sibiriak

the NHL will not pay them one dime until they are cleared by league doctors and to the owner's satisfaction that the player is 100% fit and able to perform

With all due respect Mr.D, I think the players only need to be 76% fit, because you are going to pay them only 76% of what you agreed and promised to.

OK, all you financial types out there... I'm going to throw something out here, but I don't know if it would work for the NHL.  Let me know what you think.

I work for a company that has a profit-sharing program.  We get wages- not great wages, but wages nonetheless, plus other benefits for working, but at the end of the year, we get a share of the profits in addition to that.

It is based on the assumption that the company will make X dollars profit.  If they do, the remainder of the profits gets split with the employees.  If they don't, then they don't have to give us anything, but the one year that they didn't, they gave everyone a couple of hundred bucks anyway.

Where I work, the sharing is based in units.  You get so many units for longevity, evaluation scores, and number of hours worked in the last year.  The units are totaled, the money is divided, and we all get a check.  Last year mine was close to three grand.  Not bad for a $12/hour job.

So could this translate to the NHL?  Players have their contracts.  Owners pay the contracts.  Then at the end of the season, they divvy up what's left above a certain amount.  The owners get a sure profit or they don't pay the bonuses (which wouldn't count against the cap since they'd be even all around).  If there is a profit, then everyone gets a piece of the pie.

They'd have to negotiate what the level of profit is for there to be a bonus, and also what the terms of payment would be, but it would get everyone marketing the league in hopes of more money.

Is this a viable solution?  Or would it not work with something like the NHL?

Your company does it to motivate the employees, since their increased work effort potentially increases company profit and therefore offering employee bonuses benefits the company's bottom line.
NHL players are paid to win games. That would tend to increase the profits of their own team, but not the league combined  profit, since for every (Wings ) win and a happy (Wings) fan buying tix and merchandise, there must necessarily be a loss and an angry fan of some other team who does not buy NHL stuff.
So it would make no sense for the NHL as a whole to give the players a share of the combined profits, because increased players' effort does not increase the combined profit of the league.
And every NHL team already pays bonuses for winning - that's what playoff bonuses are for.

Sure it does.  It's called the car gets repossessed, and the dealer gets to sell it again.  There are ways to get out of destructive contracts, and people take them all the time.  Buy more house than you can afford, and lose your job?  Under your scenario, too bad, you're an indentured servant until you pay what you owe.  I mean, why should the bank give you a break.  You're the one who signed the contract.  Noone put a gun to your head and made you get a house.

In all your examples, the people breaking contracts don't get to keep the things they bought. The NHL owners want to break the contracts, but still have the use of players' services. That is what makes the players mad.

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.

Has it already been mentioned that the players who are going to play in other leagues for less money during the lockout only prove the owners point that they are paid too much?  or is this just angry fan speak?

esteef

Using the same logic, owners being willing to forgo the revenues proves that they don't really have to charge as much for the tickets? Let's face it, the players would play this game for 100k/year since they are not likely to make even that much in any other job. But every dollar that the players don't get goes into the owners pockets. Personally, I don't really care how much money players make or how much profit the owners get. It's just that when the 2 sides squabble over the division of the money, I tend to sympathize with players because they are the ones I like to watch playing. The owners give out the contracts of their own free will, so I have no sympathy for them.

T-minus 12 days to lockout

It does seem sadly comical, when nhl.com and tsn.ca publish season broadcast schedules etc. like nothing everything is normal.

If you want to get technical, it is only an option for the union. Even if they exercise it, their average share for the life of the new CBA will certainly be lower than 57%. Also, the definition of the hockey related revenue is being changed, so the players would get 57% of the lesser total, which would be a defacto decrease in salary.
Not to mention the fact, that the current system was put in place by the NHL, who used the last lockout to roll  over the players union and force them to accept this CBA. If you listened to Bettman speeches then, the expiring CBA was going to set he economic house of hockey in order. And now the system they devised is suddenly favoring the players? FYI, average share of wages, salaries etc. in all the other industries of American economy is near 70%. So the owners are already getting a good deal.

What it amounts to is that the league appears to try to shake down the players at the end of each CBA period for as much as they can get away with. And lock them out if they resist. Rinse, lather, repeat every 4-5 years.

Personally, I resent their bully tactics that result in my loss of enjoyment of my favorite sport.

Absolutely not.... I don't think of Fedorov, when I am looking up at the following players' jerseys:

Yzerman, Sawchuk, Delvecchio, Lindsay, Abel, Howe.... and soon Lidstrom.

He doesn't fit with that group of esteemed players.  If he had stayed with the club and finished his career out with some sort of respect and dignity, then possibly then he would be considered, but he ended up leaving for money.

As far as Dats and Z go.... they still have several years until they retire, so the jury is still out, but if they continue on the path they have already set, I would say there is a 60/40 chance.

IIRC, Ted Lindsay didn't leave on the best of terms either. In fact, he didn't want to have anything to do with the Wings for decades after retirement and reconciled only relatively recently.
So if Fedorov's jersey deserves to hang on the rafters otherwise, the way he left shouldn't have to be a disqualifying factor.

Does anyone know what was the reason Thomas is actually sitting out? In plain English, like his wife is going to give birth or his child is sick, or his mom needs care or something human like that? Because what I read out of Tim Thomas (or his publisist, who should be fired if he actually exists) is mostly pompous self-centered load of bullcrap.
Or is he simply playing head games with Bruins management, to stop them from trading him?

Russian sports paper "Sovetskiy Sport" quoted Ilya Kovalchuk's mom: "Pavel Datsyuk played in the Worlds with an injury."
I'm so happy for him. He got his first gold medal for Russia, and was one of the key players on that team. I didn't think I could admire this man any more

That is crap.  Neither of them will be offered 10 million a year.  They are great players but they aren't at the same level as the Crosbys and Stamkos's of the league.

Here are the comparable (in terms of production) players and their salaries:
Zetterberg: actual salary next year 7.1 mil. cap hit 6.08 due to conrtact length gimmick that the league will not toleraate anymore, as they showed with Kovalchuk's contract.
D.Sedin 6.1 mil./ 6.1
E.Staal 8.5 / 8.25
Kovalchuk 11.0 / 6.67
Iginla 7.0 /7.0 that contract was signed waay back.
Sharp 6.0 / 5.9

Parise is younger than all of them, but Sharp, and to sign him long term would require an increase, at least 20%, over what those guys are making. So if we take a conservative route, average of all the above players, Parise's agent would ask for 10 and won't come down below 8.5.
Given that Parise is THE premiere forward UFA this season, I would expect that he will get closer to the asking price than the minimum one.
The final number will be modified by playing with throwaway years on the contract and such, but with the league shown displeasure with such doings, I expect that the cap number will be close to the real salary.

Now Suter.
His comparables: Weber 7.5/7.5 (1 yr and RFA only would command way more for the long-term UFA contract)
Hamhius 5.0 / 4.5
Letang 3.5 / 3.5 (signed as RFA, so UFA contract would be much higher)
Keith 8.0 / 5.5
Seabrook 7.0 / 5.8

So an average of these 5 +20% is 7.5 and Weber's and Letangs number are too low. So Suter's agent will start with 9.5 and come down to no less than 8.25. Again, Suter is THE best UFA defenseman this year, so he is likely to command closer to 9 mil. than 8. Again, I assume that the real salary does not get too different from the cap hit.

So, assuming a long term contract, Parise will cost 9-10 mil, and Suter 8.5-9. Together they will command 17.5-19 mil. If they decide that Detroit only needs to add the two of them to win the Cup next season, they may agree to a one year package deal at significantly less, but if you were in their shoes, which team would be the most likely to win next year with their addition? I doubt it's Detroit. And any GM in a league will do a lot to add those two. Including trading away major players if the cap limit demands it.

20 mil what?  A year?

Yes, a year. Comparables for a long term contract: Kovalchuk and Weber (who is on a short term arbitration award IIRC) 10+7.5(short term, lowball). With salaries expected to rise every year, a LT contracts of parise and Suter will at least 10% higher than the Kovy+Weber. That is 19+ mil.

And 7 million isn't such a discount.  They are perhaps leaving a few million off the table to play together and for a team with a history of winning and a group of guys who know what it takes to win.  You don't get that from many other clubs.

How about the Bruins? The Rangers? The Devils? The Kings? The Blues? The Preds? The Flyers even? Those all look like contenders to me.

Parise and Suter could both make 7 million with us still below the cap ceiling.

Perhaps, but there's no way they will both accept such a discount, unless it's for one year only, like Selanne and Kariya once did. But put yourself in their shoes, is Detroit the best place for their one shot at a Cup together? Because at that price (14 mil for both) they can have their pick of ANY NHL team they want. And right now Detroit doesn't look like the team most poised to win the Cup next year.

And to sign them both long-term, the price tag will START at 20 mil.

Stamkos, Crosby, Giroux, Neal, Thornton, St. Louis, Staal, Hartnell, Iginla, Seguin, Lupul, Parenteau, Couture, Pietrangelo, Campbell, Weber, Boyle, Bieksa, Letang, Burns, Subban, Fleury, Luongo, or Price could have helped the Canadian team (some might have been injured but not all of them were)

Stamkos, Staal (Eric)-hurt, Crosby-said, he needed to finish rehab, Giroux, Hartnell, Pietrangelo, Weber were still playing, Thornton, Iginla, St.Louis, Boyle are too old, considering Sochi, Campbell - if that is a Boston one, you must be joking, Lupul, Parenteau, Couture are not obviously better than the forwards who were there. I agree that D and to a degree G could be better with the players you mentioned, but Cam Ward is no slouch either.

For the US -
Kessel, Pominville, Kane, Wheeler, Cole, Pavelski, Backes, Oshie, Legwand, Stafford, Kesler, Malone, Foligno, Higgins, Umburger, Byfuglien, Suter, Shattenkirk, Carle, Leddy, Carlson, Gardiner, Bogosian, Thomas and Miller all could have helped.

Thomas is too old for Sochi, Miller is not better than Howard this season.
E.Kane was there, I don't know if P.Kane was healthy.
Stafford, Kesler, Cole (Carolina one)  were either hurt or fresh out of rehab.
Byfuglien had legal issues.
Wheeler, Foligno, Malone, Umburger, Leddy, Gardiner were not obviously better than the players already there,
Carlson(IIRC), Suter, Shattenkirk, Oshie, Legwand, Backes were still playing.
So that leaves Kessel, Pavelski, maybe P.Kane, Higgins. All good players but hardly any more valuable to their team than the players other teams were missing. More notable ones: Backstrom (G), Kiprusoff, Pitkanen, Hamrlik, T.Ruutu, Edler, Murray, Paajarvi, Enstrom, Hossa, Visnovsky, Jurcina, Meszaros, Halak, Hornquist, A.Markov, Radulov, Voynov and I'm sure i forgot many more.  

I'm not sure why North American NHLers don't look at the WHC the same way their European counterparts do, but for whatever reason Canadian and American players don't seem to head overseas to represent their countries for the WHC. When every playoff round ends you seem to see European teams getting boosts to their rosters, but the North American's who get eliminated from the playoffs tend to stay home with a higher frequency.

That's true, but it's really your own internal problem. If Hockey USA or Hockey Canada can't assemble the best team possible, who's to blame?

Steve Yzerman had absolutely nothing to do with Canada's team this year, it was picked and managed by the Oilers Kevin Lowe, and it also wasn't the last chance to audition for the Olympics, next years WHC championship and the next season and a half of NHL play will be the audition's for the NA teams. This WHC was fairly meaningless as far as Sochi is concerned unless you care about your ranking.

http://www.tsn.ca/canadian_hockey/feature/?id=63060
According to this, Yzerman is an executive director, and Lowe is just one of a large
management group.
And I remember Yzerman saying that WHC participation will be an important consideration when determining the Olympic roster. After this WHC there's only one more left before the Olympics, and who knows what players will be able to go in 2013. They may be going deep into the playoffs, have injuries, or they just may not be picked next year. That's what I mean when i say this may have been the last chance at an Olympic audition for many NHLers.

I gotta get going but off the top of my head here's some names Crosby, Iginla Stamkos, Kessel, Patrick Kane, Ryan Miller...

Canada:
Crosby - hurt, out of shape.
Iginla - too old.
Stamkos - hurt, will have surgery off season, IIRC.
Keep searching.

US:
Miller - in his current form is not an obvious improvement over Howard.
Kane and Kessel could've helped, I don't know their injury status.
Keep going, you still need 4 D 1.5 G and 4 F.