- Pskov Wings Fan likes this
- LetsGoWings.com Forums
- → Viewing Profile: Likes: Pskov Wings Fan
Pskov Wings FanMember Since 05 Aug 2006
Offline Last Active Sep 24 2014 11:45 PM
- Group Member
- Active Posts 1,027
- Profile Views 3,994
- Member Title 1st Line All-Star
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
- Website URL http://
Posted by chances14 on 10 December 2012 - 12:47 AM
Posted by Johnz96 on 10 December 2012 - 12:25 PM
No because the players are the ones going from 57% salary to 50%, they are the ones who are losing money on contracts the owners signed, they are the ones giving up certain contracting rights in order to protect owners from themselves. Yet after all this Bettman continually states the players are not making any concessions... seems fishy to me as well
Posted by amato on 07 December 2012 - 02:56 PM
"I think if we're this close, I don't see the reason why we shouldn't just keep at it until we have something," Kronwall said. "I don't see the reason why we should all of a sudden step away and get all dramatic. Just stick with it and let's get this done."
Posted by StormJH1 on 29 November 2012 - 11:59 AM
Clearly there are teams that are struggling financially but the Forbes report isn't a complete or accurate financial picture. In 2004 Bettman had an extensive audit of franchises to show in irrefutable detail how many were losing money. Strange how he didn't do that this time.
There's the secondary issue of how much it's actually the players fault that these franchises aren't profitable. Unlike 2005 the real issue is the disparity of the franchises, not the un-capped costs of player salaries.
That second point is what I think the majority of people I argue with don't seem to understand. To solve a problem, your solution actually has to address the root cause of that problem. Otherwise, it's like trying to bandage on your finger to cure a headache - it doesn't make any sense.
In 2004/05, there was an idea that player salaries had gotten out of control. Even thought the fans personally identified with the players more than a bunch of suits who own and operate the teams, public sentiment was largely on the side of the owners. A lot of people, myself included, assumed that if you put a reasonable cap in place, ALL teams would have to spend more responsibly. More importantly, the disparity in budget between the "haves" and "have nots", by definition could not be more than $16 million (difference between cap floor and cap ceiling).
The new CBA really could have succeeded. But two things happened between 2005 and 2012 that really destroyed any chance for smaller markets to compete again. The first was that the revenues of the game grew, which meant that the cap increased:
Raise your hand if you really thought we would nearly DOUBLE the salary cap by 2012 (oh, and by the way, in the midst of a massive worldwide recession). Oh, and by the way, teams like the Detroit Red Wings, who were derisively referred to as the "Yankees" of the NHL, actually didn't spend more than the current salary cap amount before the new CBA, except for one season (2003-04). That "all-star" team that one the 2001-02 Cup with something like 11 Hall of Famers on it? Their payroll of $66 million would've fit easily into the Cap for the 2012-13 season. Of course, the problem was getting worse and worse without a Cap, and I agreed at the time that Salary Cap was necessary. Unfortunately, the implementation of that did nothing to slow the increase of salaries. It simply reset the clock for a few years, which is necessary anyway after you sit out a whole season and disillusion much of your fanbase.
The second thing that happened, of course, was the backdiving contracts and owners/GM's figuring out ways to spend more on players than the team's cap figure would seem to imply. This is significant financially because if you're handing out money to minor league stashes, bonuses, and actual payments to players larger than their cap hit would suggest, then the salary cap really isn't doing much to limit spending, which was supposed to be the whole point of this fiscal responsibility push in 2004-05 in the first place.
Long story short, the system was fundamentally flawed, and the combination of the increased cap and "cheater" contracts that payed more than they appear to led to sustained spending on players. Those problems do need to be fixed so that spending can't get out of control again.
But if you're Phoenix, or Nashville, or Dallas, or whatever...people still need to want to BUY your product, or you'll never make money like the big boys. Even worse, the CBA that is supposed to help all teams by controlling spending actually hurts franchises by putting a cap FLOOR on those teams. Many of those franchises are going to draw 10,000 to 12,000 per game whether they spend $25 million or $50 million on payroll. There just aren't enough fans to support the product long-term in those markets, and that has nothing to do with the players or how much revenue they get.
Posted by toby91_ca on 02 November 2012 - 10:40 AM
Okay, where to start? I will assume you simply don't understand the finances or what the profits actually mean when using to assume a return on investment....because that is what it appears when you make that comment. However, it could be completely possible that you are presenting the information in such a way to make it look like the owners aren't making much at all (not sure why you'd do that...but it's possible).
In the meantime, the asset you talk about is about $240 million, which means the profit of $4-$5 million per season equates to about 1-2% of the asset. Going to tell me that you can't get a better return on investment elsewhere?
1) I'm not sure what the $240 million represents....if it was the approximate team value, fine....doesn't seem too far off. However, I don't think I can recall any owner who has recently paid that kind of money to acquire a franchise (other than the recent Maple Leafs transaction....but we can all agree that is in another category). So when you are talking about return on investment, consider increases in market values of the franchises themselves, not just profits earned each year. Didn't Ilitch pay about $8M for the Wings....pretty decent return on investment he's been able to generate I think.
2) If you are looking at profits only, you will never be able to understand whether the players get a fair share vs. the owners. EBITDA is probably a pretty good guage to use. In a lot of cases, if the net profit of a franchise is close to nil....the owner could be getting a pretty good return on their investment, it all depends on how everything is structured.
So, let's start with your $5M profit per team. Then, we should gross it up for various items, but the 3 biggest being the following:
1) Taxes - assume taxes at about 30%....that will bring the $5M up to about $7M or so (remember, player salaries are pre-tax as well).
2) Interest or debt servicing costs - this is a real wild card. I would assume that the vast majority of franchises in the NHL are highly leveraged....they didn't simply take money out of their bank accounts and buy a franchise, they borrowed money. So, whatever interest they are incurring on that debt would decrase profits (amount of interest could be $10-20 million or more....based on $200M borrowing at a rate of 5-10%). It is very important to add this back because it is irrelevant from the players perspective. If an owner comes in with all their own money, they won't incurr that cost.
3) Depreciation (non-cash) - if a team owns the building, their profit will be less due to depreciation charges taken on the building....you'd need to add that back to get a true sense of the income being generated at the owners' investments.
So....in summary, I have no idea what the true average return on investment might be, but I do know for sure it is well in excess of what you have illustrated.
Based on these factors, it points to why splitting a revenue number is the most appropriate because everything below that is really a function of how the owner runs his business. I think the overall profits the NHL owners are generating are very good (this doesn't even consider their rising franchise values). Time and time again, I'll keep coming back to the problem being disparity of revenue generation amoung teams, not how much money the players are making.
Posted by StormJH1 on 31 October 2012 - 12:15 PM
So, that being said, with salaries increasing over the course of the CBA leading us up to where we are today, I would say that the players have made out very well. Back in 2011, the average salary was $2.45 million. In 2006 after the lockout, it was 1.4 million, which was at 1.8 million before the rollbacks. Looking at the contracts that have been signed in the last two years, its feasable to believe that the average salary continues to go up.
The owners on the other hand have also done well for themselves but much less. Each team made about $4-$5 million per team the last couple years when you look at $120-$150 million in profit each year. These are the same owners that take the business risk. I firmly believe that the ownership is entitled to a little bit more, but not at the rate they are asking for. Still, in the end, I can make 3% on an investment by throwing all my money into a interest baring checking account. 1.5% average return on investment, and thats if there were no problems that needed to be addressed, is very small for a year.
So I guess that, based on that evidence, how can you not say that the players have made out better than the owners in the last CBA? Furthermore, how can you expect the owners to continue to run their businesses with those kinds of margins? The players had no motivation to negotiate a new CBA when they have the keys to the car. They would have played under that current CBA for the next 5-10 more years. It really is a no brainer to me why there is a lockout going on right now.
Ha, right. The players are the ones with the keys to the car. They're in control. Which is precisely why the league has locked them out from the ability to do their jobs twice in seven years, forcing hundreds of the better ones overseas, while the more average players sit on an absolute loss.
First, we need to understand that the idea of a 50/50 split is totally arbitrary. There is no logical reason that hockey related revenues have to be "equally" shared between players and owners, except that it's the type of logic that makes sense to 4-year-olds, or people who barely pay attention to hockey.
Real-life businesses don't work like that. Companies and management have the power. Say you are an attorney in a law firm and you bill $300 an hour. At the end of a 1900-hour year, you have generated $570,000 for the firm. Your salary is not $570,000. It may be $100,000, or something in that ballpark, but the revenue has to go to cover costs, pay for staff, benefits plans, etc. The attorney looks at that and says "Not fair! I'm only taking home 18% of what I generate for the firm!" But of course it isn't that simple.
Attorneys are very replaceable. There are thousands of law school graduates every year, and lateral hires available from other firms and other markets. But NHL-caliber hockey players are much more rare, and the differences between the really good ones and the really average ones are much more noticeable. Moreover, if you staffed most teams with all the same facilities and resources, but ONLY average players, demand for your product would dry up very quickly.
The 2005 CBA was a unequivocal win for the owners at that time, which became a net win for the players in the coming years due to the growth of the game and the owners own stupidity. The owners found every way possible to spend additional money beyond the CBA constraints they themselves negotiated to put in place. They circumvented the cap, buried NHL-level salaries in the minors, and paid out huge bonuses to front load deals well beyond the what the CBA appears to allow. And yet, teams like Minnesota, Detroit, Toronto, Pittsburgh, etc. can afford to do this and still operate. Teams like Nashville and Phoenix cannot.
The solution to this problem has nothing to do with what percentage of HRR the players take. Increasing the owners' share is just throwing good money after bad. The root cause of the problem is in the lack of revenue sharing to benefit the overall health of the league. That's an owner vs. owner issue, but since all the owners can seem to agree on is taking more money from the players, that's all we ever debate.
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 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 sleepwalker on 23 October 2012 - 01:06 PM
This and the proposals that each side has tabled that are touted as "50/50" are not 50/50 right out of the gate. Which is why there is fault on both sides.
How would you suggest they go about getting to 50/50 right out of the gate AND honoring of all current contracts at the same time? (which you say you are in favor of)
Posted by rrasco on 22 October 2012 - 11:12 AM
I believe the problem that you and others have with my posts are that I am listing reasons why the PA is to blame. Every point I have made that has upset me with the NHL is summarily ignored by people who are on the side of the NHLPA. After all, they are the ones that are 100% at fault right? I have countless posts here where I go after Bettman and his negotiating, crappy proposals, and combative style where he belittles Fehr in front of the press. Yet, you and others here who are on the side of the NHLPA ignore those.
The league was on the record saying that they were ready to negotiate in January. Many links were posted with this information. Of course Bettman thought that there was plenty of time to negotiate a deal at the time. I didn't expect Bettman to come out and say the season was screwed because Fehr and the players weren't willing to negotiate early. I don't believe for a second that Bettman or Fehr were planning a lockout. Some people who are backing the NHLPA believe that Bettman planned to lockout the players the whole time. Some people who are backing the NHL believe that Fehr wasn't planning on negotiating because he wanted the league to lock them out so he could negotiate a new deal with a luxury tax in place. If the season is lost, then that was ok with Fehr.
So, do you believe that either side was planning to scrap the season?
I certainly don't.
The problem is greed and the unwillingness to compromise on both sides.
I don't have a side. I'm on my own selfish side in wanting hockey to start so I have something to entertain me.
Having said that, I do believe the owners are at fault here. Reason being is that while they are on a cash grab they are doing little to address the real issues of a "cash-strapped-league" and the bigger picture. If the players agree to salary rollbacks now, so we can have a season, is that going to suddenly fix the problems in Phoenix? Absolutely not. The players are willing to take a pay cut of some sort, but what justification do they have in doing so if it doesn't fix anything but make the owners wallet a little fatter and not to address the problem at hand? They're willing to give for the game, but only if it benefits the game.
The only reason you listed the PA is to blame is the "the league was willing to negotiate in January" and "Fehr sure does drag his feet doesn't he?". Even IF Bettman really was willing to negotiate in January, how long would it have taken him to shoot down the PA's offers? 15 minutes? It's hard to negotiate when you have one side saying it's my way or the highway. You claim that's the PA's stance as well, unwilling to budge, but damn them for wanting to not take a pay cut. They're so greedy. Would you take a pay cut today if your company was failing, but your owner just intended to pocket the money instead of actually help save the business?
You're right, Fehr wasn't planning a lockout. If anything, the players would have gone on strike, but now we're just getting into semantics. While this is our first go with Fehr and the NHL, his history shows he has used a strike as leverage before, right before the playoffs. However, if history is going to be used as any indicator, Bettman's negotiating tactic of choice appears to be locking the players out.
So now I'll go back to an old point I brought up a few pages ago: why exactly should the players be willing to take ANY kind of pay cut to contracts that were signed by the very same owners crying poor?
I really don't have any clue how you can realistically place blame of the financial state of the NHL on the players and state that they are equally to blame for the lockout as the owners are because they are not willing to have their salaries rolled back at the demand of the owners who are doing little to address the reasoning behind why the league 'is failing'.
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 toby91_ca on 15 October 2012 - 01:51 PM
Are you seriously referencing increased fuel costs and rent as reasons why the players should take less? I'm pretty sure revenues have increased at a much greater rate and pure dollar amount than any costs the owner's need to pay (which would include player salaries). I'm sure the league as a whole made way more this year than they did back in 2005-06. The key issue here is that the revenue growth is being driven by some teams and not others. While costs of every team have gone up, somewhat consistently, the same can't be said for revenues. That issue, is a simple one, and one that points to the teams having to share more revenues, not take money from the players to prop up poorer franchises while making the super rich teams richer....it makes no sense.
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.
Now, through all this do I believe the players should take the 43% that the owners were asking for in the original proposal? No. The players should not be held at fault for the foolish ownership decisions that have been made. The players are entitled to every dollar of every contract that signed. The players should not be held responsible for the NHL adding franchises into areas that cannot sustain them.
There is a fair and equitable deal to be made here. I keep going back to 52-48 in favor of the players.
I can see your point though in that the players should not have to relinquish any share of the revenues for the mistakes of the NHL or management of the teams. At the same time, there are other factors which can easily make the CBA sway 2-3% back from the players to the owners.
All that being said, I have no idea what a reasonable sharing percentage is. No one can say 50/50 makes perfect sense unless they are in there and have all the facts, etc. Gary Bettman strongly argued against looking at the NBA and NFL, etc. back in 2005 because those leagues were very different, revenue sources are different, etc. Now, when it helps their argument, they point to the NBA and NFL deals.....very annoying.
The most annoying thing of all is the request of roll-backs. The players never should have agreed to it back in 2005, but because they did, the league is pushing for it again and they'll do the same next time around if they agree to it again. I think the most "FAIR" deal is to determine what the fair split is and get to a split the makes sense without immediate roll-backs.
The thing that really annoys me is that there were owners out there probably contemplating big signings this summer and the league was whispering in their ear that they will be able to negotiate 10-15% reductions in salaries. So owners go out and spend $100 million on a guy thinking that in the long run it will really only cost $85 million.
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 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.
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.