average salary continues to go up.

The owners on the other hand have also done well for themselves but much less. Each team made about $4-$5 million per team the last couple years when you look at $120-$150 million in profit each year. These are the same owners that take the business risk. I firmly believe that the ownership is entitled to a little bit more, but not at the rate they are asking for. Still, in the end, I can make 3% on an investment by throwing all my money into a interest baring checking account. 1.5% average return on investment, and thats if there were no problems that needed to be addressed, is very small for a year.

So I guess that, based on that evidence, how can you not say that the players have made out better than the owners in the last CBA? Furthermore, how can you expect the owners to continue to run their businesses with those kinds of margins? The players had no motivation to negotiate a new CBA when they have the keys to the car. They would have played under that current CBA for the next 5-10 more years. It really is a no brainer to me why there is a lockout going on right now.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#1236 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:57 AM

Lastly, you're getting one thing completely backwards. I don't think the way I do because I support the PA. I support the PA because I think the way I do. It's not about what has or hasn't been done wrong on either side, it's what has and hasn't been done right. The PA making the right (IMO) offer, makes any wrongs I might have had a problem with meaningless. They can only be wrong insofar as they contribute to making the offer wrong. If the offer isn't wrong, the actions leading to the offer aren't wrong. The actions themselves are meaningless. All anyone should be concerned with is the offers. You don't agree with the offers. You have your theories on what you think has contributed to those offers (or more accurately, the lack of better ones), but don't let that confuse your true issue.

I will say you make some valid points, especially on your method of thinking. In my mind, both parties are going to be to blame in this lockout. You say that you don't think the way you do because you support the PA. You support the PA because you think the way you do. I think the same way when it comes to my disdain for both parties and the way they conduct business. It disgusts me, and as much as it disgusts me, I know that I won't be able to change the minds who are firmly on one fence or the other.

As I said before, we are going to have to agree to disagree on many of the things we discuss. This isn't a bad thing. We just have two opinions on the way that these negotiations should be run and my thoughts differ from yours. After 20 pages of discussion, this is the way it always will be from the looks of things.

With all this being said, let me throw out another thought that has to do with what you mentioned. You are right, I shouldn't expect anyone who likes apples but hates oranges to smash the apples they have. Same goes for the opposite. I mention this because you substitute the NHL for oranges and the NHLPA for apples, and you get the situation we have right here. I cannot expect you or anyone else that matter to change. You have your reasons for being where you are today, just as I do. The likelihood of us meeting in the middle or changing our minds are nill. Even though I hate the owners and the PA for their actions in this, I can't expect people firmly on one side to follow me in my thought process. There is a reason you are where you are at right now.

As a hockey fan, I hope this gets situated as quickly as possible. At the same time, my fandom of NHL hockey has taken a hit. This is coming from someone who has followed the Wings since I fell in love with the sport. Both the owners and players are not going to feel my paltry impact on the sport of hockey. $2000 a year on merchandise, tickets, travel, and so on don't make a dent in anything. At the same time, I hope that both sides hear my displeasure.

I don't expect you or anyone else to see things the way I do, and its about time I start acting like it. You and others here have done your best to make me see it from your perspective, and that isn't going to happen. I have to just be the guy here to bow out and say, agree to disagree. Don't take it personally, but its just the way that is the best for all of us.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#1237 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,872 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:13 PM

When you talk about the serious concessions, it helps to understand where we came from. When clubs were spending 76% of their revenue on players, a large rollback was really the only way to keep the sport going. You say you don't need a history lesson, and its readily apparent you do. Many fans were on the side of the owners back then and for obvious reasons.

I don't. And it'd be nice if you would discuss what I'm saying instead of making condescending lectures.

I'm not arguing the right or wrong of the 2004 lockout. I'm talking about your claims as to the players benefitting far more than the owners.

So, that being said, with salaries increasing over the course of the CBA leading us up to where we are today, I would say that the players have made out very well. Back in 2011, the average salary was $2.45 million. In 2006 after the lockout, it was 1.4 million, which was at 1.8 million before the rollbacks. Looking at the contracts that have been signed in the last two years, its feasable to believe that the average salary continues to go up.

The owners on the other hand have also done well for themselves but much less. Each team made about $4-$5 million per team the last couple years when you look at $120-$150 million in profit each year. These are the same owners that take the business risk. I firmly believe that the ownership is entitled to a little bit more, but not at the rate they are asking for. Still, in the end, I can make 3% on an investment by throwing all my money into a interest baring checking account. 1.5% average return on investment, and thats if there were no problems that needed to be addressed, is very small for a year.

So I guess that, based on that evidence, how can you not say that the players have made out better than the owners in the last CBA? Furthermore, how can you expect the owners to continue to run their businesses with those kinds of margins? The players had no motivation to negotiate a new CBA when they have the keys to the car. They would have played under that current CBA for the next 5-10 more years. It really is a no brainer to me why there is a lockout going on right now.

Holy cow you are misusing and misrepresenting a ton of information here. Since you didn't provide links for any of the numbers you used, I'm also assuming you're basing your figures on the Forbes report from two years ago, which isn't really a complete financial picture of the money the owners made. You're also taking a number for profit for the league and averaging it as if each team splits the pot, which is in now way how it works.

You're also ignoring the value of the franchise. It's not just a revenue stream, it's an asset. Before the 2004-5 lockout, the average franchise value was $163.3 million. According to that source everyone loves to refer back to, Forbes says the average franchise is now worth $240 million. So the average value of the franchise has increased almost $80 million in 8 years. The well run franchises are not just bringing in good money, they're also greatly increasing in value.

http://www.forbes.co...ness-of-hockey/

Again, it all comes back to the disparity between the franchises, not the players salary. The Maple Leafs have had a massive increase in revenue and franchise value under this CBA.

This is from a fairly reputable financial blog, but it summarizes the Forbes info in a more concise way.

Here is the change in NHL franchise values since the 2003-04 season:

Pittsburgh Penguins, $264 Million, 161.4%
Montreal Canadiens, $445 Million, 128.2%
Edmonton Oilers, $212 Million, 103.8%
Vancouver Canucks, $300 Million, 102.7%
Washington Capitals, $225 Million, 95.7%
Calgary Flames, $220 Million, 89.7%
Toronto Maple Leafs, $521 Million, 86.1%
New York Rangers, $507 Million, 79.8%
Chicago Blackhawks, $306 Million, 71.9%
Carolina Hurricanes, $169 Million, 69.0%
Buffalo Sabres, $173 Million, 68.0%
Anaheim Ducks, $181 Million, 67.6%
Ottawa Senators, $201 Million, 60.8%
Atlanta Thrashers, $164 Million, 54.7%
Nashville Predators, $163 Million, 46.8%
New Jersey Devils, $181 Million, 46.0%
San Jose Sharks, $211 Million, 41.6%
Boston Bruins, $325 Million, 37.7%
Detroit Red Wings, $336 Million, 35.5%
Florida Panthers, $162 Million, 33.9%
Minnesota Wild, $213 Million, 30.7%
Los Angeles Kings, $232 Million, 20.2%
Tampa Bay Lightning, $174 Million, 16.0%
St. Louis Blues, $157 Million, 12.1%
Philadelphia Flyers, $290 Million, 9.8%
Columbus Blue Jackets, $152 Million, 9.4%
Phoenix Coyotes, $134 Million, -1.5%
New York Islanders, $149 Million, -6.9%
Dallas Stars, $230 Million, -11.2%

Colorado Avalanche, $198 Million, -19.5%


http://www.davemanue...05-lockout-135/

Your claim that the players have fared far better is your opinion, nothing more. It remains a very sweeping and unsubstantiated opinion at that. The reality is it's just not that simple.

#1238 StormJH1

StormJH1

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 701 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:15 PM

So, that being said, with salaries increasing over the course of the CBA leading us up to where we are today, I would say that the players have made out very well. Back in 2011, the average salary was $2.45 million. In 2006 after the lockout, it was 1.4 million, which was at 1.8 million before the rollbacks. Looking at the contracts that have been signed in the last two years, its feasable to believe that the average salary continues to go up.

The owners on the other hand have also done well for themselves but much less. Each team made about $4-$5 million per team the last couple years when you look at $120-$150 million in profit each year. These are the same owners that take the business risk. I firmly believe that the ownership is entitled to a little bit more, but not at the rate they are asking for. Still, in the end, I can make 3% on an investment by throwing all my money into a interest baring checking account. 1.5% average return on investment, and thats if there were no problems that needed to be addressed, is very small for a year.

So I guess that, based on that evidence, how can you not say that the players have made out better than the owners in the last CBA? Furthermore, how can you expect the owners to continue to run their businesses with those kinds of margins? The players had no motivation to negotiate a new CBA when they have the keys to the car. They would have played under that current CBA for the next 5-10 more years. It really is a no brainer to me why there is a lockout going on right now.


Ha, right. The players are the ones with the keys to the car. They're in control. Which is precisely why the league has locked them out from the ability to do their jobs twice in seven years, forcing hundreds of the better ones overseas, while the more average players sit on an absolute loss.

First, we need to understand that the idea of a 50/50 split is totally arbitrary. There is no logical reason that hockey related revenues have to be "equally" shared between players and owners, except that it's the type of logic that makes sense to 4-year-olds, or people who barely pay attention to hockey.

Real-life businesses don't work like that. Companies and management have the power. Say you are an attorney in a law firm and you bill $300 an hour. At the end of a 1900-hour year, you have generated $570,000 for the firm. Your salary is not $570,000. It may be $100,000, or something in that ballpark, but the revenue has to go to cover costs, pay for staff, benefits plans, etc. The attorney looks at that and says "Not fair! I'm only taking home 18% of what I generate for the firm!" But of course it isn't that simple.

Attorneys are very replaceable. There are thousands of law school graduates every year, and lateral hires available from other firms and other markets. But NHL-caliber hockey players are much more rare, and the differences between the really good ones and the really average ones are much more noticeable. Moreover, if you staffed most teams with all the same facilities and resources, but ONLY average players, demand for your product would dry up very quickly.

The 2005 CBA was a unequivocal win for the owners at that time, which became a net win for the players in the coming years due to the growth of the game and the owners own stupidity. The owners found every way possible to spend additional money beyond the CBA constraints they themselves negotiated to put in place. They circumvented the cap, buried NHL-level salaries in the minors, and paid out huge bonuses to front load deals well beyond the what the CBA appears to allow. And yet, teams like Minnesota, Detroit, Toronto, Pittsburgh, etc. can afford to do this and still operate. Teams like Nashville and Phoenix cannot.

The solution to this problem has nothing to do with what percentage of HRR the players take. Increasing the owners' share is just throwing good money after bad. The root cause of the problem is in the lack of revenue sharing to benefit the overall health of the league. That's an owner vs. owner issue, but since all the owners can seem to agree on is taking more money from the players, that's all we ever debate.

#1239 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:37 PM

Ha, right. The players are the ones with the keys to the car. They're in control. Which is precisely why the league has locked them out from the ability to do their jobs twice in seven years, forcing hundreds of the better ones overseas, while the more average players sit on an absolute loss.

First, we need to understand that the idea of a 50/50 split is totally arbitrary. There is no logical reason that hockey related revenues have to be "equally" shared between players and owners, except that it's the type of logic that makes sense to 4-year-olds, or people who barely pay attention to hockey.

Real-life businesses don't work like that. Companies and management have the power. Say you are an attorney in a law firm and you bill $300 an hour. At the end of a 1900-hour year, you have generated $570,000 for the firm. Your salary is not $570,000. It may be $100,000, or something in that ballpark, but the revenue has to go to cover costs, pay for staff, benefits plans, etc. The attorney looks at that and says "Not fair! I'm only taking home 18% of what I generate for the firm!" But of course it isn't that simple.

Attorneys are very replaceable. There are thousands of law school graduates every year, and lateral hires available from other firms and other markets. But NHL-caliber hockey players are much more rare, and the differences between the really good ones and the really average ones are much more noticeable. Moreover, if you staffed most teams with all the same facilities and resources, but ONLY average players, demand for your product would dry up very quickly.

The 2005 CBA was a unequivocal win for the owners at that time, which became a net win for the players in the coming years due to the growth of the game and the owners own stupidity. The owners found every way possible to spend additional money beyond the CBA constraints they themselves negotiated to put in place. They circumvented the cap, buried NHL-level salaries in the minors, and paid out huge bonuses to front load deals well beyond the what the CBA appears to allow. And yet, teams like Minnesota, Detroit, Toronto, Pittsburgh, etc. can afford to do this and still operate. Teams like Nashville and Phoenix cannot.

The solution to this problem has nothing to do with what percentage of HRR the players take. Increasing the owners' share is just throwing good money after bad. The root cause of the problem is in the lack of revenue sharing to benefit the overall health of the league. That's an owner vs. owner issue, but since all the owners can seem to agree on is taking more money from the players, that's all we ever debate.


The root of the fiscal problems of the league is not "lack of revenue sharing"... that is putting the cart before the horse. The real problem:

1.The NHL needs a diverse geographical viewership in the US to land a big TV deal.

2. The NHL therefore put's expansion teams in warm climates.

3. Areas with warmer clients don't typically have a lot of naturally occurring ice.

4. Areas without naturally occurring ice generally don't give a crap about hockey.
_

In summation, the root cause of the financial problems in the NHL is the weather... and you can't fix the weather.

Edited by RedWingsDad, 31 October 2012 - 12:41 PM.

Tim Thomas - Patriot and generally awesome human being.
 
Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

#1240 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:52 PM

article on why it will be hard for the players to rein in fehr even if they wanted to

http://www.thestar.c...n-the-nhlpa-cox

No more ombudsmen and player reps and internal counsels to bring down an NHLPA executive director. And no more chance of mutiny because there’s no small negotiating body dealing with the owners.

Now it’s 30 team reps to work with Fehr, and that’s it. That’s why over the course of the summer, 72 different players participated in the “bargaining,” frustrating to the league since very few had a solid grasp of the issues because they were in and out so often. ...

Power has been diffused to such a great extent within the union that no individual but Fehr has muscle now. So this standoff —-...— will go on for as long as Fehr believes it must.







Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users