- LetsGoWings.com Forums
- → Viewing Profile: Likes: Buppy
BuppyMember Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 06:43 AM
- Group Silver Booster
- Active Posts 2,653
- Profile Views 8,207
- Member Title Hall-of-Famer
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted by Buppy on 10 December 2012 - 05:05 PM
In the last few seasons we have brought up Helm, Abby, Ericsson, Howard, Kindl, Emmerton, and Mursak. We'll add Smith whenever the next season starts, with Nyquist, Brunner, and Tatar all likely in the competition, though they may need to wait a year.
Most likely we will se B. Smith this year (this year could be 2013-2014s li) but no regulars like Nyquist,Tatar, Shaehan. Why are we different? Compared to, say, SJS who injected Couture in 2010 and who scored one of the most deciding goals that series....
Maybe if we'd had the 9th overall pick in one of our recent drafts we'd have someone like Couture. Tougher to find those guys at 19 or later.
Posted by Buppy on 19 November 2012 - 01:32 AM
I don't think anyone is suggesting that drunk driving is in any way OK. But it is just a dumb mistake. Alcohol impairs your judgement, so drinking responsibly usually means planning ahead; something young people are notorious for not doing. It seems he enjoys a party, so a .17-ish BAC isn't necessarily fall-down drunk. It could have had tragic consequences; fortunately it didn't. Hopefully, the legal process will serve its purpose and he'll learn his lesson. Throwing the book at him would mean jail time. I don't think his history suggests that is warranted.
Yes, everyone makes mistakes (god knows I made PLENTY at Riley's age)... but the issue people forgiving Sheahan aren't grasping is that while plenty of people do stupid things while their young, Riley endangered not only himself, but the people around him. I've been on-my-butt drunk plenty of times, but not one of those times did I ever sit behind the wheel. It isn't hard for you (or the establishment you're drinking at... or the DD at a party) to call a cab (and if you say the cab is too expensive, you probably can't afford your alcohol tab you just racked up). Don't you guys have loved ones (or at least care about yourselves)? I mean, double the legal limit or more is BAD NEWS BEARS. If I lived in Grand Rapids, I wouldn't want him driving in that state with my wife on the road, too...
Now, am I saying damn him to hell? Not hardly. Do I want him out of the Red Wings organ-i-zation? No (assuming he turns his act around in short order). But don't make excuses for the kid, either. Second offense - he already got his warning. I hope he doesn't get coddled by the law 'cause he's a big-shot hockey player and gets the book thrown at him so he learns the hard way (like most of us had to do).
- kipwinger likes this
Posted by Buppy on 29 October 2012 - 11:59 PM
I was asking specifically about your objections to the players' proposals. I get the other stuff, even though I don't necessarily agree.
The issue I have with the PA proposals are two fold.
First, the NHLPA didn't negotiate in good faith by dragging their feet through this entire process. It took them until June to even come to the table, and then 3 weeks after the NHL proposal to actually propose something of their own. So Fehr dragging his feet is the first thing I blame the NHLPA for.
Secondly, the NHLPA and NHL are both being greedy and not willing to compromise anything. In addition, there is no willingness to work together. If you read the deals, there is a deal to be made. Could the NHL be less greedy and not ask for so much? Yes. Could the NHLPA give up a little bit to make a deal happen? Yes. So why aren't either side willing to budge? Even worse, why are both sides just playing the media? The NHL says that they are willing to meet, but that the NHLPA doesn't want to talk their language. The same goes for the NHLPA. Lastly, there are no hard negotiation sessions happening.
So its a little bit of everything. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides in these negotiations. I believe that both sides should come to the middle a little bit in order to make that happen. I also believe that both sides are in the wrong by involving the media more and getting both sides to the table and negotiating less.
If anything, I am arguing that both leaders should be fired. Both sides have been a miserable failure to their sides and horrible to hockey fans. The respective leadership teams of both sides should also be fired. Its time to get a new group of leaders in these positions that are more willing to work together to achieve a goal.
Finally, I do have an issue with people taking sides on this issue. The NHL and NHLPA have both sinned in these negotiations. To claim that one side is more deserving than the other is a fallacy. Both sides together have failed the sport of hockey and the fans. Bettman is just as at fault for the lockout as Fehr. Its time to kick both these guys in the ass and out of their respective positions.
Though it's curious that the "dragging their feet" criticism is reserved solely for the PA. The league claims they were ready to start in January, but didn't make any proposals; didn't to anyone's knowledge try to schedule any meetings, or even express any particular concern over the timetable. It took them two weeks from the time of the first meeting to actually make an offer, and another two weeks after that to deliver the full details. It took them two weeks again to make a new proposal after the PA finally made their first. Neither side made a proposal for a month after the start of the lockout. Seems if you want to criticize for this, you'd criticize both sides.
Personally, I don't see the timeline as an issue at all. Nor pandering to the media (I don't really see any of that, to be honest), nor the lack or negotiating sessions. I see the cause-effect relationship the other way I guess. I believe the lack of negotiation is the result of the separation between the proposals, not the other way around. Likewise, I believe the time it has taken thus far is the result of the separation, rather than the continuing separation being due to the lack of time spent. The way I see it even if either side had waited until 11:59PM on 9/15, kicked down the other guy's door, spit in his eye, called his mother a *****, then laid a fair offer on the table...we should be watching hockey right now. I happen to think the PA offers have been fair.
As to the actual proposals, of course the PA could give up a little more, but should they? They have already made plenty of concessions. Their first offer was a concession. Their second offer went further, and the third set went further still. You can say the same for the owners, but you have to remember that their "compromises" are only relative to the arbitrary figure from their first proposal. Much easier to give up something you never had (and likely never had any expectation to get anywhere close to) than give up something you do. Also, there has been speculation that the 50/50 deal the owners offered was what they wanted all along, and the other offers were just to give the illusion of compromise without really compromising. You could speculate the same regarding the PA, but that seems far less plausible. In all their proposals, the first three years are very similar, with almost all the movement coming in the final two years. You might interpret that as stubbornness, but it seems more likely that they just started off as low as they think should be in those years. One might wonder where the negotiations would be now if the owners hadn't started off with such a hostile first offer.
Furthermore, the owners have yet to actually offer anything to the players, or even to maintain the status quo on anything. They are taking on every point. The only thing that sort of goes in the players' favor is the 2-year ELC, but that only affects a very small number of players, and has its own drawbacks as well. The players haven't asked to be given anything. They're offering to lower their share, and all they ask in return is to limit how much and what else is taken from them. Again, one might wonder where we'd be if the owners offered something other than imaginary concessions.
As to firing Fehr, I think you're doing him a disservice. When he came in the PA was in disarray. Many players were unhappy with how much the players gave up in 2004-05. They had one director spying on their emails, replaced him with a guy who many felt was too conciliatory toward the league, seemingly more interested in avoiding a work stoppage than acting in the players' best interests. A couple interim directors that no one seemed to have any faith in. No due diligence in auditing league HRR accounting. You may think a weak union or weak leadership is a positive, and maybe it would make a work stoppage less likely, but the players would never be happy with it. It's really best for all sides to have strong leadership on both sides, so long as they are reasonable. Both Fehr and Bettman are strong. How reasonable they are is up for debate. But looking at their records, it's clear that Fehr has the much better resume.
Bettman has now been party to three lockouts in three chances, resulting in two shortened seasons (presuming it's true we can no longer save a full season now) and one completely lost. His big victory last time really solved nothing, and we're locked out again. Fehr was party to a devastating strike, but his big victory in 94-95 helped broker a deal that left both sides healthy and happy enough that it hasn't been changed much in what has now been three straight CBA negotiations without a work stoppage. Baseball has flourished, and owners know they have to be accountable so spending on players is controlled without any need for a cap. Fehr helped accomplish that in an environment that was far more hostile, with a counterpart in Selig who was in part responsible for that hostility (Selig, as an owner, was one of those involved in the late-80's collusion). I think Fehr deserves a chance. Bettman has had his three strikes (or lockouts if you prefer), he should be out.
TL:DR synopsis: I disagree.
Posted by Buppy on 29 October 2012 - 12:17 AM
It's still an estimate. Regardless of the veracity of the number, comparing a single year of profit to the price you'd have to pay to buy the team doesn't mean anything. At least not anything relevant to this discussion. (Even using $250M value, the actual % would be 1.79. For reference, MLB is 2.38%, NFL is 3.71%, and NBA is 1.48%. All that really means is that as a rule, sports teams are considered more valuable than what might be indicated by profitability.)
$250 million is the average value of an NHL team. It isn't some made up number. Please read the article I posted.
As for the numbers you posted, the revenues did show well, but those are not profits. The profts of $31 million per team for 6 years is very low. You are still looking at an average of 1.5%. Imagine how it is for the Red Wings who have a very successful franchise and Illitch is making less on his asset in comparison to others.
The point is that the profit in comparison to the asset is very low, which is what you are finally seeing. Now if it was a straight 50/50 split for the last 6 years, it would have been a lot more fair. Now, the owners are not going to get that true split for at least 6 years, but that is their own fault.
The owners can and should pay for every contract. The concept is very simple. If the split is 50-50, then the owners are responsible to pay the extra 7% out of pocket and off the salary cap to the players. i do get what you are saying though. In the salary cap era though, if the owners are shelling out the money for their decisions with a portion of it off the cap, then it can still work. All new contracts will be lower, and in future years, they will even out. Think of it as a 50/50 split from 2012-13 forward.
Yearly profit (or actually, it's operating income, net profit would be less) has been around 5% of revenue. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes like a 5 year-old, that's your problem.
Yes, the owners can and should pay every contract. That is what I, the PA, and others that support the PA have been saying all along. The problem is that the owners aren't willing to do that. They want to pay 50%, and make future players pay the difference. Players want the owners to pay the difference. You can say it "works", but that's just a word. Anything can "work" if the two sides agree to it.
First off, the cap doesn't mean anything. The cap could be an octopus with a dollar sign in front of it and it wouldn't do anything but confuse people. What matters is the players' share. That is the amount of money that players actually get, regardless of what the cap numbers are, regardless of what contracts are...the players get the players' share.
Let's try an example:
Say we use an applicable % of 50%. Assume full season revenue of $3.4B. The players' share is $1.7B
From that share, you subtract benefits; league is estimating $95M. That leaves $1.605B for player salaries.
Current contracts are valued at $1.74B according to Capgeek, with most roster spots full. Capgeek shows around another $53M in potential bonuses. Fehr says player contracts are $1.776B. Seems close enough to use in an example. Using that we're left with $171M that someone has to pay. If the owners pay it, then for all practical purposes, the players' share is $1.871B, and the true % is ~55%. If we defer that payment instead...
Move on to year two:
Assume full season revenue of $3.57B. The players' share is $1.785B.
If you use a part of that to pay the year 1 shortfall, the amount actually earned by the players that year is only $1.614B (since $171M was earned the prior year), which gives a true % of ~45.2%. If the owners pay out of pocket, then the share is $1.956B and the % is ~54.8%.
And so on. It will never "even out". Either the owners pay more than 50%, or the players earn less. That is a mathematical fact. One or the other has to happen. The one and only possible way to avoid that is if revenues next year are $3.742B or more. Anything less and it is absolutely impossible to have a "true" 50/50 split, whether you go 2 years, or 5, or 500. Someone has to pay the difference. Neither side is willing to at this point.
I, the PA, and those who support the PA, say the owners should pay it. You say the owners should pay, but either you don't really mean it or you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by Buppy on 27 October 2012 - 06:10 PM
...I believe that these investors should at least have the right to try to make a profit on their investment. A 1.5% profit is not fair in the least bit.
I really don't believe the "players were screwed" in the last contract. If you do not recall, the players were making a killing and a vast majority of people were on the owners side in that lockout. True, they took a rollback, but they also had 57% of the revenue in the length of the last CBA. In that time, the players salaries on average are up from 1.5 million to 2.5 million before the start of the 2011-2012 season. Today, it is even higher I am sure.
In the meantime, many people want to look at the Forbes report and say that it is bunk. The league made $110 million last year. That is all fine and dandy, but you if you split 30 teams between $110 million, that $3.66 million per franchise. If those are pure profits, the owners who have invested in a $250 million dollar investment would be making 1.5% on their investment. I know that the owners are viewed as billionaires and they can "lose some money", but if you had the opportunity to make 1.5% on your investment for a year, would you be happy about it?
IMHO, the players can and should take a pay cut of some kind, but every contract should be honored. There is more than enough for both sides in this negotiation.
Don't make up numbers and use them as if they were facts.
The league made $126.5M in 2010-11. About 4% of revenue. We don't know what the profit was last year, since Forbes doesn't have those numbers yet. (However, the numbers we do know, and growth trends for those we don't know, suggest it's very possible the league may have turned record profits last year.)
Secondly, the average purchase price for an NHL team was $139M. Average ownership length is 14 years. Average team value as of last November is $240M, for an appreciation average of $101M. Average profit for the first 6 years of the prior CBA, plus the last year of the CBA before that was $24.5M. Even if we assume profits for last year of only $110M, it brings that to $28.2. Profits or losses from '98-99 through '02-03 aren't available, but considering the league could have, but didn't (in fact, the league agreed to extend that deal 4 years beyond it's original end), open negotiations for a new CBA before each of those years it's hard to imagine any losses were significant. We'll just say the league broke even over that span.
So in total profits, income plus appreciation, the average owner has seen pretty close to (and possibly more than) a 100% return on investment minus whatever was lost in '04-05. Average annual ROI is probably at least 6%, and that's even with losing an entire season. Average annual return on revenue over the life of the last CBA is likely around 5%. And that was with a players' share of 54-57%. All the players' proposals have been less than that.
So you can continue to make up "facts", act like owners can't make any money, etc...but saying it doesn't make it true. Even at 57%, the league as a whole does decent. At 53-54%, the league as a whole would be doing better than the vast majority of industries in the US. The problem in the league is not player salaries, nor player contract rights. The problem is the revenue disparity. That is an issue the owners need to address among themselves. The players have offered to slow (almost stagnate) their salary growth for a time to help. The owners should be saying 'thank you'.
In regards to the bolded section, it simply isn't possible to take an immediate pay cut and honor every contract at the same time. They can take a relative cut in the future, and they have already offered to do so. But the owners are demanding both an immediate cut, and a larger relative cut in the future. Neither is justified by the numbers.
And here's something for the owners to think about, if they're already worried about their public image: Imagine how much worse it will be if we're still locked out in a month, and the Forbes numbers do come out showing record profits.
- sibiriak likes this
Posted by Buppy on 25 October 2012 - 12:02 AM
What the owners' camp is doing now is standing firm. Nothing inherently wrong with the behavior; it's wrong only if you believe they're standing firm behind an unreasonable demand. You can say the same for the PA, if you happen to think their demands are unreasonable. I don't, so I don't see any problem in their standing firm. (And it's hard to believe you really think they are either, when you posted an idea that was essentially the same as one of the PA proposals.)
I agree 100% with your assessment. What Bettman and Daly are doing now is petty. Not that we haven't seen this from Fehr in these negotiations though. Before the NHL's big 50/50 proposal hype, they were waiting on Fehr to table a proposal, and Fehr never did. His response was that this wasn't "ping-pong" and the NHLPA proposal was what they wanted to work from.
So, while you are against Bettman, just realize that Fehr pulls the same crap when it benefits him.
But you're also ignoring the fact that it isn't ping-pong. There's no rule anywhere that says proposals have to take turns. When Fehr didn't put forth a new proposal, what he was really saying was that the offer at that time was the same as the last offer made. The owner's were the ones who supposedly took their offer off the table, so really they were the ones not showing their hand at the time. Besides that, the owners gave the impression that they weren't willing to consider any offer that didn't include an immediate pay cut (and considering how they handled the PAs last offers, that's not hard to believe), so it's likely there was little point in making a new offer. Much like the current situation. There's nothing to talk about, and there won't be until someone loses (or sits on the brink of losing) enough to change their mind. (Hopefully that's tomorrow, but I won't hold my breath.) You can go either way (or neither), depending on which side (if any) you think is being reasonable.
For clarity, when I say reasonable, I mean making an offer the other side should accept.
The players' demands as I see them:
No reduction in current contracts (or at least, no more than would be taken under the escrow rules of the prior CBA)
No reduction in the actual dollar value of the current players' share: $1.883B + marginal growth to offset rising benefit costs. (at least not as long as revenue keeps growing at a decent rate. Subject to the same escrow as above.)
Players' share not below 50% in any given season
Token rise in players' share if revenue growth exceeds expectations (not so adamant on this I think, but the only proposal without it is the "#3", where it's mostly replaced by some player pay being outside the players' share)
They certainly want contracting rules to stay as is, but they haven't talked much about that. I don't know that I would conclude that the lack of any provisions in their proposals is because they're actually proposing to keep them as is, or just leaving them to be negotiated later.
The owners' demands:
Immediate reduction of the players' share to 50%
Players' share not more than 50% in any given season
Pretty much across the board reduction in all player contracting rights
They seem fairly adamant about "clarifying" the definition of HRR, which should be taken to mean redefining it in their favor (though it does also open the door to go the other way). Seems absurd that there's anything to clarify after seven years, but then again the PA didn't exercise their right to audit league accounting until Fehr came in (and found problems, league settled for paying players an additional $20M, who knows what the player's might have been shorted in the first 5 years since those years can no longer be audited) so I guess it really is needed.
I don't think anything in the players' demands is unreasonable, unless it turns out they are totally inflexible on any contract rules. The only demand from the owners that I think is reasonable is the HRR, and only if they really mean 'mutual clarification'. Ironically, that one should be the most ridiculous, but sadly it seems truly necessary.
Posted by Buppy on 23 October 2012 - 12:14 AM
Almost all your posts are arguing with those who support the PA, so naturally the majority of your points go against the players. Criticism of the owners is mostly limited to one little line in a whole post countering any pro-player opinions. Someone not following the entire debate could easily draw a wrong conclusion. Hell, I've been involved in a lot of it, and sometimes I forget.
With me saying I blame the owners 60%-40% over the players, I don't see how you can make the claim that I support the owners over the players. Maybe it is because when I mention how much Bettman and the owners are greedy and they insult the players with their initial offers, you actually read "blah blah blah blah blah". ...
- Nightfall likes this
Posted by Buppy on 22 October 2012 - 03:13 AM
Little point in sitting down if one side is going to throw out proposals after barely a glance. Remember, this is twice in a row Bettman has rejected proposals without even taking time to consider them. Just a glance to see if there's an immediate pay cut, and if not it goes straight in the trash. How do you negotiate with that? What more can the players do but capitulate to the owners demands?
Burnside at ESPN just wrote one of the best columns on the NHL Lockout.
The best line in the story though is this....
What bugs me about all of the people bashing the union is that you all seem to agree that they shouldn't have to take a pay cut, but then say they have to be willing to compromise and give up a little more. Those two statements are contradictory. The players are as low as they can realistically go in the short term without pay cuts, and pretty much as low as they can go on the overall share% without going below 50% in any given year. And the worst part is that the longer the owners fail to acknowledge that, the higher the player's share has to be to avoid cuts.
That seems to be the owner's plan. They'll force the players to take a cut one way or another. They'll lose revenue this year, possibly strangle future growth, probably win again. Then when the next negotiations come around, and the league is in the exact same place, they'll do it all again.
The only place I find blame on both sides is that neither actually addresses the real problem. They need to solve the revenue disparity, and I don't think revenue sharing is the answer. They have to change the payroll range system. $16M is too small. And some teams have to move. If they don't, whether the split is 50% or 52% when this CBA ends doesn't make any difference. Either will still see a handful of teams that can't reach the floor, 10-15 more teams that could get themselves in trouble if they don't spend wisely. The top teams will add another $100M in profits on top of what they're already not allowed to spend, but the situation for the rest of the league won't be any different than it is now. The owners will come out talking about how unfair a 50/50 split is, and lockout again until they get 45%.
Maybe if this lockout causes revenues to take a hit, we might be lucky enough to see the kind of labor peace MLB has had since the strike, but I think for that to happen players have to "win" this negotiation.
Posted by Buppy on 19 October 2012 - 08:21 AM
If they can salvage a full 82 game schedule, there's likely no need to pro-rate any salary (aside from a drop in revenue). They may miss a check or two, but their remaining checks would just be that much higher.
My only question is...do the players realize that they are already giving up percentages of their salary with each missed paycheck during this lockout?
They are telling everyone each time they want their contract to be honored 100%...but in the meantime they already lost 1 of 12 paychecks this year...essentialy giving up 8% of their salary.
They also have to realize that when the next batch of games is canceled...the chances are only getting smaller that the owners are willing to honor their contracts in full, whatever construction they want to use.
I hope that the PA shares their proposals with the media, so I can have a look for myself how they want to get to 50/50 in the first year without giving up salary...
Also, there is the principle to consider. The fight may be futile, but that's not a good reason to just submit. If you can leave the other guy a little bloody, it makes him less likely to want to fight again in the future.
Posted by Buppy on 15 October 2012 - 02:12 PM
Costs (not including player compensation) have been going down relative to revenue. At least over the first 6 years of the previous CBA.
I believe that financially, things change so a new CBA should be negotiated every 5 years or so. Lets get that out of the way first.
I believe the players should have to give up a little for various reasons. The cost to operate a club has went up, rent, fuel charges, team personnel, and so on. I don't know what it takes to run an NHL team in terms of cash, but these costs alone are worth a little bit at least. As clearly pointed out in Forbes, many teams are not making a profit right now, which means the most profitable ones are carrying the entire league. Lastly, I look at other leagues and the split in each league. For example, the NFL and NBA the split is close to 50-50 with the league. I believe an even split is quite equitable.
Eight years ago, with the league as a whole losing money, the owners decided that 54% growing to 57% was good enough. Now, with the league as a whole making money and other costs having dropped relative to revenue, 54% and likely dropping from there with revenue growth isn't. Yeah, that makes sense.
- 55fan likes this
Posted by Buppy on 13 October 2012 - 11:12 AM
They're wrong because the solution to a problem they created shouldn't be to force someone else to solve it for them. They sure as hell shouldn't be looking to that solution for the second time in eight years. It's time for the owners to look at trying something other than taking money away from players.
Why are the owners wrong for not wanting 18 of their franchises to lose money? We can blame the owners of those teams for handing out huge stupid contracts (And I really do) but in the end it has to be fixed or the league will lose franchises which in turn equals less revenue, less jobs for players and no big TV conract.
This is why this lock-out makes me so mad. The owners were stupid and the players are greedy and have lost touch with reality.
The problem isn't how much is being spent on players, it's mostly who's spending it. Owner's need to take responsibility for their poor decisions. Also, either there's not enough revenue sharing, or the payroll range is too narrow. The owners need to address one or the other.
The top owners will likely lose around $300M if we lose the whole season. If instead they were to take half of that to help the teams that are struggling, we could get through this season. Then the next season, between the combination of revenue growth and lower salary commitments on existing contracts the player's share is lowered without requiring a rollback or escrow. Do that for a few years, and the share eventually gets down to a number the owners are more comfortable with. Combine that with increased revenue sharing or a wider range, and telling dumb owners there will be no more bailouts, and maybe we'll get the right teams spending the money and we won't need another lockout for the next CBA.
But what the owners want is to beat down the players again, the top teams will lose their $300M, the other teams will still lose just as much or more than they would playing the season, the fans lose, the league loses future revenue, and even if the owners get what they want the same thing is likely to happen again in the future, because it reinforces the owner's mentality that they can correct any stupidity on their part by taking back from the players.
- sibiriak likes this
Posted by Buppy on 11 October 2012 - 03:28 PM
For the record, the NBA and NFL both take the players share from sport related revenue. Same thing as the NHL, with maybe some minor differences in the details.
The 50-50 split in other leagues is irrelevant because of the way revenues are defined. Why do you think the definition of HRR is a core issue right now?
The major difference with the NBA is that the players can go over their share. It's a sliding scale from 49-51%, and it's possible for players to go 6% over that without any changes to revenue forecasts, cap, tax limit, etc. They can even go higher than that, but then they start changing things. From what I've read, it seems unlikely the players would go over by more than a small amount. They hold 10% in escrow, so team payrolls would have to be a larger amount than that over the cap.
The other major difference is the NBA has half as many players. I think the NHL players would be fine with a lower share if their average salary more than doubled.
The NFL has traditionally had a fairly weak union. The owners seem to roll over them pretty easily. Given the number of players, the massive revenues and the profit margins, you'd think the players would push harder for a better deal. The main difference is the amount of revenue. Like $9 billion in the NFL. I'm sure the NHL players would be thrilled with half of that.
I have no problem with the NHL asking for a ~50% split, I just think they need to rely on revenue growth to get there instead of expecting it this year and rolling back salaries. From Fehr's comments, it doesn't seem like the players mind that idea either, provided revenues grow fast enough.
Posted by Buppy on 08 October 2012 - 05:20 PM
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.
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.
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.
- haroldsnepsts likes this
Posted by Buppy on 03 October 2012 - 02:25 PM
Big beneficiary? Prior to the last lockout, the players were getting 66% of all revenues. Those revenues rose nearly 50%, but player salaries rose less than 27%. But somehow the players are the big winners from the last lockout? Players are employees, so they're always going to "win" as long as they have a job, but don't even try to suggest they're making more than they would have been if they'd been able to defeat the hard cap.
I suppose we can agree to disagree then. It should at least concern anyone who is pro-NHLPA and anti-owner when their side waits until the last minute to negotiate and their side is the big beneficiary of the last deal.
As for the motivations behind both sides, I really don't know how we got to this point. The players don't want to give that much and the owners want to take more than the players want to give. No common middle ground? Can't figure out how to split a $3 billion dollar pot? The owners locking the players out doesn't put the blame on the owners 100% thats for sure. Both sides need a swift kick in the ass and a mediator.
The revisionist history is ridiculous. The owners are acting like 57% is some obscenely unfair split, like the players held a gun to their heads to get that deal. It was the owners idea, and the numbers say even that split still leaves a decent profit margin. The owners asking players to take ANOTHER pay cut, when the league as a whole is profitable, is beyond ridiculous. It's retarded, and demonstrates just how little the owners value their most valuable asset.
If, that's IF, the floor is a problem for too many teams, then the owners need to come up with a better way to solve that issue without taking from the players. The floor in 06 was around 74% of the midpoint. Now it's 87%. If they used a precentage instead of a fixed amount, the floor now would be around $46M. Pretty close to where it would be if the owners get the split they want. Problem solved without taking from the players. Owners should be thankful that players are willing to slow their salary growth to take a lower percentage. Instead they want an NFL split. If it were me, I'd say they can have it when they have NFL revenue. I'm sure the PA would be happy with 47% of $9 billion.