Jump to content

sibiriak's Photo


Member Since 07 Sep 2005
Offline Last Active Today, 01:08 PM

#2330869 Z basically says Bettman should be fired

Posted by sibiriak on 06 October 2012 - 10:42 PM

Contracts are not etched in stone folks. I'm a contractor myself and see modifications and changes to them in the middle of the contract period all the time. Just sayin'.


You need a better contract lawyer. :)
NHL contracts can not be modified without changing the CBA. They are etched in stone.

#2330632 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by sibiriak on 03 October 2012 - 10:23 PM

I believe its less about pride and self respect. If there was pride and self respect on the line, the players association would have been negotiating in January. If pride and self respect were on the line, then the players association wouldn't be playing the PR role to a T. Lets face facts here, Don Fehr dragged his feet to the start of negotiations, then he drug his feet before he put forward his initial proposal. Fehr wants there to be revenue sharing, and I can understand why the owners don't want the deal based on what revenues could be. Now, the NHL has given the players a new proposal, and Don Fehr won't "play ping pong" and doesn't believe he needs to give the next proposal.

Lets face facts here, the owners are asking for too much. By locking the players out, they are damaging the game of hockey and future revenues. At the same time, and others have said, they feel they have no choice.

I know I have said it before, but I will say it again....

Both sides are in the wrong here. This should have never resulted in a lockout. All the owners have to do is come up a little from their demands, and all the players have to do is come down a little from their demands. As many have said here, its a game of chicken. Who will blink first?

I am not waiting around for either side to blink. Both sides can go jump off a cliff.

You know, the sooner you let go of an idea that owners and (to a somewhat lesser degree) players are anything but two rational economic actors that behave strategically in order to maximize their respective incomes, the less nerves you will burn up thinking about this. They do not and are not really expected to care about the fans feelings, as long as the fans keep buying tix, and otherwise spending money on NHL product.. And as the 3 previous work stoppages have amply demonstrated, we fans are really that dumb and will grumble a bit, but come back and support the NHL, whenever they decide to play hockey again.
So your idea, that with different negotiating teams and/or more time, the compromise would have been found, is not plausible. Personalities and negotiating tactics are determined by the strategic goals, not the other way around. In other words, the players hired Fehr to do exactly what he is doing, and the owners pay Bettman to do exactly what he does. If either side wanted a compromise, they would have behaved differently.
From what we've seen so far, the owners are trying to crush the PA yet again, and the players are determined to not be crushed like it happened the last time. At the very least, the players want to make the owners victory so costly, that the owners may hesitate to do this again in the future. Both sides are following thought out strategies, and I don't see a quick resolution, unless something fundamental changes.

#2330614 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by sibiriak on 03 October 2012 - 06:30 PM

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.

The players were the big losers last time. The just expired CBA was dictated by the owners and was designed to benefit them. Prior to the current CBA the players share of the revenue reached 74%. There was no salary cap. If the players won and kept the old system, the top salaries now would have been nearing $20 mil./year and the average salary would have been higher by at least a quarter, and given the existing then trend, probably even higher.

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.

Hrm, NHL says the union doesn't want to budge while the NHLPA says the owners want to much. Both sides are way too greedy. Fire both Fehr and Bettman, and get some people in place that are willing to negotiate. Its that simple.

Let me clarify it for you. The owners want to cut the players salaries and limit their growth in the future. Since the league revenues went up 50% over the life of the existing CBA, there was no rational way to explain to the players why they would have to give up another 20% of their salary every year, when the players have signed contracts on hand. Since the owners didn't have any rational arguments, they had to somehow force the players to give up money they were contractually promised. The lockout is the most obvious option.
This is not only about greed. This is also about players' pride and self-respect. If the lockout lasts till January, and the players then win (that is their CBA offer,as it stands now, is adopted) the players would still lose more money then if they accepted the league offer right now. And the players know this.
The players motivation is to make sure that in the future they will not be forced to give up part of their salary any time the owners feel like taking it, without a fight. So the next time the owners want to redistribute income in their favor, they will know that they would have a fight on their hands.

#2330563 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by sibiriak on 03 October 2012 - 09:53 AM

With 6 months to negotiate instead of 6 weeks, a lockout could have been avoided. Just because they are at an impasse now doesn't mean with more time they wouldn't have been able to come up with a solution. We don't know for sure either way, but I will take more time than less that's for sure.

I think that is the key point. The league and the players are at an impasse on money. You appear to believe that there exist a solution that is a win-win for both parties, and if only they had some more time to hash it out, then we'd be seeing hockey right now. I believe that this is a zero-sum game and there is no solution that does not require at least one party to give up a significant amount of cash going forward. The league believes that the way to achieve that solution is to put so much financial pressure on the players, that they would cave in to owners' demands. And therefore the league had to lock the players out. They could have started to negotiate in 2005, and still we would have this lockout.

#2329672 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by sibiriak on 21 September 2012 - 09:54 PM

Owners are going to pay what they've agreed to, there won't be a 24 % rollback.

How exactly can the players' share go from 57% to 43%, of basically the same revenue amount, without rollback? Call it escrow or whatever, it is mathematically impossible to achieve what the league insists on, without reducing existing salaries.

#2329656 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by sibiriak on 21 September 2012 - 07:10 PM

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. :P

#2329629 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by sibiriak on 21 September 2012 - 03:29 PM

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.

#2329351 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by sibiriak on 18 September 2012 - 09:12 PM

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.

#2329301 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by sibiriak on 18 September 2012 - 01:25 PM

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.

#2327930 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by sibiriak on 06 September 2012 - 07:44 PM

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?


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.

#2327619 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by sibiriak on 03 September 2012 - 10:02 PM

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. :rolleyes:

#2327472 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by sibiriak on 31 August 2012 - 08:18 PM

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. :ninja: 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.

#2322801 Your thoughts on Sergei Fedorov

Posted by sibiriak on 29 July 2012 - 09:21 AM

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.

#2305013 Tim Thomas.

Posted by sibiriak on 03 June 2012 - 04:39 PM

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?

#2303339 2012 World Ice Hockey Championships

Posted by sibiriak on 26 May 2012 - 09:27 AM

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 :)