Crush the NHLPA like a grape

[Ar-too]

All but Robert Esche and Brian McCabe.

 

[Greschner4]

This is where I think you (and Bob Goodenow) are wrong. The is no "golden goose" in owning an NHL franchise in 2004. There are only golden eggs laid at the owners expense for the players benefit. Unless you think owners are just insane and secretely raking in billions of dollars in profit from this floundering league on the brink of total obscurity, then cancelling this season should leave no doubt that the system is flat out broken and the league can't survive under it for much longer.

Call me crazy (wait, that *is* my name) but I see no reason not to believe owners when they say NHL teams are money pits. The NHL is a dying patient, and no, heart surgery isn't fun or desirable, but it may be necessary. People don't have heart surgery for the fun of it and the NHL isn't trashing an entire year for fun or to squeeze out some pennies from the NHLPA, its doing it because its absolutely necessary to survive. So far, the NHLPA has offered this dying patient an aspirin and that just isn't good enough.

If owners were raking in secret profits, they wouldn't sell or if they did they'd just show the "real" books to the prospective buyers and the prospective buyers would be willing to pay for the secret profits.

Who can possibly point to a situation where this has happened? In fact, quite the opposite. As has been mentioned several times, the Sabres and Sens and Thrashers, without the arena deals, sold for peanuts. It sounds like the Ducks can't get much interest at above $50M, which is comically low for a sports franchise in this market.

Nor would the owners be willing to miss a season if there were "secret profits."

While an owner here or there may be able to hide some money, there are NO, repeat NO, "secret profits" in owning an NHL team.

 

[codswallop]

excellent post. posts like this make reading the forums worthwhile.

thank you

I'm equal opportunity. That applies to my responses to other posters here as well.

Don't care which side you support; if I believe that you're wrong, I'll let you know as much. And I'll actually bring facts to back it up (I realize those are uncommon around here).

If I don't have facts, which happens a lot given that we're in the dark about so much of the information, I won't go the route of assuming. I'll freely admit that I don't know sh*t if that's the case.

Again, too bad really. This would be a much better forum if some of the more adamant supporters would stop taking certain information out of context so as to suit their own purposes, ignoring the other parts of the info that don't mesh with their rather narrow minded thoughts on the subject. Making leaps in logic and assuming what you don't directly know isn't a substitute for "fact".

Two rants in two days, excellent!

 

[jcab2000]

You have nothing to gain one way or another so I don't see what you're excited about.

Everyone is to gain with a stable economic future for the NHL. Except the players who think that they're better off with a deal that bankrupts the league.

 

[Trottier]

I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of those that are hard-core supporters of one side or the other are, for all intents and purposes, delusional.

AMEN!

 

[thedjpd]

You are wrong if you think the owners have less to lose than the players with this lockout. Every team still has operating expenses; front office, scouts, trainers, service on debts for arenas and the like, etc. They have no revenue coming in. Wait until the banks start pressuring the owners that are not able to eat the ten mil or so per season they are losing.

Operating expenses aren't the issue; most owners are losing less money by not playing than having a full season and full rosters and full stands.

The arenas can just sit there and the owners have to foot the bill, yes, but that's cheaper than filling the arenas and paying the players in the current salary infastructure.

There is no incentive for them to go back to the way things were.

 

[MojoJojo]

Operating expenses aren't the issue; most owners are losing less money by not playing than having a full season and full rosters and full stands.

The arenas can just sit there and the owners have to foot the bill, yes, but that's cheaper than filling the arenas and paying the players in the current salary infastructure.

There is no incentive for them to go back to the way things were.

Sorry, but I just dont buy that. If an owner signs more money in contracts than he has in revenue who's fault is that? The owners had most of the leverage in the old CBA, got to restrict their players bargaining power for the majority of the prime of the players career, and after more than a decade the player finally gets to be a free agent. Dont tell me about arbitration either; because no one forces the owners to accept the arbitrated awards. They can easily trade these players or can just walk away from the table if they think the salary demands are unreasonable.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Sorry, but I just dont buy that. If an owner signs more money in contracts than he has in revenue who's fault is that? The owners had most of the leverage in the old CBA, got to restrict their players bargaining power for the majority of the prime of the players career, and after more than a decade the player finally gets to be a free agent. Dont tell me about arbitration either; because no one forces the owners to accept the arbitrated awards. They can easily trade these players or can just walk away from the table if they think the salary demands are unreasonable.

I am not the guru of the CBA but i believe that you could only walk away from an arbitration award once every three years." the owners had most of the leverage in the old CBA." Hilarious. If that was true we would not be anywhere near a mess like this. For the thousandth time the NHL is not the same as running a print shop or a corner store.

 

[HckyFght*]

The NHL tried to get the NHLPA to the table for a year and a half or two years before the CBA expired and the PA would have none of it. The league should have gone to court on Sept 16 '04 and argued that there was an impasse already because the union refused to negotiate at all. Why should an entire industry have to shut down brefore a labor association will even talk? The league should have argued for the need for replacements and started the season on time.
-HckyFght!

 

[Hawker14]

The NHL tried to get the NHLPA to the table for a year and a half or two years before the CBA expired and the PA would have none of it. The league should have gone to court on Sept 16 '04 and argued that there was an impasse already because the union refused to negotiate at all. Why should an entire industry have to shut down brefore a labor association will even talk? The league should have argued for the need for replacements and started the season on time.
-HckyFght!

the nhl agreed to extend the cba from it's '99 expiration. the nhl wanted it's expansion money and needed to extend the cba to accomplish it. how is it the player's fault that the nhl wanted to extend a five year old agreement that clearly wasn't working then ?

 

[BLONG7]

The NHL tried to get the NHLPA to the table for a year and a half or two years before the CBA expired and the PA would have none of it. The league should have gone to court on Sept 16 '04 and argued that there was an impasse already because the union refused to negotiate at all. Why should an entire industry have to shut down brefore a labor association will even talk? The league should have argued for the need for replacements and started the season on time.
-HckyFght!

Good point, and I think brfore this one is settled, it will have to reflect something that says they will have to negotiate at least one year prior the expiry of the current CBA or a mediator will step in...

 

[mudcrutch79]

Only one problem with that, you cannot force either side to negoiate

For proof of this proposition, see the past 6 months.

 

[MojoJojo]

I am not the guru of the CBA but i believe that you could only walk away from an arbitration award once every three years." the owners had most of the leverage in the old CBA." Hilarious. If that was true we would not be anywhere near a mess like this. For the thousandth time the NHL is not the same as running a print shop or a corner store.

Please illucidate the difference for me then. I fail to see why the owners are so incapable of setting a budget as a percentage of their own revenue and sticking by it. The owners can operate under a budget and remain competitive, and there are plenty of examples of successful franchises in small markets with low payrolls under the old CBA.

How does not being able to negotiate with any other team until you are 30 years old count as leverage on the players part? The only way players could negotiate was to hold out and refuse to sign. Aspects of the old deal need to be fixed for sure (rookie contracts for example), but the general proposition that the players were dictating contracts to the owners is wrong.

 

[djhn579]

the nhl agreed to extend the cba from it's '99 expiration. the nhl wanted it's expansion money and needed to extend the cba to accomplish it. how is it the player's fault that the nhl wanted to extend a five year old agreement that clearly wasn't working then ?

Because the owners knew that this fight would be difficult and that they would probably lose a season or more before the NHLPA would give them any meaningful change and there were things going on that at least gave the potential for a short term increase in revenues? Was the NHL wrong to try to buy time before going into a potentially disasterous labor stoppage? Was the NHL hoping that eventually the NHLPA would understand the owners problems and be willing to help solve those problems?

If I was the owner of an NHL team, dependent on fans supporting the team to make a profit, I wouldn't want to go into a lockout that could alienate the fan base unless there was clear that there was absolutely no possibility of any other solution.

 

[quat]

Please illucidate the difference for me then. I fail to see why the owners are so incapable of setting a budget as a percentage of their own revenue and sticking by it. The owners can operate under a budget and remain competitive, and there are plenty of examples of successful franchises in small markets with low payrolls under the old CBA.

How does not being able to negotiate with any other team until you are 30 years old count as leverage on the players part? The only way players could negotiate was to hold out and refuse to sign. Aspects of the old deal need to be fixed for sure (rookie contracts for example), but the general proposition that the players were dictating contracts to the owners is wrong.

If I understand you correctly:

A team which has a budget of say, 60 million, will have no effect on a team with a budget of say, 40 million? They are equally as competitive in attracting and paying players on their teams? The fact that the larger budgeted team can pay their players more than the smaller budget team will have no effect on the players salaries... even though both are choosing players from the same pool?

" ? !"

 

[SENSible1*]

If I understand you correctly:

A team which has a budget of say, 60 million, will have no effect on a team with a budget of say, 40 million? They are equally as competitive in attracting and paying players on their teams? The fact that the larger budgeted team can pay their players more than the smaller budget team will have no effect on the players salaries... even though both are choosing players from the same pool?

" ? !"

The "just stick to a budget" stance has been repudiated so many times it isn't even worth the response. PA apologists love to ignore the inflationary effect of market disparity and the fact that linkage is in reality the NHL's attempt at setting a league wide budget and then "just sticking to that budget".

Of course the apologists will come back with "revenue sharing" to eliminate the disparity, but shockingly never call for 100% "salary sharing" to make sure each player gets an equal share.

Funny how they are willing to take the top earning owners money and give it to the disadvantaged owners, yet aren't willing to take the top earning players money and give it to the disadvantaged players.

The NHL is willing to give a fair % of the overall reveues to the PA. How they get the money to the PA is their business, as it is also the PA's business how they distribute that share amoungst the members.

Revenue sharing is nothing more than an attempt to increase the PA's share of the revenue pie.

 

[Mighty Duck]

The NHL tried to get the NHLPA to the table for a year and a half or two years before the CBA expired and the PA would have none of it. The league should have gone to court on Sept 16 '04 and argued that there was an impasse already because the union refused to negotiate at all. Why should an entire industry have to shut down brefore a labor association will even talk? The league should have argued for the need for replacements and started the season on time.
-HckyFght!

Everyone should pull their head out of the sand, as strikes, lock-outs, revolts are a fact of life. Read the morning paper, and count the number of labor disputes going on. There was a 7 month labor dispute, IWA (lumber industry) in Delta, BC, Canada which just ended, why wasn't this such a big issue. (newsworthy) There labor disputes of all kind and lengths going on all the time. It is the way of life today. And yes, sometimes they don't make any sense, not even to the workers involved. Why do we have war? It seems the only way to set the standard, or draw a line in the sand, so everyone understands their position, and how far each party can be pushed. Why do dogs fight? Once the fight is over, they get along very well, but each dog must stand it's ground to let the other dog understand, he will not be pushed around.

For the people who are taking shots at Bettman and Goodenow, they are just doing their job, as directed by their boss, Owners and the Players. They are the top dogs standing their ground, when the dust settle, they will be at the games, with Bettman chewing on his pizza sitting right next to Bob. All will be hunkie doorie!

 

[CGG]

Because the owners knew that this fight would be difficult and that they would probably lose a season or more before the NHLPA would give them any meaningful change and there were things going on that at least gave the potential for a short term increase in revenues? Was the NHL wrong to try to buy time before going into a potentially disasterous labor stoppage? Was the NHL hoping that eventually the NHLPA would understand the owners problems and be willing to help solve those problems?

If I was the owner of an NHL team, dependent on fans supporting the team to make a profit, I wouldn't want to go into a lockout that could alienate the fan base unless there was clear that there was absolutely no possibility of any other solution.

Whatever the reasons, seems pretty stupid on anyone's part to voluntarily extend a CBA that is allegedly costing their side hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Total expansion money of the last 4 teams is roughly $300 million, which is approx. what the NHL claims they lost in one season. I don't think they have much of a right to complain since they extended the deal, when they could have ended it and stopped to so-called bleeding years ago.

 

[transplant99]

Whatever the reasons, seems pretty stupid on anyone's part to voluntarily extend a CBA that is allegedly costing their side hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Total expansion money of the last 4 teams is roughly $300 million, which is approx. what the NHL claims they lost in one season. I don't think they have much of a right to complain since they extended the deal, when they could have ended it and stopped to so-called bleeding years ago.

OK...so they could of done this years ago but chose not too, but they have decided to do it now.....and you have a problem with it?

So this lockout would of been OK in 99, but after 5 more years of losing money....it's NOT Ok to try and fix things in '05?

I don't understand.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

OK...so they could of done this years ago but chose not too, but they have decided to do it now.....and you have a problem with it?

So this lockout would of been OK in 99, but after 5 more years of losing money....it's NOT Ok to try and fix things in '05?

I don't understand.

I think the point of this argument is everyone knew the problems with the CBA in 1999 but the owners (i wont blame Bettman) agreed to extend the CBA just for another cash grab of expansion money. The question is, was that expansion money worth 5 more years of losing money? I dont think so.

 

[Greschner4]

The "just stick to a budget" stance has been repudiated so many times it isn't even worth the response. PA apologists love to ignore the inflationary effect of market disparity and the fact that linkage is in reality the NHL's attempt at setting a league wide budget and then "just sticking to that budget".

Of course the apologists will come back with "revenue sharing" to eliminate the disparity, but shockingly never call for 100% "salary sharing" to make sure each player gets an equal share.

Funny how they are willing to take the top earning owners money and give it to the disadvantaged owners, yet aren't willing to take the top earning players money and give it to the disadvantaged players.

The NHL is willing to give a fair % of the overall reveues to the PA. How they get the money to the PA is their business, as it is also the PA's business how they distribute that share amoungst the members.

Revenue sharing is nothing more than an attempt to increase the PA's share of the revenue pie.

Plus how do you even make a budget? You can't really project your revenues because you can't predict how much you're going to win and winning obviously affects the bottom line. You can guess, but if you're in the $30M payroll range you might think you can break even, but an injury or two or just bad luck and the season goes south on you, you don't get the walk-up business, you don't make the playoffs, and BOOM ... you've lost money even though you've stuck to your budget.

The whole budget thing is just a smokescreen.

 

[Greschner4]

Everyone should pull their head out of the sand, as strikes, lock-outs, revolts are a fact of life. Read the morning paper, and count the number of labor disputes going on. There was a 7 month labor dispute, IWA (lumber industry) in Delta, BC, Canada which just ended, why wasn't this such a big issue. (newsworthy) There labor disputes of all kind and lengths going on all the time. It is the way of life today. And yes, sometimes they don't make any sense, not even to the workers involved. Why do we have war? It seems the only way to set the standard, or draw a line in the sand, so everyone understands their position, and how far each party can be pushed. Why do dogs fight? Once the fight is over, they get along very well, but each dog must stand it's ground to let the other dog understand, he will not be pushed around.

For the people who are taking shots at Bettman and Goodenow, they are just doing their job, as directed by their boss, Owners and the Players. They are the top dogs standing their ground, when the dust settle, they will be at the games, with Bettman chewing on his pizza sitting right next to Bob. All will be hunkie doorie!

Good point, and you'll note that you don't hear the PA backing their labor brethren in other industries, do you? Nor does/would the PA back a strike its own industry -- has it ever honored an NHL referee walkout, or an arena's usher walkout? Of course not, which is why it isn't really a union.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Plus how do you even make a budget? You can't really project your revenues because you can't predict how much you're going to win and winning obviously affects the bottom line. You can guess, but if you're in the $30M payroll range you might think you can break even, but an injury or two or just bad luck and the season goes south on you, you don't get the walk-up business, you don't make the playoffs, and BOOM ... you've lost money even though you've stuck to your budget.

The whole budget thing is just a smokescreen.

You have a point but teams could project expected revenue. Sure they might fall short or in some cases make more than expected. Some teams it's easier to figure out than others. For a team like Detroit,Toronto, Philly, etc they should have a pretty idea of what kind of revenues they'll receive. Mainly because the biggest source of revenue (ticket prices) is constant. Those teams know they are gonna sell out every game or damn close. The problem lies is when a team like Detroit uses playoff revenue as expected revenue. And as we've seen lately that isn't always the case. Why are the Wings assuming they'll make the conference finals (so called break even point) into their budget? It's just a bad business decision. If the Wings set their payroll on expected regular season revenue they wouldn't be losing money every time the team gets bounced out early in the playoffs. Something thats happened 3 of the last 4 year.

 

[CGG]

Plus how do you even make a budget? You can't really project your revenues because you can't predict how much you're going to win and winning obviously affects the bottom line. You can guess, but if you're in the $30M payroll range you might think you can break even, but an injury or two or just bad luck and the season goes south on you, you don't get the walk-up business, you don't make the playoffs, and BOOM ... you've lost money even though you've stuck to your budget.

The whole budget thing is just a smokescreen.

You run in to some level of uncertainty when you budget for absolutely any company. Otherwise it wouldn't be called budgeting, it would be reading the future.

For hockey teams, you would have to look at different possible scenarios -- make the playoffs, don't make the playoffs, make the finals, etc. Use probabilities or pick the most likely scenario (i.e. Leafs -- make playoffs, win one round) and be aware of the risks if you don't do as well as you thought. Also leave room in your budget to cover a reasonable amount of injuries, and acquisitions during the year, if need be.

Budgeting is not a smokescreen. It can be done. Not an exact science, but still, you should be able to create a budget and stick to it. If you still lose money that way, your first worry should be why your team didn't do as well as you thought it would.

 

[RangerBoy]

It's a $2 billion business...drop the puck...please