- LetsGoWings.com Forums
- → Viewing Profile: Likes: sibiriak
sibiriakMember Since 07 Sep 2005
Offline Last Active Sep 20 2016 01:48 AM
- Group Member
- Active Posts 1,711
- Profile Views 6,689
- Member Title 1st Line All-Star
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted by sibiriak on 12 October 2012 - 07:19 PM
And a salary that's 60% of NHL is actually a net after taxes. If you take into account all the federal ,state, and local taxes that the NHL players pay, the salaries are actually about equal. And they can play at home and will have no problem getting permission to play at the Worlds and the Olympics.
Posted by sibiriak on 11 October 2012 - 02:37 PM
He is contracted to play for the Caps in exchange for 9.7 mil. (IIRC) per year. If the Caps won't pay him the agreed salary, why should he be bound by the contract?
How can Ovi stay in the KHL when he has that monster of a contract? Will Dynamo buy it out?
- Z Winged Dangler likes this
Posted by sibiriak on 09 October 2012 - 12:27 PM
I think that you are being deliberately obtuse, to avoid admitting that your idea of dissolving the NHLPA is totally clueless.
You seem to keep assuming that I am ignorant of the supposed benefits of labor unions. I don't believe this is a matter of education, but rather a difference of opinion on the supposed benefits of labor unions in general, and if those benefits can be obtained through other means that are not restricting to running a successful business. Here is what I said in full:
... now, I did not realize that labor laws force acceptance of a union in order to institute something like a salary cap. Whether a salary cap was the only option to address the problem in question is a debatable matter. That aside, it is a very true statement that we would not have a lockout currently if the union didn't exist. Ergo, if your only goal is to watch hockey and you couldn't give a crap about the politicking... you should support dissolving the labor union.
There's NOTHING about an NHL team that is even close to "free market". If you offered the NHL owners an option to get rid of all non "free-market" elements in their business, they would run you out of town on a rail.
Here's how a typical NHL team operates.
1. Their arena is built with all or majority government financing, with few exceptions (most of them in Canada). "Free market" would force the owners to shell out their own money.
2. When they don't own the arena, they are usually paying subsidized rent etc. Local law enforcement usually helps to provide security in and around the arena, while the team never pays full cost of that.
3. Their local taxes are way lower then for any other business, when they pay any.
4. Their employees can not choose their place of employment and have to play for the team that drafted them until they are more than halfway into their careers. In a "free-market" there can not be a draft or restricted free agency.
5. They can collude with other owners to set limits on employee compensation and labor conditions. Again, in a "free-market" that would not be possible.
6. They can prevent any other team from coming into "their" geographically (very broadly) defined market. Try that in a "free-market".
7. In a "free-market", the owners couldn't renege on the already signed contracts short of declaring bankruptcy, which is what they are trying to do now.
8. In a non "free-market", the players can get together to defend their interests, just like the owners are now free to collectively conspire to limit the players compensation, In a "free-market", neither could occur.
You can not pick and choose what elements of a "free-market" you want to have and which you want to get rid of. It's an all or nothing deal. So in real life, given the existing laws, if there is no union, then the salary cap, the draft, the RFA, waivers draft all have to go.
In a "free-market", there wouldn't be a players' union, but the league would have gone bankrupt years ago, because the owners repeatedly demonstrated their inability to stick to their budgets when signing players. Again, before 2004, when there was no salary cap and no guaranteed players share of the revenue, the salaries rose very fast and the players share of the revenue went up to 70%+ just before the last lockout. That was not the union doing. That was the owners signing ridiculous contracts.
- Pskov Wings Fan likes this
Posted by sibiriak on 08 October 2012 - 01:43 PM
You really need to read back this thread. Your misconceptions were exhaustively addressed earlier.
Without a union, there would be no lockout. Without a union, there wouldn't have been the need to negotiate a salary cap... and therefore there wouldn't have been a lockout last time.
Owners spending more than they can afford is a complicated topic, but without question the current CBA largely contributes to it. Without a union, there is no need for a CBA. If you believe the core problem with the leagues finances is rich clubs driving up the players salaries... how does the union solve that problem? I would argue that the NHLPA contributes to that problem, through forcing a CBA.
In short, without the union, what the owners are doing would be illegal. They would have no way of getting out of the already signed player contracts, without going to court and paying penalties for breach of contract or declaring bankruptcy.
Without a salary cap the owners would (and did) spend much more on salaries relative to revenue then they do now.
Without the pro sports antitrust law exemption, (that is if they had to operate like any other industry in America) it would have been illegal for the owners to consult with each other on hiring/salary decisions, let alone bargain as a single unit.
And lastly, the union's existence has nothing whatsoever to do with the owners spending insane amounts of money to get free agents. If you run a restaurant and hire a famous chef for $$ millions, but your revenue stream isn't enough to pay him, you don't get to leach off of more successful/better-run restaurants, nor can you lock out the chef and force him to accept lower salary. The owners do not and absolutely don't want to live under real free market conditions. They get the best of both worlds now.
- Pskov Wings Fan likes this
Posted by sibiriak on 06 October 2012 - 10:42 PM
You need a better contract lawyer.
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'.
NHL contracts can not be modified without changing the CBA. They are etched in stone.
- stevkrause likes this
Posted by sibiriak on 03 October 2012 - 10:23 PM
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.
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.
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.
Posted by sibiriak on 03 October 2012 - 06:30 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted by sibiriak on 03 October 2012 - 09:53 AM
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.
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.
Posted by sibiriak on 21 September 2012 - 09:54 PM
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.
Owners are going to pay what they've agreed to, there won't be a 24 % rollback.
- haroldsnepsts likes this
Posted by sibiriak on 21 September 2012 - 07:10 PM
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.
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
Posted by sibiriak on 21 September 2012 - 03:29 PM
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.
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?
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.
- 55fan likes this
Posted by sibiriak on 06 September 2012 - 07:44 PM
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.
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?
Posted by sibiriak on 31 August 2012 - 08:18 PM
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.
Posted by sibiriak on 29 July 2012 - 09:21 AM
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.
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.
So if Fedorov's jersey deserves to hang on the rafters otherwise, the way he left shouldn't have to be a disqualifying factor.
- BigWillieStyle likes this